Viking Sky position, adrift off Norway Coast and evacuating Passengers & Crew

[PelicanBill]

Thanks so much to @chengkp75 for the terrific experienced analysis.  Sure seems to align perfectly with the facts and there aren't many other scenarios that make sense since they were able to restart the engines over time.  The biggest thing that amazes me is that the captain chose to sail so close to the shore in those conditions - as soon as we saw the track of the ship drifting toward shore and then escaping it became clear how close they came to a Concordia level disaster - and likely worse.

 

Thanks also to @buchhalm for finding the video of the raft deployment - I had never see the chute you must jump through to get in... that's terrifying.  Further gives some real thought to an abandon ship in those weather conditions!

[lackcreativity]

1 hour ago, Aussie Cruise Nuts said:

 

Finally, some well reasoned, experienced, balanced commentary enters this long thread on page 37, nothwithstanding the fine efforts of Heidi13, Seadog and a few other posters.    Thanks Chengkp37, Heidi13 and Seadog et al for your valuable contributions.   So nice to have your thoughts gained over many long years in the industry, unlike the many keyboard warriors who sit on their PC, laptop, iPad etc espousing their theories, conspiracies and occasional vitriol gained from their “experience” of their many (or few) cruises as passengers.  

 

Thanks guys,    Much appreciated and keep up the good work.   I know the majority of CC readers appreciate your input. 

 

 

Aussie Cruise Nuts,

 Indeed, this reader greatly appreciates the valuable contributions of the posters you mentioned, as well as your recognition of them. The wild speculation on the part of a few posters here has been a source of real frustration for me. Your comments have helped to ease that.

[philsuarez]

ChengKP - thanks for thoughts.UK press now saying Norwegians have launched investigation as to why she  sailed into storm. What are your thoughts on this?

Edited March 25, 2019 by philsuarez

[jagsfan]

1 hour ago, gatour said:

jagsfan in your defense in the early reports it was unclear if there were 1300 passengers onboard or 1300 souls on-board.  Many times when incidents happen they report the number of passengers, in this case it was 1300 souls.

 

I was also initially confused.

Thanks. 

I believed the 930 number, I was just saying I had thought I read 1300. Meaning I knew I was mistaken. 

I was 10 or so  pages behind when I started, and stayed up late and got up early to keep reading. 

It does remind me of the Miracle on the Hudson, where the crew kept a disaster from becoming a tragedy. 

So glad to read the Voice of Reason, AKA Chengkp, giving us the nuts and bolts instead of conjecture. The seasoned sailors like Heidi also kept it real. 

Seeing Sky tied up in Molde was such a relief!

[CCWineLover]

16 minutes ago, lackcreativity said:

Aussie Cruise Nuts,

 Indeed, this reader greatly appreciates the valuable contributions of the posters you mentioned, as well as your recognition of them. The wild speculation on the part of a few posters here has been a source of real frustration for me. Your comments have helped to ease that.

Much appreciated comment, Aussie Cruise Nuts.  Totally agree with you!

And so many thanks to those with valuable contributions that shed non-speculative, not-conspiracy light on things - I so appreciate the posts of Chengkp37, Heidi13 and Seadog.   We certainly value your input!

[Hanoj]

Accident Investigation Board Norway to investigate the incident: https://www.aibn.no/Marine/Undersokelser/19-262

 

This agency investigates train, marine, aviation, and motor transportation incidents. Is this an additional investigatory agency?

[Hanoj]

Here's an ABC News article. Ship may be in Molde awhile. Although UK and US agencies may not have authority, I expect they will need to be satisfied with the conduct of the investigations.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/officials-investigate-why-stranded-norway-cruise-ship-set-sail-n986876

[kathy49]

14 minutes ago, philsuarez said:

ChengKP - thanks for thoughts.UK press now saying Norwegians have launched investigation as to why she  sailed into storm. What are your thoughts on this?

would be interested in that report...lots of technical analysis here but not by the officials...clearly sailing into the storm was a big mistake...the question is what were their reports and information they relied on...did this captain have any experience in these waters?  I think this is the first season they have done this itinerary ...lots more info to come out...unfortunately it all takes time and until then speculation not facts. Goal is always passenger comfort (just like pilots try to go around weather in the air ...does not always work) and an extra day at previous port would have been better ...but it is hindsite.  Time will tell.  Here in US we hear nothing on the news but Trump and therefore info is limited...I expect some of the US passengers to enroute today or tomorrow. Probably not going to say much.

