Anthem Passenger Files Lawsuit

[CruiserCindy]

Very interesting and informative article.

[Keith1010]

Thanks for sharing this.

Keith

[GUT2407]

This one may have some merit.

[Biker19]

Yes, my belief is that if THAT scumbag won't touch a case, it is even worse than it sounds! :eek:

No, really, Carol, please tell us how you feel about Walker?:D

[read52]

Read this as an antidote to that nausea-inducing article:

 

 

Mid-lakes Navigation captain recounts Royal Caribbean's Anthem of the Seas stormy cruise

 

Best review that I have read about the event.

[Clarea]

Yes, my belief is that if THAT scumbag won't touch a case, it is even worse than it sounds! :eek:

My thought exactly.

[chengkp75]

Hey Chief, quick Q for you. Are the bow thrusters of ANY use in open water or do they need some sort of resistive measure to push off of like a pier? Would they have been used to aid in steering since all ship steering is technically done from the aft (hence things like bows getting buffeted around). Anyone that has operated a boat will understand what I am asking. I think. Probably [emoji106]

 

No, the thrusters don't need anything to push against, just like the main propellers. Newton's first law, equal and opposite actions. Push water in one direction, ship goes the other. However, tunnel thrusters have a very serious limitation. Any water flow past the end of the tunnel (whether caused by the ship moving in the fore/aft direction through the water, or the water moving by current or waves along the hull) reduces the efficiency of the thruster. At about 2-3 knots, you lose about 85% of the thrust of the thruster propeller due to cavitation (the propeller cannot overcome the low pressure zone caused by the water flow past the end of the tunnel, so it cannot push any water to move the ship). Thrusters are designed for docking, when the ship is motionless in the water.

[Clarea]

No, the thrusters don't need anything to push against, just like the main propellers. Newton's first law, equal and opposite actions. Push water in one direction, ship goes the other. However, tunnel thrusters have a very serious limitation. Any water flow past the end of the tunnel (whether caused by the ship moving in the fore/aft direction through the water, or the water moving by current or waves along the hull) reduces the efficiency of the thruster. At about 2-3 knots, you lose about 85% of the thrust of the thruster propeller due to cavitation (the propeller cannot overcome the low pressure zone caused by the water flow past the end of the tunnel, so it cannot push any water to move the ship). Thrusters are designed for docking, when the ship is motionless in the water.

You've mentioned how difficult it must have been for the helmsman to keep Anthem pointed into the wind. Could they have used bow thrusters in that situation?

[BillB48]

Hey Chief, quick Q for you. Are the bow thrusters of ANY use in open water or do they need some sort of resistive measure to push off of like a pier? Would they have been used to aid in steering since all ship steering is technically done from the aft (hence things like bows getting buffeted around). Anyone that has operated a boat will understand what I am asking. I think. Probably [emoji106]

 

Obviously not the Chief here... but do have some experience in working around bow thrusters... I would not say that there could not be ANY use in open water, it is however very limited. Has nothing to do with pushing against anything like a pier, really it is just side propulsion. What limits the use of a thruster is the speed of the ship, a thrusters effectiveness diminishes greatly above a speed of 4-5 knots until they very quickly become ineffective. This would also be the case even if the ship is not traveling 5 knots as in speed over ground, but had an apparent speed of 4-5 knots... in other words water movement past the ship caused by current.

 

Most thruster use of course is used at slow speeds in tight quarters enabling tight turns, turning ship within or close to its length and of course getting off the dock.

 

Hopefully the Chief will see this and add to it:).

 

edit: I see he already has!

Edited February 25, 2016 by BillB48

[chengkp75]

I'm more interested in what a doctor has to say. This forum is way too fast to label any and all individuals as liars and dismiss any blame from the cruise line. All the subforums. NCL forum is particularly nasty.

 

I'm just saying that if this was you, a relative, or a friend, you would want them to have the ability to seek legal remedy.

 

So I find this interesting and will wait to see if we ever hear more about the case. I'm just not going to be so fast to write the plaintiff off.

 

I've been known to slam a few cruise lines in the past, but this one walks, talks, and smells like fraud to me. If the Captain had the crew out delivering snacks to the cabins during the storm, as has been reported, he certainly would not have barred emergency teams from operating. I would be far more interested in what a forensic specialist has to say about the physics of a reconstructed accident scene in this cabin then any doctor seen after the fact.

[chengkp75]

 

Evidently he did receive some medical treatment aboard, although he was upset that he had to wait for it. Surely Royal didn't charge him for treatment of his injuries aboard.

