Senator Nelson calls for NTSB to investigate Anthems Feb 7 sailing.

[Paul65]

It's easy to criticize in hindsight, because it definitely turned out to be a bad decision to sail. I am sure RCI had access to all the weather forecasts, though, and I'm sure they wouldn't have intentionally sailed into a storm that intense.

 

I heard a news report a couple days ago about the storm, and this report had nothing to do with Royal Caribbean or Anthem of the Seas. It was just talking about the storm's impact on the east coast. And the story talked about how the storm ended up moving faster and being stronger than had been forecast.

 

I'm sure it will prompt an internal investigation by RCI, because they certainly don't want this kind of thing to happen.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Paul65

[Aquahound]

LOL!!

 

Where's the accident? Where are the deaths? Did the ship sink? This isn't Titanic or Andrea Doria.

 

Just what would the NTSB assist in?

 

I dare say that my 40-year aviation background trumps yours when it comes to the NTSB- sorry.:cool:

 

Lou Betti - You really need to go back and read the context of my posts and the short conversation that led up to my NTSB post. You have a severe misunderstanding of what was said that is causing your posts to be very out of line.

[chengkp75]

Okay, folks, one more time, at volume.

 

THE NTSB DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.

 

Any investigation is at the discretion of the flag state (Bahamas). Why else do you think these ships are flagged there? Because they are not subject to most US law.

 

If the NTSB wants to do an investigation, they are welcome to do so, but they have no rights to inspect the ship, its records, or interview the crew. Won't be much of an investigation, and any recommendations or strictures they pass down won't have any legal effect on the ship or RCI.

 

To give two examples, that should be in everyone's minds. The Carnival Splendor fire that left the ship drifting for days off Mexico, was investigated by the Panamanian Maritime Agency (the flag state), which requested that the USCG take the lead as investigative agency. In the report, the USCG is very plain to point out that they can only make recommendations since they have no jurisdiction over a Panamanian ship.

 

The Carnival Triumph was investigated by the Bahamas Maritime Agency and the USCG at the request of the Bahamas.

 

And as a bonus, here's a third example. The Grandeur of the Seas fire was investigated by the Bahamas Maritime Agency without any input from the USCG.

 

These, in my opinion as a mariner, being fires at sea, were far more life threatening or "potentially fatal" incidents than this one, yet the NTSB was never called upon, wonder why? Unless they had no jurisdiction.

[Paul65]

It ported out of the US and was filled with a majority of US passengers. While it isn't a US ship and RCI isn't HQd in the US, there is precedent, especially from the Airline industry, to allow the US agencies to launch their own investigation into what happened.

 

That being said, that doesn't mean they'll necessarily mean they'll have the jurisdiction to issue criminal charges or sanctions. If they find that anyone was at fault, they can recommend that happen, but it'll be up to whichever nation has jurisdiction to follow-through with it. Most likely scenario is that they find where standard practices were lacking, and they'll make a recommendation to adjust industry-wide to avoid situations like this again.

 

Actually, Chengkp was wrong on that account. RCI is headquartered in Miami.

[chengkp75]

It ported out of the US and was filled with a majority of US passengers. While it isn't a US ship and RCI isn't HQd in the US, there is precedent, especially from the Airline industry, to allow the US agencies to launch their own investigation into what happened.

 

That being said, that doesn't mean they'll necessarily mean they'll have the jurisdiction to issue criminal charges or sanctions. If they find that anyone was at fault, they can recommend that happen, but it'll be up to whichever nation has jurisdiction to follow-through with it. Most likely scenario is that they find where standard practices were lacking, and they'll make a recommendation to adjust industry-wide to avoid situations like this again.

 

Regardless of where it "homeported" or where the passengers come from, they voluntarily entered foreign territory when they went up the gangway.

 

I'm not an expert on aviation law, but I don't believe that the NTSB can investigate an incident that happened to a foreign airline's plane either in a foreign country or at sea. The only one I can think of is the TWA flight that went down off Long Island.

 

But, as I said in previous post, they do not have subpoena rights to the ship, the crew, or company records in this incident, so they have nothing to look at, and no one to talk to, other than passengers.

[Aquahound]

And as a bonus, here's a third example. The Grandeur of the Seas fire was investigated by the Bahamas Maritime Agency without any input from the USCG.

