Avoiding the storm?

[kegger]

Vactogo: Yeah, Sunday and in Florida there is another front coming through Wednesday offering another threat for showers and thunderstorms.

[halos]

What concerns me is, ships have had no problem in the past of delaying its arrival at the next destination because of a serious storm. Why not this one? Don't get me wrong either, I don't think they had much of a choice based on their position. My question is where is the line drawn on situations like this. The whole thing could have been avoided as well. I agree with what you are saying and I also disagree because it could have been avoided...

 

I'm just happy I'm not the captain of a ship!! :p

[waterrats]

I have a degree in Meteorology and this is an excellent site. The local office sites all have different information available. It take two clicks to get to a local forecast. Click the main map in your area and that will pull up the county map for the local office. Click on your county and you have your forecast. The links on the left will provide you with radar, satellite, past weather, severe weather forecast, ect, ect, ect.

 

 

For everyone cruising in the summer and fall, from the main page click on Hurricanes. This will give you the latest information on current hurricanes as well as the forecast outlook for additional development of tropical storms.

 

 

Have you tried http://www.nws.noaa.gov/? They have a lot of really neat stuff on their website if you are interested in the weather at all

[waterrats]

http://www.roxshox.com/news/977/

 

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/257.html

 

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/broadband/theedge/ video link in the upper left corner.

 

http://www.thirteen.org/savageseas/neptune-side-waves.html

 

If you look at the link and read some of the test, you will see that what creates the wave is not exactly known at the moment but has been a theory for at least a decade from the links above. In one study, there were 10 waves measuring over 80 feet in height in a 3 week period.

[fin]

You could certainly improve the overall credibility of your research by changing the spelling in the title.

[Elexman]

Do rogue waves sink ships, you bet. Supertankers and super freighters are lost at sea all the time because of weather.

 

Legislation has been passed in almost all states regarding cell phone use while driving, because people have been killed. That point that you raise is another example of what I'm referring to. That legislation is a reactive response to the danger of the cell phone use while driving. It took a few deaths to get the laws passed.

 

Back to the Dawn incident. You mentioned that you've been in similar conditions, minus the 'rogue', and I speculated that we had a lot people on the boards just like yourself. I think what a lot of people lose sight of is that this ship was in horrible coniditions for almost 17 hours. Video I've seen shows caved in ceilings, turned over video games and a downed ceiling fixture. Nevermind the wave. The captain got into something that he couldn't get out of- (he backed down to 4 knots to save the ship and ride it out). Those passengers were put in that position 'to keep to the schedule'. I'm not sure the safety of 3,000 passengers was worth that. My only suggestion was that why do we need to wait for lose of life before policy is instituted.

 

I will agree I may be looking at the worse case scenario in this situation. Yes, that may be seen as "dramatic". For those turned off, my apologies.

 

It is tough to tell whether the damage you refer to is from the storm or the wave. But your point is taken. Being through that type of weather, we had no feeling at all that our safety had been compromised. As for the 4 knots the captain ordered, was that before or after the damage from the wave? After spending years at sea, I would expect that the ship would be slowed after the damage to reduce additional damage and flooding.

 

As for your suggestion of policy, that is probably a good idea. But, being fair, very few of the passengers seemed to feel like they were in signifcant peril...until the wave hit. I agree that establishing some reasonable sea-state levels for safe passage is a good idea. I guess I was a bit sensitive to what I perceived as over reaction to the situation. Just your verbage demonstrates that point...yes, ships do sink becuase of these rogue waves and severe weather, but stating it as "all the time" can be seen as over stated or over reactionary. In a large portion of these situations, there have been significant human errors involved in addition to lousy weather. The press is particularly guilty of sensationalizing the worst possible case of almost anything they cover. It is obviously much easier to judge these situations after the fact.

 

I also believe that the safety of the passengers is still paramount to any ship's captain. Four people did get hurt. Maybe it could have been worse, but it wasn't. This situation is a perfect situation to learn from, and I hope that the cruise lines do learn something from this.

 

Thanks for keeping an open mind concerning this discussion and not taking it personally. It is refreshing to see that there are still folks that can discuss difficult and sensitive issues without taking offense. Thank you, no apology needed.

[T Rex]

I cannot say I have ever seen a red wave.

[DragonLips]

It is tough to tell whether the damage you refer to is from the storm or the wave. But your point is taken. Being through that type of weather, we had no feeling at all that our safety had been compromised. As for the 4 knots the captain ordered, was that before or after the damage from the wave? After spending years at sea, I would expect that the ship would be slowed after the damage to reduce additional damage and flooding.

