Too Big to Sail? - NY Times

[BlueRiband]

...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..

 

A few months ago five crew members were killed on the Thompson Majesty during a lifeboat exercise. The maritime unions are not going to tolerate such an exercise on a moving ship much less one going through storm conditions. (Do airline crews learn how to launch emergency chutes while airborne?)

 

Free fall or self launching lifeboats might be practical on cargo vessels where crew members must be physically agile to perform their duties. On a cruise ship they would be useless to about half the passengers who would not have the physical ability to climb into such a steeply pitched craft. Imagine the time it would take for even one mobility compromised person to be carried and strapped into place.

 

Everything we do has some risk. Responsible designers and operators will plan escape and safety measures but it is impossible to have a fail sale for every convoluted possibility. In September 2001 we found out what happens when thousands of people are packed into two 102 story towers with limited escape routes. Were they too big to be built? Is the new tower too tall to be safe?

[Salacia]

A few months ago five crew members were killed on the Thompson Majesty during a lifeboat exercise. The maritime unions are not going to tolerate such an exercise on a moving ship much less one going through storm conditions. (Do airline crews learn how to launch emergency chutes while airborne?)

 

Free fall or self launching lifeboats might be practical on cargo vessels where crew members must be physically agile to perform their duties. On a cruise ship they would be useless to about half the passengers who would not have the physical ability to climb into such a steeply pitched craft. Imagine the time it would take for even one mobility compromised person to be carried and strapped into place.

 

Everything we do has some risk. Responsible designers and operators will plan escape and safety measures but it is impossible to have a fail sale for every convoluted possibility. In September 2001 we found out what happens when thousands of people are packed into two 102 story towers with limited escape routes. Were they too big to be built? Is the new tower too tall to be safe?

 

Blue Riband, from New Yorker to another, I'll skip the question about the Towers and return to the discussion regarding cruise ships...

 

Specifically relating to QM2 (the only Cunard ship I have sailed on), no doubt we have all seen the davits and canisters (or containers, whatever you wish to call them) on the aft of deck 7 on both sides of the ship. These canisters contain inflatable life rafts. While these life rafts are intended to for the use of the crew in the event of an emergency, passengers would also use these inflatable rafts in the event that Tenders (lifeboats) are rendered disabled or unable to be deployed in the event the ship lists to an unsafe angle.

 

I wondered how these inflatable life rafts would be deployed in the event of a call to abandon ship. While I have never seen an exercise of such an emergency evacuation on any cruise ship, I found a video of a "Davit Launched Life Training Exercise". While I note that this video pertains to a drill on an oil rig and not a cruise ship, it is the best example I have found that shows how these inflatable life rafts work. If interested, the video can be found here:

 

I would be very happy to see a more comforting example, if anyone can shed a better light. Thanks, -S.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Salacia

[Salacia]

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

 

Whitemarsh, how many people research the safety of the vessel, or are even concerned with such a question, accepting that ships are safe out of a false sense of security. It's the fare, the itinerary and the ship's amenities that grab the customers.

 

Ice skating rinks, ice cream machines, dress codes, price of drinks, dancing, flow rides, enrichment lectures, discos, menus, amenities, bargain fares, rock climbing, chair hogs, dance host hogs, Noro virus, early boarding...those are some the topics of interest on most cruise line forums. How often do we see threads about the safety of the ship - not just on the Cunard forum, but on any forum?

 

However, from what I have read, after the Concordia disaster, followed by other debacles, cruise line bookings are down. That's why we're seeing reduced fares, and further cost cutting measures as cruise lines work to maintain their profit level.

 

Perhaps passengers attention has been drawn to the matter of safety, and I think that is a good thing - not only for passengers and crew, but also for the cruise line industry. If the cruise line industry doesn't pay attention, they will sink, taking many souls with them.

 

Salacia

Edited October 31, 2013 by Salacia

[Whitemarsh]

Whitemarsh, how many people research the safety of the vessel, or are even concerned with such a question, accepting that ships are safe out of a false sense of security. It's the fare, the itinerary and the ship's amenities that grab the customers.