 

That one's actually not true. The USCG sent a team of inspectors/investigators down to the Bahamas to assist. It was at the request of the Bahamas. Same thing happened with the Star Princess fire. We do it all the time because we have the manpower and technology to assist.

 

That was the nature of my post that Lou Betti can't seem to understand. The proper authority can request US assistance....of which NTSB, USCG, etc, are almost always willing to lend a hand. It's not a statement of authority. It's investigative assistance.

 

But I feel this has all gotten waaaay out of context due to one person who didn't understand what was being said. My stance is still that no governmental investigation is warranted.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Aquahound

[chengkp75]

That one's actually not true. The USCG sent a team of inspectors/investigators down to the Bahamas to assist. It was at the request of the Bahamas. Same thing happened with the Star Princess fire.

 

That was the nature of my post that Lou Betti can't seem to understand. The proper authority can request US assistance....of which NTSB, USCG, etc, are almost always willing to lend a hand. It's not a statement of authority. It's investigative assistance.

 

But I feel this has all gotten waaaay out of context. My stance is still that no governmnetal investigation is warranted.

 

You're right, I do remember that now, I just did a quick scan of the final report. Call me nuts, but I've got all these, and more, official reports on my laptop.

Edited February 9, 2016 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

Actually, Chengkp was wrong on that account. RCI is headquartered in Miami.

 

I didn't say it wasn't headquartered in the US, I said it wasn't a US corporation. It is incorporated in either the Bahamas or Panama, I can't remember which. Where their headquarters is doesn't matter when corporation law is involved, which is why they pay very little US taxes.

[Beardface]

That one's actually not true. The USCG sent a team of inspectors/investigators down to the Bahamas to assist. It was at the request of the Bahamas. Same thing happened with the Star Princess fire.

 

That was the nature of my post that Lou Betti can't seem to understand. The proper authority can request US assistance....of which NTSB, USCG, etc, are almost always willing to lend a hand. It's not a statement of authority. It's investigative assistance.

 

But I feel this has all gotten waaaay out of context due to one person who didn't understand what was being said. My stance is still that no governmental investigation is warranted.

 

You're correct here, and most of the time the Bahamas want to work with the US, because we're on good terms, and the agencies like to pool resources to ensure they're all doing the best they can. Just like in aviation, any nation who has a passenger on a jet that crashes offers to assist in the investigation, because at the end of the day, everyone wants to know what happened to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

And I'll just say this, I think its always a good idea to have a retrospective to ensure best practices are always followed, and its always a good idea to have an investigation after any major incident to ensure industry best practices always remain that... best practices, especially if that means investigating to find that current standards need to be adjusted. This is completely separate from a criminal investigation.

[foxgoodrich]

Actually, Chengkp was wrong on that account. RCI is headquartered in Miami.

 

But I think what's relevant here is that it is not a US Corporation. RCI may be based in Miami, but it's owned by RCCL, which is a registered corporation of Liberia.

[steveru621]

Let's get the government involved! One year from now all of the cruise lines will be canceling entire cruises because of what might happen. (same thing is happening with the airlines today)

 

Remember Explorer OTS and Sandy? :eek:

[Magyfagen]

From the NTSB Annual Report...

MS is also responsible for overall management of the NTSB international marine safety program, under which the NTSB investigate major marine

casualties involving foreign-flagged vessels in US territorial waters and US-flagged vessels involved in major marine casualties anywhere in the world. Accidents involving foreign-flagged vessels accounted for 27 percent of NTSB marine accident investigations in the past 5 years.

MS also participates with the Coast Guard in investigating serious marine casualties involving foreign-flagged vessels in international waters as a substantially interested state (SIS), for example, when a casualty involves a foreign-flagged cruise ship with US citizens onboard. Every year, more than 10 million Americans are carried aboard foreign-flagged cruise ships.

 

So as I read it the NTSB could claim that the US was a substantially interested state and could get involved. The only problem is there were no "casualties". I don't think Gigi counts. There are lots of other paragraphs that show the reach of the NTSB, so while you might not agree that this is a situation where the NTSB "should" get involved, it appears they have the authority to with a wider interpretation of their charge.

[Paul65]

But I think what's relevant here is that it is not a US Corporation. RCI may be based in Miami, but it's owned by RCCL, which is a registered corporation of Liberia.