 

As for your suggestion of policy, that is probably a good idea. But, being fair, very few of the passengers seemed to feel like they were in signifcant peril...until the wave hit. I agree that establishing some reasonable sea-state levels for safe passage is a good idea. I guess I was a bit sensitive to what I perceived as over reaction to the situation. Just your verbage demonstrates that point...yes, ships do sink becuase of these rogue waves and severe weather, but stating it as "all the time" can be seen as over stated or over reactionary. In a large portion of these situations, there have been significant human errors involved in addition to lousy weather. The press is particularly guilty of sensationalizing the worst possible case of almost anything they cover. It is obviously much easier to judge these situations after the fact.

 

I also believe that the safety of the passengers is still paramount to any ship's captain. Four people did get hurt. Maybe it could have been worse, but it wasn't. This situation is a perfect situation to learn from, and I hope that the cruise lines do learn something from this.

 

Thanks for keeping an open mind concerning this discussion and not taking it personally. It is refreshing to see that there are still folks that can discuss difficult and sensitive issues without taking offense. Thank you, no apology needed.

 

Elex, I appreciate the feedback!

 

"All the time" was certainly a sampling of sensationalism on my part. No matter how frequent these freighters and tankers sink, it's certainly not EVERY DAY!!

 

One of things that I've noticed with this particular incident on the Dawn (as with other instances) is large degree of similar opinions coming from the far right, and from the far left. "How could that captain have done that. HE's a fool. yada, yada, yada". You have the otherside saying, "It was one wave, or one bad storm. Suck it up, it's crusing!" NOTE: Obvious paraphrasing here.

 

I find myself in the middle of this thing here being that I'm sailing on the Dawn on 5/01, and I don't have that much cruise experience under my belt. While I certainly accept that there is a bit of risk with any travel, I'm also of the mindset some things are not acceptable - even if they 'buck' the status quo. Just because people expect (and some apparently enjoy) unpredictable weather conditions while cruising, doesn't mean I'm necessarily on board with that. I personally expect the best service and cruise experience possible when I head out to sea. I don't expect 30foot seas and gale force winds when I head out to sea. In the back of my mind, they are always a possibility. I expect that whatever ship captain I have is going to do whatever it takes to give me the best experience possible. Storms like the one last weekend are bad for business. People could have had the best 4 days of their life, but they're probably only going to remember those last 3. I'd prefer to arrive in NY 3 days late, than to sit for 17 hours in those waves(regardless of the rogue). Again, these are my personal opinions, of course. Some share the same opinion, and other long timers may say "bring it on!" To me, that's not the type of excitment I'm signing up for. While I find Maryanne very attractive, I would never suffer through that fateful 3 hour tour just to be stuck on an island with her!

It would be nice to establish some type safety level for cruise ship travel, or dare I say, a color coded system. In the end, it will all be up to the cruise line and the captain, and they're either good, bad or mediocre in the end anyway.

We'll see what the NTSB finds from their investigation. Was there pressure to get through the storm? Was there not? The truth will come eventually. My wish is that everyone sailing on the Dawn now and in the future never have to go through that nonsense again!

[Elexman]

Elex, I appreciate the feedback!

 

"All the time" was certainly a sampling of sensationalism on my part. No matter how frequent these freighters and tankers sink, it's certainly not EVERY DAY!!

 

One of things that I've noticed with this particular incident on the Dawn (as with other instances) is large degree of similar opinions coming from the far right, and from the far left. "How could that captain have done that. HE's a fool. yada, yada, yada". You have the otherside saying, "It was one wave, or one bad storm. Suck it up, it's crusing!" NOTE: Obvious paraphrasing here.

 

I find myself in the middle of this thing here being that I'm sailing on the Dawn on 5/01, and I don't have that much cruise experience under my belt. While I certainly accept that there is a bit of risk with any travel, I'm also of the mindset some things are not acceptable - even if they 'buck' the status quo. Just because people expect (and some apparently enjoy) unpredictable weather conditions while cruising, doesn't mean I'm necessarily on board with that. I personally expect the best service and cruise experience possible when I head out to sea. I don't expect 30foot seas and gale force winds when I head out to sea. In the back of my mind, they are always a possibility. I expect that whatever ship captain I have is going to do whatever it takes to give me the best experience possible. Storms like the one last weekend are bad for business. People could have had the best 4 days of their life, but they're probably only going to remember those last 3. I'd prefer to arrive in NY 3 days late, than to sit for 17 hours in those waves(regardless of the rogue). Again, these are my personal opinions, of course. Some share the same opinion, and other long timers may say "bring it on!" To me, that's not the type of excitment I'm signing up for. While I find Maryanne very attractive, I would never suffer through that fateful 3 hour tour just to be stuck on an island with her!