 

I don't know. My first voyage was on Cunard's QM2 so I didn't have any safety concerns to worry about. Having said that I don't think I will ever book a cruise on a small ship run by a little known company.

 

Ice skating rinks, ice cream machines, dress codes, price of drinks, dancing, flow rides, enrichment lectures, discos, menus, amenities, bargain fares, rock climbing, chair hogs, dance host hogs, Noro virus, early boarding...those are some the topics of interest on most cruise line forums. How often do we see threads about the safety of the ship - not just on the Cunard forum, but on any forum?

 

I agree that we see more threads about other topics; and that it's interesting to talk about safety. However, if we take this forum as a small snapshot of potential customers it would appear that no contributor to this thread (or any other) has cancelled future bookings due to safety concerns (that we've been informed about).

 

Which was the point I was making earlier, there doesn't appear to be a level of concern that would prevent anyone from booking, or lead them to cancel a booking (Costa cruise lines excepted).

 

If the level of concern (whatever it is) is not at a level that affects bookings then I don't see what impetus there is for the cruise lines to make any adjustments - if indeed any are needed.

 

However, from what I have read, after the Concordia disaster, followed by other debacles, cruise line bookings are down. That's why we're seeing reduced fares, and further cost cutting measures as cruise lines work to maintain their profit level.

 

With the exception of Costa cruise lines, maybe it's just that there are too many cruise ships?

 

Perhaps passengers attention has been drawn to the matter of safety, and I think that is a good thing - not only for passengers and crew, but also for the cruise line industry. If the cruise line industry doesn't pay attention, they will sink, taking many souls with them.

 

I have to admit I have on occasion wondered what the very elderly, handicapped and/or infirm think about their survival odds in the case of a disaster at sea. Do they book knowing that should disaster strike they have a small chance of survival - reliant as they are on the assistance of others - but take a calculated risk based on the small number of disasters at sea that have caused cruise ships to sink?

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Blue Riband, from New Yorker to another, I'll skip the question about the Towers and return to the discussion regarding cruise ships...

 

Specifically relating to QM2 (the only Cunard ship I have sailed on), no doubt we have all seen the davits and canisters (or containers, whatever you wish to call them) on the aft of deck 7 on both sides of the ship. These canisters contain inflatable life rafts. While these life rafts are intended to for the use of the crew in the event of an emergency, passengers would also use these inflatable rafts in the event that Tenders (lifeboats) are rendered disabled or unable to be deployed in the event the ship lists to an unsafe angle.

 

I wondered how these inflatable life rafts would be deployed in the event of a call to abandon ship. While I have never seen an exercise of such an emergency evacuation on any cruise ship, I found a video of a "Davit Launched Life Training Exercise". While I note that this video pertains to a drill on an oil rig and not a cruise ship, it is the best example I have found that shows how these inflatable life rafts work. If interested, the video can be found here:

 

I would be very happy to see a more comforting example, if anyone can shed a better light. Thanks, -S.

I am certain that I saw that similar inflatable life rafts were also aboard QE2. And probably all cruise ships carry them again as insurance in the event the Tenders which are also lifeboats can not be used because the ship lists to an unsafe angle. I know that this is not a pleasant thing to say but any mode of transportation be it a car,bus,plane,train or ship have seen tragedy happen to a car,bus,plane,train or ship in which people died. Just a week and a half ago while I was on the QM2's New England/Canada cruise on October 20th the port of call was Halifax where in 3 cemeteries the Titanic victims are buried. Then about a day or so later the QM2 while enroute to Quebec City when sailing on the St. Lawrence River, the QM2 sailed by a spot on the St. Lawrence River where 99 years ago in 1914 another tragedy involving a ship that many people have never heard of happened when a Canadian Pacific Passenger Ship named the Empress of Ireland enroute to Liverpool,England and just a few hours after sailing from Quebec City, collided with a cargo ship carrying coal named the Storstad in the fog. The Storstad hit the Empress of Ireland broadside and the Storstad suffered with a badly crushed bow but managed to stay afloat. Unfortunately for the Empress of Ireland she sank in about 20 minutes I think. And also the Empress of Ireland suffered in more passenger deaths than in the Titanic. Of course we all should pray for all the victims in all these transportation tragedies. Since I still enjoy going on ships the only solution in my opinion concerning me is to not to go on any ship that is larger than the QM2. Regards,Jerry Edited October 31, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[capnpugwash]