 

Actually, none of that is particularly relevant here. The flag of registration and the location of the ship at the time of the incident are more relevant than the country of incorporation (or headquarters) of the company that owns the ship.

[brimarl]

Well it everyone wants an investigation how about a sanitation inspection on arrival..maybe find some broken glass in the kitchen

[foxgoodrich]

Actually, none of that is particularly relevant here. The flag of registration and the location of the ship at the time of the incident are more relevant than the country of incorporation (or headquarters) of the company that owns the ship.

 

Yes, of course - that's exactly the point. It doesn't matter where a foreign corporation builds an office complex. (We already know the ship flies the Bahamian flag and she was in international waters.)

Judy

[Paul65]

So as I read it the NTSB could claim that the US was a substantially interested state and could get involved. The only problem is there were no "casualties". I don't think Gigi counts. There are lots of other paragraphs that show the reach of the NTSB, so while you might not agree that this is a situation where the NTSB "should" get involved, it appears they have the authority to with a wider interpretation of their charge.

 

In the language used there, "casualties" probably refers to any kind of damage or negative outcome, rather than meaning deaths. So, there were "casualties" in that sense, but probably not enough so to rank it as a "serious maritime casualty."

[loubetti]

My answers are in bold type.

 

Will the same Captain & Bridge Crew be on the next cruise?

 

YES

 

Will the Captain/Bridge Crew choose to go "On Vacation" on their own?

 

NO

 

Will Royal Caribbean put the Captain/Bridge Crew "On Vacation"?

 

NO

 

If they (Captain/Bridge Crew) have nothing to fear they will be on the next cruise.

 

YES

 

If you haven't done anything wrong you should be there to answer Royal Caribbean Customer's questions.

 

NO, no need, but the captain already explained what turn the weather took in his video.

 

Lets see what happens?

 

As a retired G-IV Captain I hope EVERYONE is there.

 

And what the heck is a G-IV if it is not built by Grumman Aerospace?!!

 

CaptDave

[chengkp75]

From the NTSB Annual Report...

MS is also responsible for overall management of the NTSB international marine safety program, under which the NTSB investigate major marine

casualties involving foreign-flagged vessels in US territorial waters and US-flagged vessels involved in major marine casualties anywhere in the world. Accidents involving foreign-flagged vessels accounted for 27 percent of NTSB marine accident investigations in the past 5 years.

MS also participates with the Coast Guard in investigating serious marine casualties involving foreign-flagged vessels in international waters as a substantially interested state (SIS), for example, when a casualty involves a foreign-flagged cruise ship with US citizens onboard. Every year, more than 10 million Americans are carried aboard foreign-flagged cruise ships.

 

So as I read it the NTSB could claim that the US was a substantially interested state and could get involved. The only problem is there were no "casualties". I don't think Gigi counts. There are lots of other paragraphs that show the reach of the NTSB, so while you might not agree that this is a situation where the NTSB "should" get involved, it appears they have the authority to with a wider interpretation of their charge.

 

First off, what is mentioned as a "casualty" does not mean an injury or death to a person, per se. A marine casualty is also any accident or incident that causes a "casualty" to the ship or its equipment, and there are specific dollar amounts for what constitutes a marine casualty.

 

You will note that the NTSB mandate is to work with the USCG, which is the agency with any jurisdiction at all. They call in the NTSB for expert forensics, as consultants.

 

However, since the ship did not sustain structural damage (otherwise they would have put in to the closest port, regardless of passenger terminals), or damage to the power plant, propulsion, or steering, the merely cosmetic damage to the exterior of the ship would not likely constitute a "marine casualty". This was a ship weathering a storm, it was not a "marine casualty".

 

And the ability to conduct an investigation as a "substantially interested state" still rests with the flag state as to how much of an investigation is allowed. As I've said, none of the three fires I mention in the other thread on this, the Splendor, Triumph, and Grandeur, which were far more dangerous, and were in fact "marine casualties" were investigated by the NTSB. The USCG was asked by Panama to be lead agency on the Splendor, but note "asked". The USCG investigated the Triumph because it came to the US after the incident, and they did a Port State inspection and their findings were included in the Bahamas report, and the USCG did send a team to the Bahamas for the Grandeur, possibly with NTSB support, but an official report of investigation was not produced, as they were satisfied with the Bahamas report. The SIS status is tenuous, which is why it is not readily used, even in a marine casualty.