 

[agathasmum]

10 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

I was one of the Deck Cadets from January to April 1976, completing the whole Meddy season. If you cruised on her at that time, I was one of the cadets that played sports with the kids during the day and ran the evening disco.

Yes I was! Small world!

 

We cruised in December, Naples to Brindisi. 4 days from Naples to Alexandria. Small ship. Rough seas. I was so seasick! We also visited Cyprus, Santorini and Athens.

 

That cruise changed my life, and kicked off my lifelong love of travelling 🙂

 

Apologies for being off topic on this board.

[lextrvlr]

As one who has followed this thread, from post to post, I would now like to say;

1. many thanks to chengkp 75 for the reasonable insight and education.

2. kudos to the Sky's captain and his crew.

3. accolades to the Norwegians for their search and rescue expertise and their exemplary hospitality and kindness to the passengers.

   For those litigious posters who sought to lay blame, I regret that Americans tend to say to hell with the facts and the truth, just sue.

    

[Hanoj]

4 minutes ago, lextrvlr said:

As one who has followed this thread, from post to post, I would now like to say;

1. many thanks to chengkp 75 for the reasonable insight and education.

2. kudos to the Sky's captain and his crew.

3. accolades to the Norwegians for their search and rescue expertise and their exemplary hospitality and kindness to the passengers.

   For those litigious posters who sought to lay blame, I regret that Americans tend to say to hell with the facts and the truth, just sue.

    

Seems premature to reach any conclusion. UK and US agencies to participate in AIBN's investigation per announcement on AIBN website posted today.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Hanoj
typo

[BrianI]

38 minutes ago, jagsfan said:

Thanks. 

I believed the 930 number, I was just saying I had thought I read 1300. Meaning I knew I was mistaken. 

 

Just to clarify, the number of guests stated on the Viking website is 930.

https://www.vikingcruises.co.uk/oceans/ships/viking-sky.html

The actual number is probably less as there will be some cabins with single occupancy.

The 1300 figure includes the crew.

Brian

 

 

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, buchhalm said:

Surely THIS is not part of any regular drill. Imagine the cost...

The inflation of the Marine Evacuation System is not included in regular drills. The costs to get deployed systems out of the water, dried and serviced is considerably higher than a regular annual service.

 

The frequency of testing/deployment is determined by the flag state, but is normally 1 system upon installation. In addition to conducting a deployment, on a new ship, Transport Canada required us to complete a timed evacuation trial. Therefore, we enlisted 430 volunteers, deployed a system, had everyone go down and towed the rafts 100 yds from the ship in less than 30 mins. Transport Canada has also required numerous cruise ships in Vancouver Harbour to conduct MES deployments. Although my shipyard/service station was unable to service cruise line equipment, I have assisted the local service agent on cruise ships, so have attended a number of cruise ship deployment with them and Transport Canada.

 

The system posted earlier is the Viking, a Danish manufacturer. Since we have no local service station and our fleet had none of their equipment, I have only seen their system once and that was during a factory visit. Mostly I have deployed systems from RFD, a Northern Ireland company that manufactures the Marin-Ark System. It is a vertical double tube system consisting originally of internal cones and now is a continuous internal slide. It is distinctive by the 4 huge log cabin style rafts. Third system is manufactured by Liferaft Systems Australia and is manufactured in Tasmania. It is a huge inflated slide very similar to aircraft slides. On descent you go directly into the raft. Not sure if this is used on any cruise ships, mostly ferries.

 

We were also required to deploy 1 of 4 systems on each ship every year. I attended every deployment in our fleet. Actual deployments with CO2/Nitrogen reduce the fabric life, so non-deployed systems are inflated ashore annually with compressed air. After testing and inspection they are deflated and repacked, then re-installed in rotation.