This discussion whilst interesting is academic because as has been stated the drills are merely that, they aren't and cannot be taken through to finality on the high seas. In ports some of the drills do involve actually launching some lifeboat(s) because they are in sheltered waters. Clearly it isn't a total reconstruction of what would happen in heavy seas in the dark with the ship leaning over, but it is probably the best that one can hope for. Safety is rightly a concern but there are always things in life that if circumstances conspire will imperil people's safety. As someone once said “Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” If you're not happy to accept any risks in life you may not live any longer than others but it will certainly feel like you have.

[glojo]

As per the title... This is me plonking down my thoughts and responding to this post.

 

Perhaps passengers attention has been drawn to the matter of safety, and I think that is a good thing - not only for passengers and crew, but also for the cruise line industry. If the cruise line industry doesn't pay attention, they will sink, taking many souls with them.

 

Salacia

Hi Salacia,

You raise some interesting points and I can only speak for myself regarding this whole issue.

 

I am a realist and accept we are where we are and nothing we say will probably influence this issue one jot!

 

My motives have been both selfish and educational. My wife and I are going to spend 118 days on-board a ship and I want to know the standards of training given to those that are going to look after my welfare during this period.

 

I think it fair to suggest that I have asked a number of questions regarding this and whilst some folks might feel I do it just to hear the sound of my own voice... Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Once aboard this ship the well being of both myself and more to the point.. My wife is in the hands of others and I want to know how competent these folks are.

 

Thanks to this debate I think folks are possibly beginning to accept that if any type of serious event occurred whilst the ship is at sea.... The chances of evacuating a ship in a professional, responsible controlled manner are at the very best.... questionable!

 

Blue Riband has made an excellent point when this person raised the issue of the catastrophe.

Thompson Majesty during a lifeboat exercise. The maritime unions are not going to tolerate such an exercise on a moving ship much less one going through storm conditions. (Do airline crews learn how to launch emergency chutes while airborne?)

 

I hate putting words into peoples mouths but from reading that question I get the impression it is suggested this issue of training is best avoided?

 

I would NEVER, EVER advocate training in storm conditions, that would be plain daft, stupid, dumb and crazy, BUT..... Launching a lifeboat at sea in conditions that are within required limits is to me both good training and good practice.. Start with the ship in harbour, do it in slow time and then very gradually increase the skill levels. These crews already do this at sea with the ship at anchor (tendering passengers ashore).

 

Should there be a next stage and this is where I am interested in... Start doing this evolution at sea with the ship drifting. Small steps where we learn to walk and then fetch the crews to a level where they are at least jogging! Launching these craft at night in adverse conditions should be second nature to both the crews and the launching officers. I cannot deny there are risks involved when doing this but my experience has been these risks are lessened the more we practice these evolutions (is there a saying, 'practice makes perfect?')

 

I cannot answer the aviation query but I can talk about our volunteer amateur life boat crews. As part of their training they are put into a blacked out indoor swimming pool type complex, gale force winds are introduced, along with water and then these folks are gradually trained to do various tasks.

 

These are unpaid volunteers and whilst I would not expect training methods to go overboard:eek:;)... I would expect the crews of of a cruise ship's lifeboat to be competent and able to launch that craft at sea in adverse conditions!!

 

I am definitely NOT going to discuss the headline grabbing story surrounding the Thomson Majesty incident as I am not aware of all the FACTS but if we do not practice for an event, we will most definitely fail to perform when asked to 'perform'

 

Thinking more about the aviation question.... Yes air stewards, air stewardesses do indeed practice abandoning an aircraft in the environment in which they work, but obviously this is done on the ground :)!!

