Too Big to Sail? - NY Times

[balf]

"Every passenger vehicle that has ever been made is capable of being made safer."

 

At what cost? Don't get me wrong, of course I'm pro safety but if cars cost $500 k, we would be in a complete different world.

 

I agree, there has to be a limit, but the industry has not spent much on adding safety to ships over the years.

 

David.

[balf]

 

the lowering of boats was perhaps a minor issue compared to the bigger picture.

 

 

Of course he may be biased but ....... The president of Costa Cruises, Gianni Onorato, said normal lifeboat evacuation became "almost impossible" because the ship listed so quickly.[53] (Wiki)

 

David.

[DDBINK1]

My hope in any future incident and there will be future incidents with a large ship with thousands of passengers on board, that the command crew have honor and are brave enough to stay on board the ship and direct the response to the incident.

I asked Captain Olsen what her thoughts were on Concordia and she gave a politically correct answer being a fellow Captain of a ship in the same parent company. However I did ask her who would be the last person off the ship in the event of an evacuation event and she looked me in the eye and said " I will be the last person off my ship" .

That was the answer I expected but one I also believe.

 

I have concerns about the training of the crew and their emotions when the time could come when a ship is evacuated. Panic and fear are powerful emotions and can overwhelm anyone.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

" the level of safety of US Commercial Airlines probably exceeds the safety of any cruise ship (ocean liner) by several orders of magnitude."

That is your opinion and still in my honest opinion I concerning me would still feel safer aboard a ship than being aboard a plane. If you want to think otherwise well you are entitled to your opinion. Regards,Jerry

[baccarat_guy]

That is your opinion and still in my honest opinion I concerning me would still feel safer aboard a ship than being aboard a plane. If you want to think otherwise well you are entitled to your opinion. Regards,Jerry

 

This is NOT OPINION, this is fact.

 

Travel via commercial aviation (commercial airlines) is the safest form of transportation today with regard to number of passengers carried and distances covered.

 

What you "feel" or don't "feel" is not the point, I prefer to base my "opinions" on factual data-points.

 

Cars are the most dangerous form of transportation, but that's rather obvious.

[baccarat_guy]

Well the passenger ship industry already suffered a major catastrophe. Ever hear of the Titanic? And it was only because of the arrogant attitude that having enough lifeboats & life rafts for every passenger & crew was not necessary, well that attitude came back to bite them on the rear-end when the Titanic went down. Because if the Titanic had enough lifeboat & life raft space for every passenger & crew there would have been not one loss of life. She sank slow enough to lower the lifeboats & life rafts. Problem was there was not enough lifeboats & life rafts for every passenger & crew. Of course the Lusitania was the result of the evil German submarine and the Andrea Doria was the result of bad navigation actions of the deck officers of the ship Stockholm had hit the Andrea Doria. Regards,Jerry

 

The "Titanic" era had arrogance, that is true. But, they REALLY BELIEVED that the ship was unsinkable (as did their engineers).

 

today, it's much worse,

 

There are engineers at Stevens Institute of Technology (and other places); that are "calling out" the safety of ships like the Oasis class. They DON'T have enough lifeboats for passengers and crew. The crew need to slide down emergency slides to rafts. They could never carry out a catastrophic emergency and full evacuation in a short period of time.

 

Today, we have experts, and engineers criticizing these new mega-ships and the industry; and bringing to attention the fact that we might, very well, have a catastrophe where there is loss of life in the thousands....

 

This, my friend, is a lot different than the era of the Titanic.

 

Shame on Carnival, and the industry. They can do much better; but they refuse to. That is all.

[rsquare]

The high sides are really neither here nor there.

 

Again, I am in no way a naval architect, but my common sense tells me that a ship with a large surface area above the waterline is more likely to be affected by high winds abeam than a ship which sits lower in the water, and is more likely to have a higher center of gravity detracting from stability. Unless of course the newer ships are being built with aluminum superstructures like the SS United States which sits corroding quietly at a dock about 10 miles from where I live.