 

And, yes, Carol! You got it - if Jim Walker wouldn't take the case, well...what would be the reason for that? That's another reason I'm a bit skeptical.;)

Judy

 

The way I read the article, he claims he was told to wait until the storm abated before he seeking medical attention. This sounds to me like he is saying "don't call back until the storm abates", not that he received any attention afterwards. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. RCI's medical log will tell. As posted above, I don't believe for a second that the Captain would have told Medical to stand down until the storm abated. Even if he didn't want to risk the Doctor moving about the ship, he would have sent a fire team to slide a stretcher down the passageways with this guy in it to get him to Medical.

[chengkp75]

You've mentioned how difficult it must have been for the helmsman to keep Anthem pointed into the wind. Could they have used bow thrusters in that situation?

 

In fact, in light of the article by the other Captain, the Anthem had trouble keeping her heading while "running with the wind" (wind from astern), which as any sail boater knows is when steering is always shaky. In that instance, for a ship with rudders, the water flow (caused by the wind) is going the same direction as the ship, so there is reduced "apparent" flow past the rudder, and therefore less steering force by the rudder. This is why rudders don't work when a ship is docking, it is motionless, or nearly so, so no water flow past the rudder. At about the same speed that thrusters become effective (under 3 knots), rudders lose effectiveness.

 

Now, azipods are different than rudders, but with the water flowing opposite to the water flow created by the pods to push the ship, the hydrodynamics stall out, and you get low pressure areas, and thrust is reduced on the pods as well, so both propulsive power and steering effect are reduced. The ship was most likely yawing while running downwind, which was making roll mitigation most difficult, and lifting the propellers up in the water, and losing more propulsion/steering effect.

 

As I said, even when they got around and headed into the wind, and were only doing 2-3 knots over the ground, they were most likely doing 4-6 knots, minimum, through the water, so the thrusters are virtually useless.

[Clarea]

In fact, in light of the article by the other Captain, the Anthem had trouble keeping her heading while "running with the wind" (wind from astern), which as any sail boater knows is when steering is always shaky. In that instance, for a ship with rudders, the water flow (caused by the wind) is going the same direction as the ship, so there is reduced "apparent" flow past the rudder, and therefore less steering force by the rudder. This is why rudders don't work when a ship is docking, it is motionless, or nearly so, so no water flow past the rudder. At about the same speed that thrusters become effective (under 3 knots), rudders lose effectiveness.

 

Now, azipods are different than rudders, but with the water flowing opposite to the water flow created by the pods to push the ship, the hydrodynamics stall out, and you get low pressure areas, and thrust is reduced on the pods as well, so both propulsive power and steering effect are reduced. The ship was most likely yawing while running downwind, which was making roll mitigation most difficult, and lifting the propellers up in the water, and losing more propulsion/steering effect.

 

As I said, even when they got around and headed into the wind, and were only doing 2-3 knots over the ground, they were most likely doing 4-6 knots, minimum, through the water, so the thrusters are virtually useless.

Got it, thanks.

[RuthlessBoss]

I guess there's a plus to being "unconscious", he didn't know what he missed.:)

[chengkp75]

Couple of other points that stick in my craw about this statement by the lawyer. Apparently, the guy was solo, since if I was knocked unconscious, I would hope my wife would call for help, but he claims he only called when he regained consciousness, so there is no corroborating witness to the incident or to his losing consciousness.

 

Being thrown 18 feet is the equivalent of jumping off a 3rd floor roof. While that has gravity acting on the body, this incident has the momentum of a ship the size of Anthem acting against the "flying" body. This would have produced serious injury.

 

If there was serious injury, why was it not reported as such, as the USCG would have taken a look at the medical log and questioned the Captain and Doctor about injuries to start their own investigation as Port State.

 

As I say, it walks and talks like a duck, to me. This person has been told that he cannot sue for mental distress, etc., so has gone the personal injury route.

[Aquahound]

If there was serious injury, why was it not reported as such, as the USCG would have taken a look at the medical log and questioned the Captain and Doctor about injuries to start their own investigation as Port State.

 

You are right on point with that statement. Any serious injury aboard a cruise ship is reported to USCG. I've seen reports of everything from stitches to death reported. A case of unconsciousness would have certainly been reported.

[A&L_Ont]

Couple of other points that stick in my craw about this statement by the lawyer. Apparently, the guy was solo, since if I was knocked unconscious, I would hope my wife would call for help, but he claims he only called when he regained consciousness, so there is no corroborating witness to the incident or to his losing consciousness.

 

Being thrown 18 feet is the equivalent of jumping off a 3rd floor roof. While that has gravity acting on the body, this incident has the momentum of a ship the size of Anthem acting against the "flying" body. This would have produced serious injury.

 

If there was serious injury, why was it not reported as such, as the USCG would have taken a look at the medical log and questioned the Captain and Doctor about injuries to start their own investigation as Port State.

 

As I say, it walks and talks like a duck, to me. This person has been told that he cannot sue for mental distress, etc., so has gone the personal injury route.