 

You aswk about the ship's liferafts and once more I put my hand up and state I have never set foot on a cruise ship but my experience of these items is that there are usually two ways they are released. The first is manually, the second is pressure related and by that I mean there is usually a mechanism fitted to secure these rafts but at a predetermined depth, this mechanism releases the life-rafts and they float to the surface.

 

It is important to note that I have no knowledge of how these items are released on a cruise ship\liner.

 

Regarding life-rafts

I would ask how folks get into them?

 

A very serious question and one I have asked myself.

 

I have asked a thousand and one questions and then having asked these questions I then make an informed decision.

 

I will not be blaming the crew for failing to come to my aid, I will not complain if the helmsman's grasp of the relevant language is insufficient to perform the task they are paid to do. I accept I am in the care of the shipping company and I happily accept the risks involved in my sailing the high seas!! My thoughts are these risks are minimal. The risks are so small as to accept that what will be, will be.

 

Having said this, what has changed in the shipping industry over the last fifty years?

 

This was a small fire that started in the barber's shop on an ocean liner back in late 1963. The fire took hold, very quickly spread and in just a few hours....

 

128 people died. Of these most died not from the fire but from exposure, drowning and when trying to escape the fire by jumping into the sea.

The subsequent investigation into the disaster lasted almost two years and its findings were highly critical of the condition of some of the life-saving equipment on the vessel and also of the actions taken aboard when the emergency occurred.

 

If the costs of better training means increasing the price of the cruise, then surely this should be done yesterday? Instead we are seeing court cases where we all express shock at the woeful standards that get highlighted.

 

I have no idea of how well Cunard crews are trained, I can only take the word of the CEO that Cunard staff are trained to the exact levels as the crew that manned the Costa Concordia and on that basis I personally do not have the right to criticise those at the sharp end... Should I however blame those that are happy to bury their heads in the sand.

 

Should the crews of a lifeboat be as competant as those that do an amazing job of waiting table, cooking food or cleaning cabins? Cunard have a reutation that I believe is second to none in that regard but what training is given regarding abandoning a ship at sea in adverse conditions? I emphasis 'adverse' conditions as the very, very best lifeboat out in the deep blue younder, is I believe the ship itself!

[Whitemarsh]

This discussion whilst interesting is academic because as has been stated the drills are merely that, they aren't and cannot be taken through to finality on the high seas. In ports some of the drills do involve actually launching some lifeboat(s) because they are in sheltered waters. Clearly it isn't a total reconstruction of what would happen in heavy seas in the dark with the ship leaning over, but it is probably the best that one can hope for. Safety is rightly a concern but there are always things in life that if circumstances conspire will imperil people's safety. As someone once said “Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” If you're not happy to accept any risks in life you may not live any longer than others but it will certainly feel like you have.

 

Precisely. No lifeboat drill can simulate all possible disaster scenarios. I don't know how any cruise line would run lifeboat drills that involved simulated storms, capsizing ships, explosions, fire, flooding and power outages.

 

Even if, at the start of a cruise, passengers and crew went through a day of simulated drills that covered all these scenarios, would passengers appreciate and/or wish to participate?

[Salacia]

partial quote

 

...I agree that we see more threads about other topics; and that it's interesting to talk about safety. However, if we take this forum as a small snapshot of potential customers it would appear that no contributor to this thread (or any other) has cancelled future bookings due to safety concerns (that we've been informed about).

 

Which was the point I was making earlier, there doesn't appear to be a level of concern that would prevent anyone from booking, or lead them to cancel a booking (Costa cruise lines excepted).

 

If the level of concern (whatever it is) is not at a level that affects bookings then I don't see what impetus there is for the cruise lines to make any adjustments - if indeed any are needed...

 

A few of us have said we have no interest in sailing on a ship larger than QM2. Personally, I wouldn't take a cruise on one of these new behemoths that carry over 8,000 souls even if I was given free passage. But you're right in that there are enough people who feel otherwise, so cruise lines will keep building bigger and bigger ships.