 

The more stable and wind-resistant the ship, other things being equal, the better it can maneuver and ride out a storm and the less chance that the lifeboats will need to be lowered. That, to me, is the major problem with the mega-sized cruise ships. QM2 manages to pull it off, but then it is designed as an ocean liner, not simply a cruise ship.

[david,Mississauga]

This is NOT OPINION, this is fact.

 

Travel via commercial aviation (commercial airlines) is the safest form of transportation today with regard to number of passengers carried and distances covered.

 

What you "feel" or don't "feel" is not the point, I prefer to base my "opinions" on factual data-points.

 

Cars are the most dangerous form of transportation, but that's rather obvious.

 

While I certainly feel safer in a commercial plane than in a car, the statistics re air travel do not give me too much comfort. There have been far too many air disasters in which all have perished. Two come to mind: the Swiss Air crash near Nova Scotia and the more recent disappearance of an Air France jet in the South Atlantic. There are many others. No matter what the statistics say, my chances are better on a train or a ship. Even on the Titanic, one-third of passengers and crew survived.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Again, I am in no way a naval architect, but my common sense tells me that a ship with a large surface area above the waterline is more likely to be affected by high winds abeam than a ship which sits lower in the water, and is more likely to have a higher center of gravity detracting from stability. Unless of course the newer ships are being built with aluminum superstructures like the SS United States which sits corroding quietly at a dock about 10 miles from where I live.

 

The more stable and wind-resistant the ship, other things being equal, the better it can maneuver and ride out a storm and the less chance that the lifeboats will need to be lowered. That, to me, is the major problem with the mega-sized cruise ships. QM2 manages to pull it off, but then it is designed as an ocean liner, not simply a cruise ship.

Then the solution should be to no longer build them to cruise ship specifications but to build them exactly like the QM2 which is to build them as real Ocean Liners and no bigger than the QM2. One question I would like to ask is since the Queen Victoria & the Queen Elizabeth are really Cruise Ships is Cunard taking too much of a bad risk when the Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth do the occasional transatlantic crossing? I think I have heard that both ships are built with stronger bows with thicker steel plating as compared to the other Vista Class Ships, so that the Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth can do the occasional transatlantic crossing but I am not to sure if that statement is correct. Regards,Jerry Edited October 29, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[glojo]

Again, I am in no way a naval architect, but my common sense tells me that a ship with a large surface area above the waterline is more likely to be affected by high winds abeam than a ship which sits lower in the water, and is more likely to have a higher center of gravity detracting from stability. Unless of course the newer ships are being built with aluminum superstructures like the SS United States which sits corroding quietly at a dock about 10 miles from where I live.

 

The more stable and wind-resistant the ship, other things being equal, the better it can maneuver and ride out a storm and the less chance that the lifeboats will need to be lowered. That, to me, is the major problem with the mega-sized cruise ships. QM2 manages to pull it off, but then it is designed as an ocean liner, not simply a cruise ship.

An interesting theory but I have read some really interesting topics on this very subject. The SS United States rolled far far more than something like the Queen Elizabeth as did the QE2.

 

I agree about the effects of the wind but a canoe, a nice narrow craft with a deepish draught but try keeping low in it and then move from side to side... Now get into a row boat with a shallow draught and do the same thing or even stand up.

 

A long, low thin tube with the top open and exposed, or a biscuit tin with the lid off, which is the most stable?

 

Without using stabilisers these huge modern cruise ships are amazingly stable but don't they look top heavy?

 

Since contributing to this thread I have been enjoying myself reading lots of interesting articles about this topic and so far I have yet to find any expert that claims these huge ships are capable of being abandoned in a professional safe manner in a stipulated required time span.

 

In 2010 new regulations were introduced called the Safe Return to Port rules. These require new ships to have sufficient redundant systems, including power and steerage, to allow them to return to port even in the worst emergency. Only about 10 ships built since then comply with this new rule and we cannot pretend that older ships are meeting this new requirement which is introduced for a reason.