It would be nice to establish some type safety level for cruise ship travel, or dare I say, a color coded system. In the end, it will all be up to the cruise line and the captain, and they're either good, bad or mediocre in the end anyway.

We'll see what the NTSB finds from their investigation. Was there pressure to get through the storm? Was there not? The truth will come eventually. My wish is that everyone sailing on the Dawn now and in the future never have to go through that nonsense again!

 

Of course the tough part about trying to set standards is deciding what is uncomfortable and what is unsafe. That can be a really tough line to draw in the proverbial sand. The incident of the Dawn is demonstrates this readily. If the wave had not occurred, would there be any discusssion of this nature concerning safety concerns? These near misses definately give everyone a chance to evaluate current procedures and protocols. It will be interesting to find out what the NTSB decides. It would be nice to see the cruise lines step up and take the initiative on there own in situations such as these, and not wait for the NTSB to mandate policy.

[halos]

You could certainly improve the overall credibility of your research by changing the spelling in the title.

 

that wasn't necessary now, was it? :rolleyes:

[halos]

. I'd prefer to arrive in NY 3 days late, than to sit for 17 hours in those waves(regardless of the rogue). Again, these are my personal opinions, of course. !

 

Wow...you should read these boards more often!! That is your opinion and it is a good and very valid one..but I have seen on more than one occasion, threads posted by totally irate passengers because the ship came in late..they missed their plane, had to spend a night at a hotel couldn't get home for 2 days, missed time at work...yada, yada...they're getting a lawyer.

You can't please everybody. There are always some that are going to freak out at whatever decision is made because this is 'natural' for some people. I happen to be related to people like this...which is why I moved 500 miles away from them ;)

[Elexman]

You can't please everybody. There are always some that are going to freak out at whatever decision is made because this is 'natural' for some people. I happen to be related to people like this...which is why I moved 500 miles away from them ;)

 

Sounds like you made a good "move"...pun intended;)

[dcup]

just a couple things here right or wrong just a opinion. we were on a costa cruise this yr. left port ft laud. in a storm with very rough seas. never given a warning. at dinner all h### broke loose. this storm was not as bad as this now. food went every where, my daughters were full of glass,beer,hot food you name it. tables tipped over, crew could not walk,stand etc. and were falling with trays full of hot food. the hospital was full of passengers who needed shots for sea sickness, wife was one of them. we heard all week stories about this storm from the crew. i look at it this way right or wrong. this is a vacation, we take our elderly,our children, our loved ones not to mention ourselves. we pay thousands for a vacation portrayed as calm,safe and enjoyable. storms are a part of a cruise however if you call any line they will tell you we avoid and or divert from storms or we stay in a safe port. plain and simple it dont matter how tough a ship is we are not looking or paying for a trip thru h%%. if you are, great, book a row boat. when any line goes into a storm like that they know the risk. on our ship we had many pay airfare home from the first port. i will also mention that we saw kids scared to death and crying not to mention very sick. i can only imagine that ship. do they need to go thru storms at times sure but in this case wait it out. its a vacation. the ones that think this is ok ill bet did not have small children with them or elderly. just imagine kids in the room with the broken windows.is it really worth it?

[DragonLips]

just a couple things here right or wrong just a opinion. we were on a costa cruise this yr. left port ft laud. in a storm with very rough seas. never given a warning. at dinner all h### broke loose. this storm was not as bad as this now. food went every where, my daughters were full of glass,beer,hot food you name it. tables tipped over, crew could not walk,stand etc. and were falling with trays full of hot food. the hospital was full of passengers who needed shots for sea sickness, wife was one of them. we heard all week stories about this storm from the crew. i look at it this way right or wrong. this is a vacation, we take our elderly,our children, our loved ones not to mention ourselves. we pay thousands for a vacation portrayed as calm,safe and enjoyable. storms are a part of a cruise however if you call any line they will tell you we avoid and or divert from storms or we stay in a safe port. plain and simple it dont matter how tough a ship is we are not looking or paying for a trip thru h%%. if you are, great, book a row boat. when any line goes into a storm like that they know the risk. on our ship we had many pay airfare home from the first port. i will also mention that we saw kids scared to death and crying not to mention very sick. i can only imagine that ship. do they need to go thru storms at times sure but in this case wait it out. its a vacation. the ones that think this is ok ill bet did not have small children with them or elderly. just imagine kids in the room with the broken windows.is it really worth it?