 

After the Concordia disaster and recent problems on Carnival ships, it appears some measures to improve safety have been accepted by the cruise industry, some of which are already in place and others are in planning stages. At least that's a start, but several experts have stated that more needs to be done.

 

Regarding the impetus for change: unfortunately, the most dramatic improvements came only after the investigation of serious incidents which resulted in legislation, forcing cruise lines to comply. -S.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Salacia

[Salacia]

Precisely. No lifeboat drill can simulate all possible disaster scenarios. I don't know how any cruise line would run lifeboat drills that involved simulated storms, capsizing ships, explosions, fire, flooding and power outages.

 

Even if, at the start of a cruise, passengers and crew went through a day of simulated drills that covered all these scenarios, would passengers appreciate and/or wish to participate?

 

 

I haven't heard of any "abandon ship" exercise on any cruise ship, even in the most ideal conditions. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that I've never heard of such an exercise. I wonder if new cruise ships are required to demonstrate (using volunteer employees) that the maximum occupancy of the ship can be evacuated in the required amount of time before the ship is allowed to take on passengers for the first time. Perhaps having the exercise just once might be better than not having one at all? -S.

[Classiccruiser777]

For those so inclined here's a link to the US Coast Guard's site regarding passenger vessels: http://www.uscg.mil/pvs/

 

The rafts, if not manually deployed, will automatically deploy after the ship sinks.

[DDBINK1]

I haven't heard of any "abandon ship" exercise on any cruise ship, even in the most ideal conditions. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that I've never heard of such an exercise. I wonder if new cruise ships are required to demonstrate (using volunteer employees) that the maximum occupancy of the ship can be evacuated in the required amount of time before the ship is allowed to take on passengers for the first time. Perhaps having the exercise just once might be better than not having one at all? -S.

 

I think they do computer simulations and estimate the time needed for the abandon ship to be completed.

I wonder how it would take into the time calculation those that have trouble with hearing, walking, understanding the instructions, panic, aggression on the part of passengers, incompetence of knowledge by staff etc.

I have been on the Oasis of the Seas x2, one of those huge ships with 6000 plus people on it. The drill we all went through on the ship was just to go to the assigned area to prepare to evacuate the ship. They said staff would direct you if we really needed to abandon the ship. We watched a video one time and the second time we only heard the video because the picture malfunctioned.

I really don't believe they could get everyone off that ship in 30 minutes. They must have made a estimate as to how many passengers and crew would be lost and the liability limits associated with it and felt it was worth it to create these ships.

[Jim Avery]

I think they do computer simulations and estimate the time needed for the abandon ship to be completed.

I wonder how it would take into the time calculation those that have trouble with hearing, walking, understanding the instructions, panic, aggression on the part of passengers, incompetence of knowledge by staff etc.

I have been on the Oasis of the Seas x2, one of those huge ships with 6000 plus people on it. The drill we all went through on the ship was just to go to the assigned area to prepare to evacuate the ship. They said staff would direct you if we really needed to abandon the ship. We watched a video one time and the second time we only heard the video because the picture malfunctioned.

I really don't believe they could get everyone off that ship in 30 minutes. They must have made a estimate as to how many passengers and crew would be lost and the liability limits associated with it and felt it was worth it to create these ships.

 