 

I personally fear that one day there is going to be an awful tragedy at sea and only then will this industry be bought to its senses. This is me voicing my personal thoughts and NOT offering any type of opinion but just think about Concordia.... Yes it should never have been so close to land but this type of incident might have happened miles out to sea!!!!!

 

The consequences do not bear thinking about... The ship was never,ever abandoned in a professional manner. Lifeboats were leaving the ship with minimal passengers aboard but thankfully land was only yards away as were numerous shipping or boats that came to the aid of those still aboard that ship.

Edited October 29, 2013 by glojo

[Jim Avery]

An interesting theory but I have read some really interesting topics on this very subject. The SS United States rolled far far more than something like the Queen Elizabeth as did the QE2.

 

I agree about the effects of the wind but a canoe, a nice narrow craft with a deepish draught but try keeping low in it and then move from side to side... Now get into a row boat with a shallow draught and do the same thing or even stand up.

 

A long, low thin tube with the top open and exposed, or a biscuit tin with the lid off, which is the most stable?

 

Without using stabilisers these huge modern cruise ships are amazingly stable but don't they look top heavy?

 

Since contributing to this thread I have been enjoying myself reading lots of interesting articles about this topic and so far I have yet to find any expert that claims these huge ships are capable of being abandoned in a professional safe manner in a stipulated required time span.

 

In 2010 new regulations were introduced called the Safe Return to Port rules. These require new ships to have sufficient redundant systems, including power and steerage, to allow them to return to port even in the worst emergency. Only about 10 ships built since then comply with this new rule and we cannot pretend that older ships are meeting this new requirement which is introduced for a reason.

 

I personally fear that one day there is going to be an awful tragedy at sea and only then will this industry be bought to its senses. This is me voicing my personal thoughts and NOT offering any type of opinion but just think about Concordia.... Yes it should never have been so close to land but this type of incident might have happened miles out to sea!!!!!

 

The consequences do not bear thinking about... The ship was never,ever abandoned in a professional manner. Lifeboats were leaving the ship with minimal passengers aboard but thankfully land was only yards away as were numerous shipping or boats that came to the aid of those still aboard that ship.

 

Right on, Glojo. It will happen and it will be catastrophic. We have had a great run since Andrea Doria and a few others (not counting tankers or freight vessels). As far as the QE rolling like SS US, if she did, she would keep on going.:eek: The new vessels have, due to extra beam and flat bottoms, more initial stability but the max stability depends on computer controls to a great extent. Scary in this old sailors view.:D

[Germancruiser]

If the Concordia would not have " leaned" on the rocks , she surely would have gone down. The rocks kept her in place and stopped her from sinking completley! With a gap this size on the open seas ( whatever it may have caused it) - I suppose the loss of people would have been imense! I wonder what this Captain would have decided to do in that case...!

[balf]

If the Concordia would not have " leaned" on the rocks , she surely would have gone down. The rocks kept her in place and stopped her from sinking completley! With a gap this size on the open seas ( whatever it may have caused it) - I suppose the loss of people would have been imense! I wonder what this Captain would have decided to do in that case...!

 

Yes, if Concordia had hit Titanic's iceberg would she have stayed afloat as long as Titanic did? And would she have sunk vertically to allow the boats to be launched?

 

Lifeboats are useless if they can't be launched.

 

David.

[glojo]

Right on, Glojo. It will happen and it will be catastrophic. We have had a great run since Andrea Doria and a few others (not counting tankers or freight vessels). As far as the QE rolling like SS US, if she did, she would keep on going.:eek: The new vessels have, due to extra beam and flat bottoms, more initial stability but the max stability depends on computer controls to a great extent. Scary in this old sailors view.:D

I had never really looked at it from that very good point of view, and I cannot fault your reasoning :eek:;)

 

When these huge modern ships have a total power failure they are in the hands of the Gods and when the wind puts them broadside to the seas .. That ride at best might become uncomfortable. Thankfully I have never heard of a case of this breakdown occurring when Mother Nature was at her worse. Unfortunately the Queen Mary 2 falls into this bracket but thankfully legislation now insists that ships built after a certain date in 2010 actually have some type of safe return to port propulsion?? (IS this really an enforcable piece of legislation?)