[jagsfan]

7 minutes ago, BrianI said:

Just to clarify, the number of guests stated on the Viking website is 930.

https://www.vikingcruises.co.uk/oceans/ships/viking-sky.html

The actual number is probably less as there will be some cabins with single occupancy.

The 1300 figure includes the crew.

Brian

 

 

Yes, there is no doubt that is correct. 

[PelicanBill]

5 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

The inflation of the Marine Evacuation System is not included in regular drills. The costs to get deployed systems out of the water, dried and serviced is considerably higher than a regular annual service.

....

It is a huge inflated slide very similar to aircraft slides. On descent you go directly into the raft. Not sure if this is used on any cruise ships, mostly ferries.

---

1

Thanks!  These systems are definitely used on Cruise Ships.  I walk around and look at all the lifeboat and MES stations.  As someone who posted video of a drill mentioned, the crew and any remaining passengers use these once all lifeboats have been lowered.  Early in my cruising, I added up lifeboat capacity and discovered it was well short of souls on board.  I quietly asked an officer to explain that and he showed me the MES raft deployment stations.

[buchhalm]

6 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

The inflation of the Marine Evacuation System is not included in regular drills. The costs to get deployed systems out of the water, dried and serviced is considerably higher than a regular annual service.

 

The frequency of testing/deployment is determined by the flag state, but is normally 1 system upon installation. In addition to conducting a deployment, on a new ship, Transport Canada required us to complete a timed evacuation trial. Therefore, we enlisted 430 volunteers, deployed a system, had everyone go down and towed the rafts 100 yds from the ship in less than 30 mins. Transport Canada has also required numerous cruise ships in Vancouver Harbour to conduct MES deployments. Although my shipyard/service station was unable to service cruise line equipment, I have assisted the local service agent on cruise ships, so have attended a number of cruise ship deployment with them and Transport Canada.

 

The system posted earlier is the Viking, a Danish manufacturer. Since we have no local service station and our fleet had none of their equipment, I have only seen their system once and that was during a factory visit. Mostly I have deployed systems from RFD, a Northern Ireland company that manufactures the Marin-Ark System. It is a vertical double tube system consisting originally of internal cones and now is a continuous internal slide. It is distinctive by the 4 huge log cabin style rafts. Third system is manufactured by Liferaft Systems Australia and is manufactured in Tasmania. It is a huge inflated slide very similar to aircraft slides. On descent you go directly into the raft. Not sure if this is used on any cruise ships, mostly ferries.

 

We were also required to deploy 1 of 4 systems on each ship every year. I attended every deployment in our fleet. Actual deployments with CO2/Nitrogen reduce the fabric life, so non-deployed systems are inflated ashore annually with compressed air. After testing and inspection they are deflated and repacked, then re-installed in rotation.

This makes sense.

Similar to an airline having crew members practise going down evacuation slides.

The slides are fixed in training Centers and inflated with compressed air. Life raft drills are done with already inflated mock-up rafts.

The only time anyone gets to see a REAL slide inflation is in a training video.

Or when some unfortunate flight attendants accidentally blows a slide on the ground.  Even the on-board life jackets are rarely inflated "for real" in exercises. Very two years, if you are lucky during pool exercises.

[Trumpeter]

48 minutes ago, kathy49 said:

would be interested in that report...lots of technical analysis here but not by the officials...clearly sailing into the storm was a big mistake...the question is what were their reports and information they relied on...did this captain have any experience in these waters?  I think this is the first season they have done this itinerary ...lots more info to come out...unfortunately it all takes time and until then speculation not facts. Goal is always passenger comfort (just like pilots try to go around weather in the air ...does not always work) and an extra day at previous port would have been better ...but it is hindsite.  Time will tell.  Here in US we hear nothing on the news but Trump and therefore info is limited...I expect some of the US passengers to enroute today or tomorrow. Probably not going to say much.

 

 

 

I’ve seen the clips and video, and read the reports of the sea conditions. I don’t think this storm was of a level to cause danger to a cruise ship under power. I’ve been on several cruises, both in the Atlantic and the Baltics, where we had heavier seas than they mention in the report on this incident. While there was minor seasickness among passengers and crew, the ships both handled the seas with ease. The Captain did decide to skip ports where approach/docking was deemed unsafe due to the weather.