You are pretty much right. They do not put 6,000 folks on a ship and have a mass evacuation test prior to delivery. In the days of Titanic, remember when it was said the lifeboats were tested with actual men? Now it is government regulations that determine what is and is not acceptable and computer programs simulate various conditions. The trouble being, IMHO, what works for 2,000 persons might not work in the same fashion for 6,000 persons, regardless of the number of lifeboats. I have cruised on ships (and all the ships I worked on) that had fewer passengers than one mega ship lifeboat carries. The one size fits all government approach seldom fits anyone well. Remember, Lusitania sank in 20 minutes. Titanic sank fairly upright in some 2.5 hours. Andrea Doria sank in around 7 hours but turned turtle first. Concordia had a convenient island full of boat people to lean on but was very soon after the collision unable to launch half of the boats. One size does not fit all.Like others, I have full faith in the structure and Officers on QM2. As far as crew, how many times have you encountered a very tired looking crewmember that just arrived on board from a 24 hour plus travel day to be sent immediately to his/her work station? How many times have you been on board in rough seas and were told so and so is not here to serve to day as he is sea sick? Glojo, on your 118 day voyage, I can guarantee the crew you begin with will be a great deal different than the one you end with. The officers have stringent schools and tests to attend prior to sitting for their exams. They are also required to attend continuing education in their off times. Unfortunately, the nature of the cruise industry means there is constant turnover and much, much less training required for other crew. Lowering the lifeboats in port from the offside davits (usually while lubricating the cables and pulleys) while all/most of the passengers are ashore could be tragically different from lowering them in the dark/rain/swells, etc. while surrounded by screaming passengers and an increasing list. I know they will not do drills while underway. Not required and also dangerous for novices. My personal thoughts are to the original poster, yes, some are (IMHO) too big to sail safely. Inevitably, if you wait long enough, a real disaster will occur with these ships. Am I scared to go cruising? No. However, like others here, my self imposed upper limit is QM2. This is a thought provoking topic and as mentioned above is almost never heard of on any lines boards. Maybe it should be considered more. Government is not the answer or we will all be sailing in padded cells.:eek: Money works. Don't book on the behemoths. When you want a cruise, seek out the smaller ships. Again, as others have said, the cruise lines will keep building bigger as long as people want them by booking them.

[Salacia]

DDBINK and Jim Avery, thank you. I never imagined that a computer simulation of an abandon ship order would be acceptable. What is the authority that reviews these simulations?

 

As one example, I'd love to see a computer simulation that shows how Allure of the Seas plans to evacuate the ships' maximum capacity of 8,694 (6,300 passengers and 2,394 crew members ) in 30 minutes if a call is given to abandon ship. That would mean every one minute, 289 people make it from their muster station to a life boat that shouldn't be lowered until another 90 or more passengers enter the life boat before the life boat reaches capacity and can be lowered.

 

Even under the best of circumstances, it is a physical impossibility. Now if that doesn't bother passengers, and the risk is accepted, that's all well and done. But let's not kid ourselves.

 

 

I agree with Jim Avery's advice: don't book the behemoths.

 

Salacia

 

Edited to correct: Crew members are to use the inflatable life rafts, not the life boats...unless the ship is listing to a degree that prohibits life boats or life rafts from being launched from one side of the ship...and on and on it goes.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Salacia

[Salacia]

For those so inclined here's a link to the US Coast Guard's site regarding passenger vessels: http://www.uscg.mil/pvs/

 

The rafts, if not manually deployed, will automatically deploy after the ship sinks.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Are you speaking of the inflatable rafts in the containers on Deck 7 on QM2?

[balf]

Once the life raft is in the water the crew/passengers still have to get into it, so unless it can be moved to an exit position they would have to jump in the sea.(or step calmly as the boad drill commentary has it)

 

David.

[Chunky2219]

It always makes me smile a little cynical smile when they do the safety drill on a plane.

 

"Put the life vest on, don't pull the tags....etc." There's only been one successful water ditching (Sully on the Hudson opposite Pier 84) and that was a real lucky scenario that wouldn't be repeated this side of hell freezing over.

 

"The exits are located here, here and here..." Which wasn't a fat lot of use in the Manchester disaster when people were climbing over each other and getting wedged in the aisles. It's never stopped me from figuring out my exit route though, plus identfying who I might have to pacify if things turn ugly.

 

Cruise ships (oops, and "ocean liners" too) are designed for similar optimised emergency conditions to aircraft. You might last a little longer than in a plane without engine power but if there are 30 foot waves there won't be many lifeboats launched and broadside to the wind the ship is going to be in dire straits - ocean liner or not. I can think of at least three occasions when aircrft survived total engine failure (one mid-Atlantic) but they were all in benign and favourable conditions.