 

That is your opinion and still in my honest opinion I concerning me would still feel safer aboard a ship than being aboard a plane. If you want to think otherwise well you are entitled to your opinion. Regards,Jerry

I can see where you are both coming frrom and may I very respectfully suggest that as a lay person I can seee two sides to your disagreements.

 

When the Queen Mary 2 looses all power, she looses any type of drive for her propellers. Not a nice thought and this has happened more than once!! If a huge air liner were to loose ALL power to their engines then i would suggest everyone on that aircraft will be in deep do doo's!! To prevent this from happening, aircraft have multiple built in safety requirements.

 

Ask yourself what back-up systems there are on a cruise ship (or liner) Then research how many times ships have been completely 'dead in the water'.

 

I can recall a jumbo jet flying through the ash from a volcano but from memory the engines wereeventually 'bump' started!! :)

Edited October 30, 2013 by glojo

[Whitemarsh]

I suppose if people were truly concerned about the safety of large modern cruise ships they wouldn't go on them.

[Cruachan]

...Thankfully I have never heard of a case of this breakdown occurring when Mother Nature was at her worse...

 

John,

 

here's an incident in the Med where ole Mother Nature wasn't in a particularly good mood. The ship in question lost power when a wave smashed the bridge windows and swamped the electrics leading to engine failure. Incidentally, the ship in question is now trading as Costa Voyager.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFr1Zpjwvx0

 

J

[balf]

I suppose if people were truly concerned about the safety of large modern cruise ships they wouldn't go on them.

 

People generally don't give it a thought, just as very few of us don't give a thought about the dangers in travel in a car. If we lived our lives worrying about all the potential dangers in life, life would not be worth living.

 

Anyway, travelling on a ship with 6000 other passengers is not something I will be doing anytime. Travelling with 2000 can be trying enough at times.

 

David.

[glojo]

John,

 

here's an incident in the Med where ole Mother Nature wasn't in a particularly good mood. The ship in question lost power when a wave smashed the bridge windows and swamped the electrics leading to engine failure. Incidentally, the ship in question is now trading as Costa Voyager.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFr1Zpjwvx0

 

J

Hi Cruachan

Thank you very much for taking the time to post that link and me being me, I just had to get the history behind that incident

 

click

 

Everything I have read confirms exactly what you have very kindly posted but what my eyes tell me... Contradicts what I am reading.

 

I guess this is a great advert for Spec-Savers and I will have to get my eyes tested.

 

I look at her stern and I see white water that appears to be caused by the rotation of the water. I look at her mast and see the flag flying and the bow quite clearly pointing directly into the wind? All or most of the waves are hitting the ship bow and and any waves that try to slew the ship round, are countered by the ship which continues to keep her bow pointing directly into that storm?

 

If I did not know better, I would have thought the ship has just managed to keep some sort of steerage speeds and is very fortunate to be able to keep her nose pointing into the wind?

 

When I read the comments under the Youtube footage I saw there are folks trying to wrongly name this vessel. But when I looked at the footage of the ship that these folk named... It was even more spectacular.

 

Again this second clip looks like the ship barely has steerage way....

 

 

but again I will have to blame my poor eye sight. Folks are asking what is taking place at approximately 41 seconds into the footage and from what my awful eyes tell me, it looks like the 'rescuing' ship is firing what we call a gun line across to the ship in distress. This gun-line will be hauled in and a stronger line is attached to it. This stronger line is past across which in turn is connected to a stronger line..... Hopefully you get my drift and this is how a tow-line can be safely past from one ship to another without endangering the lives of the folks involved!! I have said 'tow-line' but it might be anything from correspondance, stores or that towline. Passing personnel across is a more complex operation that requires specialist equipment :)

 

Thanks again for that first link and thankfully that ship never slewed broadside on to those seas!!!