 

The problem is when the ship loses power. Without the stability of the hull moving through the seas, and possible use of stabilizers (also useless without power), the passengers and crew are in for a really bad time. If the ship is close to land, as is the case here, then there’s an immediate risk of a catastrophy if the ship gets blown into the shore. The Viking Captain here made a good choice to drop his anchor and keep the ship in place. Once they had restored power, the ship can stabilize itself again and sail to a port. Not to say that ships don’t need to avoid serious weather, they should and do. But the weather, from the reports, was not serious enough to make the Viking ship unsafe... until it lost power. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Trumpeter

[kathy49]

1 minute ago, Trumpeter said:

 

 

I’ve seen the clips and video, and read the reports of the sea conditions. I don’t think this storm was of a level to cause danger to a cruise ship under power. I’ve been on several cruises, both in the Atlantic and the Baltics, where we had heavier seas than they mention in the repor on this incident. While there was minor seasickness among passengers and crew, the ships both handled the seas with ease. The Captain did decide to skip ports where approach/docking was deemed unsafe due to the weather.

 

The problem is when the ship loses power. Without the stability of the hull moving through the seas, and possible use of stabilitzers (also useless without power), the passengers and crew are in for a really bad time. If the ship is close to land, as is the case here, then there’s an immediate risk of a catastrophy if the ship gets blown into the shore. The Viking Captain here made a good choice to drop his anchor and keep the ship in place. Once they had restored power, the ship can stabilize itself again and sail to a port. Not to say that ships don’t need to avoid serious weather, they should and do. But the weather, from the reports, was not serious enough to make the Viking ship unsafe... until it lost power. 

yes that may well be...anyone sailing that area at this time of the year knows the risks. This was a group of experienced travelers. No question the power issue  was important. 

[Pratique]

44 minutes ago, lextrvlr said:

For those litigious posters who sought to lay blame, I regret that Americans tend to say to hell with the facts and the truth, just sue.

 

I realize that talk of litigation evokes a visceral response by some, but keep in mind that litigation isn’t necessarily an accusation of wrongdoing. Sometimes it’s needed to establish liability for insurance purposes especially when the underlying facts are unclear or in dispute. Hopefully the official government investigation reveals enough information to resolve any issues not directly addressed by the parties involved but let’s wait and let the process play out.

[suspaul]

To those who were/are on the Sky or had family aboard, thank you for posts.  I’m glad everyone is safe but sorry for those injured, I hope they’re receiving excellent medical care.

 

For those with nautical knowledge, thank you for your explanations regarding what could have been the problem.

 

As to all of the speculating and making asssumptions, I find it very distressing that so many ‘appear’ to have the correct answers or know exactly what happened.  We weren’t there, we DO NOT know, all we can base it on is what we saw or read via the media, and we all know how reliable that is.  Remember, they’re #1 objective is to sell advertising,  if it’s not the lead story they lose.

 

While this was a very unfortunate situation I feel Viking did all within their power to handle this, and apparently, with the help of the Norwegian rescue system many tragedies were averted.  There are challenges ahead for the passengers, I can’t imagjne the terror they must have felt but for the most part they’re safe and hopefully homeward bound.

 

We’ve traveled with Viking on 10 river cruises and 3 ocean cruises, two last year were on the Sky.  We had to miss a port on each ocean cruise but these changes were made by the Captain due to weather conditions,  we appreciated his expertise and concern, again, it shows that Viking cares about the safety of their passengers and crew.

 

Kudos to the Viking Sky Captain and crew, we’re proud of you.

 

This is only my opinion but I felt I had to add my positive feelings after so much negativity.

[steamboats]

Thanks, @chengkp75! I had in mind the accident of the MSC Armonia last year in Roatan when she hit the pier. For a sudden stop they´ve dropped both anchors.

 

steamboats

[Tom47]

14 hours ago, Clay Clayton said:

Sorry you took it as hostility, I promise it wasn’t meant that way. I just don’t know of any cruiseline (or airline, Trainline, etc) that hasn’t had engine issues at some point. 