 

You tug at some heartstrings when you bring up the kids and the elderly DCUP. (won't touch the screen name btw, but I am curious...wait, that's a pun inside a pun- can that be done:))

 

People scared for their lives, pannick attacks, flying food - it's all bad news. From a marketing standpoint, it's very BAD for business. I'm trying to convince friends and relatives to take their first cruise, and a story like this breaks out and shuts any hope of that down. The bottom line is that STORM cost NCL dearly, no matter who or WHAT was at fault. Any clear thinking company would hold their own investigation and do whatever it takes to avoid something like this from happening again - at least that's my hope as I'm booked to sail the Dawn on 5/01 :)

[Gingee]

I would prefer to wait in a port vs fighting a storm. If we miss our transportation home, you can get different transportation (that's why you get vacation insurance).

[Bequia]

While I find Maryanne very attractive, I would never suffer through that fateful 3 hour tour just to be stuck on an island with her!

I'd take that 3 hour tour in a New York minute to be stuck on an island with Ginger. :p

[vllygrrl]

BUT..aside from it all...the Dawn did make it through the storm! Bottom line! Thanks to the Captain and crew!

 

For whatever reasons! It was, in the end, the rogue wave that did them in...after the storm. The captain had already gotten them through the storm. Who could have ever predicted a rogue wave to follow the storm?

 

The Nassau stop had been eliminated well before the storm and a week before they set to sail. Had nothing to do with it all.

Kudos to the Captain and staff of NCL!

 

WE WERE STILL IN THE STORM FOR THREE HOURS AFTER THE WAVE HIT!!!

Where did you come up with that nonsense.

[vllygrrl]

It is tough to tell whether the damage you refer to is from the storm or the wave. But your point is taken. Being through that type of weather, we had no feeling at all that our safety had been compromised. As for the 4 knots the captain ordered, was that before or after the damage from the wave? After spending years at sea, I would expect that the ship would be slowed after the damage to reduce additional damage and flooding.

 

As for your suggestion of policy, that is probably a good idea. But, being fair, very few of the passengers seemed to feel like they were in signifcant peril...until the wave hit. I agree that establishing some reasonable sea-state levels for safe passage is a good idea. I guess I was a bit sensitive to what I perceived as over reaction to the situation. Just your verbage demonstrates that point...yes, ships do sink becuase of these rogue waves and severe weather, but stating it as "all the time" can be seen as over stated or over reactionary. In a large portion of these situations, there have been significant human errors involved in addition to lousy weather. The press is particularly guilty of sensationalizing the worst possible case of almost anything they cover. It is obviously much easier to judge these situations after the fact.

 

I also believe that the safety of the passengers is still paramount to any ship's captain. Four people did get hurt. Maybe it could have been worse, but it wasn't. This situation is a perfect situation to learn from, and I hope that the cruise lines do learn something from this.

 

Thanks for keeping an open mind concerning this discussion and not taking it personally. It is refreshing to see that there are still folks that can discuss difficult and sensitive issues without taking offense. Thank you, no apology needed.

 

 

Very few .... no quite many of us felt some peril in the worst three hours of the storm. The fact is that both the crew and the passengers did not panick and that everyone stayed calm during the storm. But as I said, during the worst three hours, there were many people who thought we were in trouble.

 

Also it should be noted that the ships speed was between 8 to 10 knts from 11pm until the wave hit and we turned at just before 7am. You know how far we traveled in those 7+ hours ..... 8 nautical miles. [OK, so my husband and i are addicted to the captains log channel :-) ].

 

By the way, when we were on the princess ship we had 30 foot waves down in the southern carribian. This was much worse than that.

[kegger]

Also it should be noted that the ships speed was between 8 to 10 knts from 11pm until the wave hit and we turned at just before 7am. You know how far we traveled in those 7+ hours ..... 8 nautical miles. [OK, so my husband and i are addicted to the captains log channel :-) ].

 

I'm surprised you made it that far, you were up against a 25-35 kt head wind.