 

Incidentally, even if the stabilisers were operational.. They would have NO effect at those slow speeds :o:(

[Cruise Liner Fan]

I had never really looked at it from that very good point of view, and I cannot fault your reasoning :eek:;)

 

When these huge modern ships have a total power failure they are in the hands of the Gods and when the wind puts them broadside to the seas .. That ride at best might become uncomfortable. Thankfully I have never heard of a case of this breakdown occurring when Mother Nature was at her worse. Unfortunately the Queen Mary 2 falls into this bracket but thankfully legislation now insists that ships built after a certain date in 2010 actually have some type of safe return to port propulsion?? (IS this really an enforcable piece of legislation?)

 

I can see where you are both coming frrom and may I very respectfully suggest that as a lay person I can seee two sides to your disagreements.

 

When the Queen Mary 2 looses all power, she looses any type of drive for her propellers. Not a nice thought and this has happened more than once!! If a huge air liner were to loose ALL power to their engines then i would suggest everyone on that aircraft will be in deep do doo's!! To prevent this from happening, aircraft have multiple built in safety requirements.

 

Ask yourself what back-up systems there are on a cruise ship (or liner) Then research how many times ships have been completely 'dead in the water'.

 

I can recall a jumbo jet flying through the ash from a volcano but from memory the engines wereeventually 'bump' started!! :)

The Queen Mary 2 is both diesel powered & gas turbine powered. The question I'm now asking is if there is a diesel engine failure aboard QM2 can the gas turbine engines then be turned on and provide enough electrical power for the pods and the navigation equipment in the Bridge and the Engine Control Room. Electricity for the hotel services aboard the QM2 may have to be turned off so that all the electricity generated is only for the pods and navigation equipment and radio communication until the diesel engines can be turned back on. Does anyone have the answer to the question I asked? Regards,Jerry

[Cruise Liner Fan]

I still after seeing the video of the stricken cruise ship, would feel safer aboard a ship than aboard a plane. Guess how many survivors there were when in 1996 a TWA jet that had just taken off from JFK Airport then crashed into the Atlantic off of Long Island? Answer is 0. And they still don't know what was the cause of the plane crashing into the Atlantic. Regards,Jerry

[glojo]

The Queen Mary 2 is both diesel powered & gas turbine powered. The question I'm now asking is if there is a diesel engine failure aboard QM2 can the gas turbine engines then be turned on and provide enough electrical power for the pods and the navigation equipment in the Bridge and the Engine Control Room. Electricity for the hotel services aboard the QM2 may have to be turned off so that all the electricity generated is only for the pods and navigation equipment and radio communication until the diesel engines can be turned back on. Does anyone have the answer to the question I asked? Regards,Jerry

Hi Jerry,

I am voicing my thoughts here and not giving an answer.

 

My thoughts are that if all the diesel engines break down (which would be highly unlikely) then my guess would be that the gas turbines could supply the electric power to turn the blades but..

 

I was of the opinion the 'dead in the water' issue has never been with the actual engines, be they diesels or gas turbine power. My thoughts are the issue has always been further down the line.

 

Note I am not answering your question, I am merely voicing my thoughts.

 

Further thinking is that the Queen Mary 2 needs 'x' amount of electric jungle juice to propel her through the water.... The diesel engines can supply enough power to shift this ship up to a speed of approximately 23knots... The gas turbines are there to simply top that power up to allow her to go faster. (Mr Payne answewred my question in a more professional manner)

[balf]

Hi Cruachan

Thank you very much for taking the time to post that link :(

 

John, having looked at the footage, do you think it would have been possible to launch lifeboats when the ship is rolling like that.

 

I'm thinking of a fire that leaves the ship without power and makes abandon ship necessary.

 

David.

[glojo]

John, having looked at the footage, do you think it would have been possible to launch lifeboats when the ship is rolling like that.

 

I'm thinking of a fire that leaves the ship without power and makes abandon ship necessary.

 

David.

Hi David,

You ask a very good question and I would love for Jim Avery to come in on this query.

 

I am guessing you can recall my many posts all querying the training the crew of a cruise ship undertake regarding this very issue.