In retrospect, I overreacted.  But, the Viking Sky is only 2 years old and complete engine failure should not have happened.  That, plus other incidents, cited by myself and other posters, leads me to conclude that Viking problems are above the norm.  Published reports put pax count at 930, with 1300 people aboard--370 crew.  Azamara has 680 pax and 400 crew.  I conclude that Azamara dedicates more people to maintenance than Viking.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Pratique said:

I am curious why the engine is not on a torque limiter that would delay or prevent the overspeed condition from occurring.

The engine or the propulsion motor?  The variable frequency drive that regulates the speed of the propulsion motor does have torque and power limiters, but this kind of loading and unloading of the propeller is so quick that most systems cannot react quickly enough.  The electronics in the frequency drive may be able to sense and react to rapid changes in load, but remember that the propulsion motor, shaft, and propeller weigh around 60 tons, so it has a lot of momentum and will not respond to the instantaneous changes from the electronics, so you have to dampen the electronic's response.  The engine/generator set is somewhat similar, but also different.  The engine does not have a torque limiter, but the generator has current limiters (essentially a power limiter).  Again, because electrical systems can demand and drop load much faster than mechanical systems, as the propeller digs in or rises, the propulsion motor will demand more or less power to keep the set speed, and this demand is placed on the generators almost instantaneously, and it takes the diesel engine some reaction time to move the fuel rack to increase the fuel to the engine to produce more power, and then for that fuel to produce the power in a rotating machine.  These load fluctuations, in relation to the generator's capacity, are what varies the frequency of the power on ships, and why plug in alarm clocks always gain or lose time.  In a heavy seaway, with load to the propellers increasing and decreasing about 10-20% of the generator's capacity, there will be noticeable changes in diesel engine speed, and power frequency as a result.  When you get a massive sea slamming the ship, that power fluctuation can be in the 40-50% range, and the electrical/mechanical interface just can't keep up.  Again, think of a land power grid.  A transformer blows and causes a short circuit, which draws more power than the closest power plant can provide, so it trips off on overcurrent.  Then the load that plant was generating is dumped immediately on the other plants on the grid, and depending on how extensive the power line matrix, they will start to trip out on overcurrent, until the short burns itself out.

[Pratique]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The engine or the propulsion motor?

I was curious about the engine. I understand what you are saying about the VFD and the load on the electrical system. I guess I'm still not clear on why the diesel engine isn't protected from a shutdown by the circuit breakers. Sorry if I'm missing something you've already explained.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, Hanoj said:

Kind of like the opposite of winning a lottery jackpot.

 

Have you, or others, considered the ship's proximity to shore in this incident? Based upon these explanations, it seems the proximity to the rocky shore and underwater rocks is what necessitated the distress signal and evacuation. Had the the Sky been further out to sea it may not have been necessary to evacuate?

 

2 hours ago, PelicanBill said:

 The biggest thing that amazes me is that the captain chose to sail so close to the shore in those conditions - as soon as we saw the track of the ship drifting toward shore and then escaping it became clear how close they came to a Concordia level disaster - and likely worse.

 

Well, I will leave it to our former Captains Heidi13 and SeaDog 42 for actual experience with this, but this is pretty much the "shipping lane" in the area, and where the Gulf Stream, having crossed the Atlantic will sweep down the Norwegian coast to give the ships a boost in speed.  Everyone keeps going on about the storm, but I haven't seen anything that says this was a storm out of normal proportions, or that other ships (other than the one freighter) had any difficulties in the area.  Surely the fact that much smaller offshore supply and salvage tugs got to the Sky in the same weather indicates to me that the weather, per se, was not that intense.  I also haven't tracked how close offshore she was before losing power, but to blame it on sailing too close to shore is somewhat like me saying I'll avoid half the roads in town because there might be black ice, or that my truck might break down while on that black ice.

 

But, yes, the proximity to the shore was a major factor in deciding to evacuate the passengers, but also the fact that the ship was broadside to the seas and rolling heavily, which if the passengers stayed onboard and the engines could not be started soon, may have resulted in more injuries.