 

And this is just another reason why I call you the chief. :)

[A&L_Ont]

You are right on point with that statement. Any serious injury aboard a cruise ship is reported to USCG. I've seen reports of everything from stitches to death reported. A case of unconsciousness would have certainly been reported.

 

Thanks for the extra back up to the chief's comments.

[champagne123]

According to ABC news, just NOW...a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT...has just been filed.

[NIATPAC29]

So are you kool-aid drinkers actually stating that no one could have gotten hurt on that ship in those conditions? Really

[Biker19]

And it starts......:rolleyes:

[papaflamingo]

I've been known to slam a few cruise lines in the past, but this one walks, talks, and smells like fraud to me. If the Captain had the crew out delivering snacks to the cabins during the storm, as has been reported, he certainly would not have barred emergency teams from operating. I would be far more interested in what a forensic specialist has to say about the physics of a reconstructed accident scene in this cabin then any doctor seen after the fact.

 

First I'd like to thank you Chengkp, for all the great insight you provide from your experiences. I am retired Coast Guard, but spent my career in aviation. So I am a bit (and I mean only a little bit) familiar with characteristics of ships. After all, I did spend 5 days at sea. :) So I really appreciate (as I know others do) your professional and knowledgable comments. Really adds reality and truth to the matters.

As for this law suit, I am skeptical as to the actual "18 foot" fall too. Seems if he fell 18 feet, it'd be about the length of a cabin that has a king size bed in it, a wall length vanity, a sofa or chair. I'm trying to picture a roll that would launch someone high enough to clear all that furniture. And I also wonder exactly what the heck he was doing standing up under these conditions.

Personally I believe this is an attempt to get a significant settlement to avoid the ridiculous cost of a trial. And likely that'll happen.

But I think the whole thing depends on the results of the investigations. If it's shown that Royal Caribbean was fully informed of the real conditions, and they sailed anyway, well... game over. But if they were told that the forecast was max winds of 50 kts, then that's a whole new ball game. I've been in 80 kt winds on Mariner, and no real problem. The forecast was for the storm to go a different direction, and it shifted and caught us. We spent the afternoon in the Pub on the Promenade drinking beer and people watching. Anyway, it'll be interesting to watch. The results of the NTSB if they are investigating will be the definitive answer. But I suspect RCCL will settle as it will be cheaper. I think the lawyer and plaintiff think the same thing.

Edited February 25, 2016 by papaflamingo

[Clarea]

According to ABC news, just NOW...a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT...has just been filed.

Lovely, so at least the lawyers will win big.

[papaflamingo]

So are you kool-aid drinkers actually stating that no one could have gotten hurt on that ship in those conditions? Really

 

Ok... I'll bite. NO ONE said that "no one could have gotten hurt." But an 18 foot flight through a cruise ship cabin? Well, sure, he could have been in one of the large suits. But another excellent point was that if he was unconscious, whey did HE have to call Medical AFTER he regained consciousness? Why didn't his cruise partner or wife call? Well, he must have been solo or his partner/wife must have been out of the cabin. Only solo makes sense under the conditions, and how many solo cruisers book large suites. Now that may be the case. But this is a "litigious country." People smell "free money" everywhere. Does this guy deserve compensation? Maybe. But his story seems... questionable? And sure, RCCL, if in the wrong AFTER the proper authorities actually FINISH their investigation, needs to be held accountable. But that investigation hasn't, to my knowledge, been completed. So, why do I care? Well, RCCL is my cruise line of choice. And if they pay millions out to settle a lawsuit that turns out might be more frivolous than real, then they pass the loss to me, the consumer. I'm tired of ridiculously high costs of lawsuits. I liked the hot coffee that McDonalds USED to serve, until some woman couldn't figure out that coffee cups aren't designed to be held between your thighs while you drive your car. Her actions cost McDonalds $2 million, and they significantly reduced the temperature of their coffee and, imho, degraded the flavor. But her actions placed others in danger. What if after the coffee spilled, she had swerved and killed pedestrian or another driver? Whose fault would THAT have been. Anyway, my point, everyone "needs" to sue someone. It's a ship. A ship sails on the ocean, hits waves, breaks down, even sometimes sinks. If it's no fault of the Captain or Cruise line (and this might have been, we'll see) then it's just "one of those things."

But on another tack, what if they had delayed sailing a day or two and it turned out the storm was what they say it was forecast to be, 50 kt winds? Then someone would file a class action suit because they missed the islands and days at sea that they originally booked. CC forum is FILLED with that complaint.

Rant over.

Edited February 25, 2016 by papaflamingo

[Brocktoon623]

Lovely, so at least the lawyers will win big.

 

Yep ... lawyers will make millions, and all passengers will get a choice of free drink coupon good for a future sailing or $10 OBC