 

The bottom line is that navigation and maneuvering technology is massively better than it was, so unless you get a halfwit like Schettino in charge you aren't going to run into anything. It doesn't matter if there are 1000 or 6000 souls on board - the maths say that unless there are less cruise passenger miles travelled (i.e. same pax miles, more ships in the water), there will be exactly the same number of pax involved in emergency situations of a given severity and the same number consigned to Davy Jones' locker when it all goes pear shaped.

 

You might have felt safer 20 years ago when ships were smaller but there's a reason why they retired QE2 and it wasn't because they couldn't make money. It's because the old ocean liner couldn't be economically brought up modern safety standards. Ships are bigger nowadays because it means they can make more money, from more people, more often.

 

I see it the same as like the threads we often see here about "oo, err, is it safe to travel to Egypt / Turkey / Europe / past the end of my street?" If you don't feel safe and comfortable, stay at home. Dig a big hole, fill it with canned goods and buy a gun in case the zombies come for you. Every time you walk out of the door you stand a finite chance of coming back in a pine box. Don't let it spoil your life.

 

 

.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Chunky2219
typo

[fantasy51]

Every time you walk out of the door you stand a finite chance of coming back in a pine box. Don't let it spoil your life.

.

 

Oh yes! Always a risk in life. That sounds like a good justification for me booking a cheap cruise on QV for 2 weeks away, even though I've only been home 10 days.

 

My sister says: Life is uncertain; eat dessert first.

I say: Life is uncertain; book all the cruises you can afford.

[balf]

Oh yes! Always a risk in life. That sounds like a good justification for me booking a cheap cruise on QV for 2 weeks away, even though I've only been home 10 days.

 

My sister says: Life is uncertain; eat dessert first.

I say: Life is uncertain; book all the cruises you can afford.

 

I'd go along with that. You could die of boredom staying at home.

 

David

[glojo]

I for one am very thankful for Jim's inputs and yes I agree about crew changeover's. I have been told that during our cruise I believe Sydney will see a significant number of changes?.

 

Lots of folk are saying things that make no sense whatsoever and to suggest that it is too dangerous for the crew to practice these evolutions in harbour is nonsensical. What happened aboard that Thomson ship was tragic and my thoughts are genuinely with the families of those that lost their lives during that disastrous training exercise.

 

I am NOT going to speculate on what actually went wrong on that day but what I will speculate on is the fact that the chances are that those who lost their lives were innocent victims of an event they had no control over. In other words they might probably have done nothing wrong, what happened might well have happened the very next time that boat was raised\lowered!!! I don't understand how the unions could immediately make the claims they did.

 

Hoisting and lowering these boats at sea...

I am surprised by the comments that suggest this should never be done and if this were to ever happen then would that be the end of all these huge ships? I say this simply because how often are passengers tendered ashore from the ship that has anchored at............ sea??

 

Yes the captain quite rightly, quite understandably will cancel these trips if the sea conditions are too uncomfortable but I would tactfully suggest that sometimes the boats have already been lowered?? This is heading to-wards what I am talking about when I refer to 'adverse conditions.' NO BOAT should ever be lowered, if it is too dangerous to recover. (unless the ship is doomed)

 

It is frustrating when folks try to twist my words and suggest these boats should be launched in a force 99 hurricane, :eek:;) (slight touch of humour thrown in) but we have to remember that little steps are the first steps an athlete is taught and no skills can be acquired without first learning the basics, having said that I totally accept what Jim has said about this type of training.

 

I am not harping on about this because clearly the crews are not taught how to operate these boats in the open seas away from land.

 

all I will ask is ths...... Is it fair to expect a boat to be lowered to rescue any poor soul that might accidentally fall overboard whilst the ship is at sea if the crews have never praticed or trained for this evolution?

 

YES, my thoughts are that lowering a boat from an untethered ship is completely different from lowering one that is at anchor!

 

Jim

Some folks talk about lack of practice by passengers during any drills or musters but would the best instructions for us be that we simply do not pester, harass, or ask questions of the crew during this type of evolution? Is it fair to suggest we simply attend our muster station and await further instructions?