[RJB]

From the NTSB Annual Report...

MS is also responsible for overall management of the NTSB international marine safety program, under which the NTSB investigate major marine

casualties involving foreign-flagged vessels in US territorial waters and US-flagged vessels involved in major marine casualties anywhere in the world. Accidents involving foreign-flagged vessels accounted for 27 percent of NTSB marine accident investigations in the past 5 years.

MS also participates with the Coast Guard in investigating serious marine casualties involving foreign-flagged vessels in international waters as a substantially interested state (SIS), for example, when a casualty involves a foreign-flagged cruise ship with US citizens onboard. Every year, more than 10 million Americans are carried aboard foreign-flagged cruise ships.

 

So as I read it the NTSB could claim that the US was a substantially interested state and could get involved. The only problem is there were no "casualties". I don't think Gigi counts. ThIf not there will always ere are lots of other paragraphs that show the reach of the NTSB, so while you might not agree that this is a situation where the NTSB "should" get involved, it appears they have the authority to with a wider interpretation of their charge.

Think is very important to do a NTSB investigation to clear the Capt. of doing anything wrong. If not there always will be a cloud out there over his head.

[chengkp75]

Think is very important to do a NTSB investigation to clear the Capt. of doing anything wrong. If not there always will be a cloud out there over his head.

 

Again, the Captain could care less about an NTSB investigation, or its findings. The two jurisdictions he is concerned with are the flag state, and the country in which he holds his license. And, again, since there was no "casualty" (defined as injury to a person or damage to the ship's structure or machinery), NTSB wouldn't investigate.

 

Does the NTSB investigate every time an airliner flies through turbulence? No, because there was no "casualty".

Edited February 9, 2016 by chengkp75

[RJB]

Again, the Captain could care less about an NTSB investigation, or its findings. The two jurisdictions he is concerned with are the flag state, and the country in which he holds his license. And, again, since there was no "casualty" (defined as injury to a person or damage to the ship's structure or machinery), NTSB wouldn't investigate.

 

Does the NTSB investigate every time an airliner flies through turbulence? No, because there was no "casualty".

And you have spoken to the Captain? I have not. I do not think from all I have read here the Capt. has not done anything wrong, but exactly the oposite, was being a hero. The public needs to know that also and the NTSB could be the one's to say that.

[chengkp75]

Maybe Aquahound, as a USCG investigator, can help me out here, if he's not done with all this speculation. I believe, further, that when the USCG or NTSB are involved in "Substantially Interested State" investigations, they are allowed to see the evidence collected by the flag state agency, and allowed to see the statements given to the flag state agency, and base a report on this evidence, but are not allowed to gather evidence or statements on their own.

[Aquahound]

And you have spoken to the Captain? I have not. I do not think from all I have read here the Capt. has not done anything wrong, but exactly the oposite, was being a hero. The public needs to know that also and the NTSB could be the one's to say that.

 

I think you're misinterpreting his post. Don't worry...with all the conversations going on, you're not the first. ;)

 

In nutshell, NTSB has no jurisdiction in the matter.

[wl2cruise]

What is he going to do put a tax on mother nature? or wait hold her in contempt?

Doesn't he know mother nature has her own server and can get away with anything she wants!:eek:

[chengkp75]

And you have spoken to the Captain? I have not. I do not think from all I have read here the Capt. has not done anything wrong, but exactly the oposite, was being a hero. The public needs to know that also and the NTSB could be the one's to say that.

 

And, again, without knowing what the RCI ISM policies are on sailing in inclement weather, we don't know whether he did anything wrong or not. However, I've worked with ISM codes for well over 20 years, at various companies, and I don't believe, based on my experience with various ISM codes, that he did anything wrong. The ISM code is designed for just this kind of situation. It sets out procedures and policies for virtually every aspect of a shipping company's operations, and requires that best industry standards are met in all cases, or exceeded. If the Captain knew he was doing something in violation of the ISM to "be a hero", he would also know that violating the ISM code is grounds for dismissal. Conversely, the ISM code protects the mariner by outlining the proper procedures to accomplish things, to preclude "blow back" from the home office. Honestly, if he had violated the ISM code, the Staff Captain would have been placed in command, and the Captain removed even before the ship reaches NJ. That is one reason there are two Captains onboard.