 

Some folks criticise me for daring to ask this type of question and if it were a big concern then would I have booked our cruise??

 

I have asked on numerous occasions how many times the crews of lifeboats actually practice launching at sea in adverse conditions. I am guessing you have now realised just how dangerous this can be and if we ask someone to attempt it without ever doing this dangerous operation... There is only going to be one ending.

 

My thoughts regarding your question is however a very short two lettered word :eek::o BUT... I bow to far more experienced merchant mariners to come in on this.

 

I have launched in adverse conditions (not as bad as though we are talking about) but it is a disciplined, complex exercise that needs continual practice.

 

In the conditions we are discussing I would welcome Jim's input and I will tactfully throw in the idea of free fall lifeboats. Note this is me throwing an idea into the pot and we are talking about saving of lives... Not for ferrying passengers ashore on a jolly or picnic

 

For those that do not know what a free fall lifeboat is then look at the stern of some modern merchant vessels or in larger numbers look beneath this text.

 

 

I believe the best lifeboat is the ship but if that thing is no longer an option, you need to have something both functional and practical that is going to save lives.

 

I am not passing judgement on the suitability or practicality of what the options are on today's ships but look at that video of that ship pitching and then imagine her being broadside on to those waves and ask yourselves how those lifeboats can deploy!!!

 

The ship is hardly moving and is that lack of forward momentum exaggerating her movements... If she were stationary and broadside on.... Then would that movement be far, far worse.

 

Lowering boats in that situation is not something I really want to think about!! :o

 

Not a pleasant topic to discuss but is burying heads in the sand the right approach?

[Jim Avery]

Glojo,

once again you have brought up interesting topics. The sea conditions in the video would make launching conventional lifeboats a very difficult and dangerous task. You are correct in the free fall lifeboats being able to launch. These are usually mounted on the stern so would not have the same problems with the rolling. If you have seen the movie "Captain Phillips", you will have seen a good primer on launching one of these boats. I have to say, the thought of being crammed in a lifeboat in those seas makes me queasy right here in the desert.:eek: The biggest problem is the sudden need, in an emergency, for people to handle complex tasks in an efficient manner. As has been mentioned, many of modern cruise ship's crew are not practiced mariners and, truth be told, would be no better than a passenger at evacuating the ship. It is something I always think about on cruise ships. On merchant ships I served aboard, we had to have drills (and log them) at specific time intervals. Lifeboats were run out and manned (but never in the conditions in the video so I am not confident we would have done it well), fire drills involved actual running out of hoses and firing up pumps. Crew took turns at the head of the hose in order to feel the strong pressures on the nozzles. We even had to regularly fire the line gun you mention. That was kind of fun. This is what merchant ships regularly do. Naval vessels, of course, take it to much higher levels of practice. Sadly, cruise ships barely give lip service to the actual operation of launching the boats. Truly scary with thousands aboard.

[glojo]

Thank you Jim but my biggest concern is that I am not coming across as a 'know-it-all'

 

I have never set foot aboard a merchant ship apart from the Isle of Wight ferry and the Tamar and Gosport ferries. The last two being small ferries that simply cross a very narrow stretch of river.

 

I have no knowledge in the ways of the merchant marine and I am simply very interested in numerous issues that I stumble across.

 

When Balf asked that question my thoughts were that without adequate training I could not see how those lifeboats could be launched with any chance of getting away from that ship.

 

I guess I was hoping that you might have stated that selected crew members on all merchant ships were required to attend some type of training establishment to learn the advanced skills required to launch\operate lifeboats in adverse conditions?

 

Is it fair to suggest that when things go wrong, these crew members who may never have been given adequate training, are put out to dry by folks who have never experienced anything like the awful situations those poor souls may well have experienced?

 

During the question and answer session with Mr Shanks the then CEO of Cunard I asked this man what lessons might have been learnt from the Concordia disaster? I was told that all Carnival crews which include the Costa line receive the exact same levels of training which is the highest in the industry!! Enough said