 

I ask this having watched footage and read reports of what happened on the Concordia. Folks demanding to know what was going on... Folks trying to belittle the staff by telling them they were an 'influential' person and demanding to know 'this, that, or the other!'

 

Are we best off just keeping quiet and simply doing what these folks tell us to do?

 

We all talk about we accept the risks and we accept that what will be, will be, but look at any of the footage of the Concordia disaster and I would suggest this is not the case and how many law suits will be taken out against this crew?

 

To suggest what happened after the grounding was poor management and this would not happen on 'my cruise ship\liner' is at best being naive and I say that simply because of previous disasters.... The great majority reflect the same type of control (or even worse) that was seen on this latest disaster. (My only experience has been in relation to a 19000 ton ocean going liner and that was a very tragic event and 'small' was not manageable. Poor training, poor leadership turned an emergency into a disaster)

 

Can we suggest the smaller the ship, the more manageable the disaster, or is there ample staff on these huge vessels to deal with this type of situation?

 

Again this is me asking the usual questions and putting debatable ideas into the pot (NOT dictating what should or should not be done)

 

Jim

Do these ships have a Robertson's type automatic disengaging system? By that I mean the coxswain releases both falls? (winch cables)

 

 

Addendum

 

Folks are talking about jumping off a huge ship whilst wearing their life jacket...

 

Think about this and think about the heights involved.

 

When you reach the water you will have accelerated to a considerable speed and to de-accelerate, the body will want to pay a short visit to Davey Jone's locker!:eek:;) The life jacket however is EXTREMELY bouyant and is totally adverse to looking under those waves... This generates a huge conflict of interest and whilst I have no experience of the latest life jackets, the ones that were in use when the ship we went to the aid of were responsible for the deaths of a number of passengers that decided to jump from a burning ship!! The life jackets acted just like the noose used by the hangman. The sea was the trap-door where the passenger passes through.... The life-jacket is the rope that stops the fall.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

In one of the scenes of the Titanic movie A Night to Remember, Titanic designer Thomas Andrews is advising a newlywed couple to not jump into the water, but to lower themselves by climbing down the ropes that are hanging along the port & starboard sides of the Titanic as the way to get off the Titanic. Regards,Jerry

Edited November 2, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Oh yes! Always a risk in life. That sounds like a good justification for me booking a cheap cruise on QV for 2 weeks away, even though I've only been home 10 days.

 

My sister says: Life is uncertain; eat dessert first.

I say: Life is uncertain; book all the cruises you can afford.

Diane, Go ahead enjoy yourself and book that Queen Victoria cruise. I wish that I could book the QM2 Christmas cruise and I just got off the QM2 last Sunday, but I have to work because I have bills to pay and to earn money to be able to go aboard the QM2 next year. Regards,Jerry Edited November 2, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[fantasy51]

Thanks Jerry. I am seriously considering it. It would take a lot of organising. I'd get home from the cruise at midday on the Friday and then leave my house the following day at about 6pm for Australia, having spent much of that day in London getting my hair cut! It could be done.

[capnpugwash]

Thanks Jerry. I am seriously considering it. It would take a lot of organising. I'd get home from the cruise at midday on the Friday and then leave my house the following day at about 6pm for Australia, having spent much of that day in London getting my hair cut! It could be done.

 

I'm willing to bet that they have hairdressers in Australia. They're not all sheep shearers are they? Please note "shearers" :)

[fantasy51]

I'm willing to bet that they have hairdressers in Australia. They're not all sheep shearers are they? Please note "shearers" :)

 

I admit it, Capn, I'm spoilt! I only go to stylists who have been trained by the late great Vidal Sassoon. It was an Australian stylist, trained that way, who ruined me for any other style of cutting, back when I was young. I can't even find a stylist in Oxford who suits me! Precision cutting is the game.

 

I have just booked the cruise. I emailed loads of friends and someone from the last cruise is the only one ready to abandon everything and take ship. She's 91 years old and ready for anything. We're still hoping we can persuade her niece to join us.