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

[richsea]

17 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I spent 18K on a Viking Cruise.  Worst Cruising experience of my cruising life.

So THAT explains the tone of your posts. 

[jakkojakko]

3 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

This surprises me that there is not greater redundancy of power supply for these devices, especially since it would seem one of there primary purposes is to sort our what went wrong in a "serious marine incident," or worse.

It's got nothing to do with power supply or redundency there of. It is the multitude of alarms comming in at the same time and the difficulty in determening what came first.

[Pratique]

1 minute ago, jakkojakko said:

It's got nothing to do with power supply or redundency there of. It is the multitude of alarms comming in at the same time and the difficulty in determening what came first.

I suppose many of these are false alarms caused by the power loss and not by the actual problem indicated by the alarm. Like "low oil pressure" when the problem is only that the oil pressure sensor lost power, or something like that. So it's not just figuring out the sequence but also the veracity.

[azdrydock]

12 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

A lot depends on how many engines there are.  Some ships have 4, some 5, and some 6.  With one engine, you could provide some propulsion, but you would have to limit hotel services, mainly the large consumers like AC.  One engine will provide hotel power, and may have some left over for propulsion, based on if there are 4 large engines or 6 smaller engines.  After that first engine/generator, everything else is for propulsion.  I have commented in the past that it is common for a cruise ship to sail with one engine torn apart for overhaul, and these overhauls can take up to 4 weeks to finish, but itineraries are set in advance with the knowledge that the ship cannot make full speed.

 

The Safe Return to Port has to do with segregation in case of casualty like fire or flooding of an engine room, as in the Carnival Splendor/Triumph fires, where fire in one engine room damaged the electrical cables from the other engine room making that engine room unusable as well.  Not sure what you mean by "taking weather into account", but any ship with half of her propulsion power (as if you had only one of two propellers running) can make it back to port.  There is no requirement as to what port you get to, or how long it takes to get there, because weather is pushing you backwards at 1 or 2 knots even with half propulsion going, but the design says that if you take a casualty to an engineering space, you won't lose all power generation, or all propulsion.

Thanks

Prinsendam had one engine out for maintenance, doing close ports in northern Europe and starting a transatlantic from Lisbon in a few weeks. Looks like it was well planned. Since I didn't know if there were any time or distance requirements to port I was wondering if the weather was factored into a minimum time to port requirement  but the requirement doesn't exist. 

Great to have someone with experience and knowledge  explaining things

[chengkp75]

11 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

This surprises me that there is not greater redundancy of power supply for these devices, especially since it would seem one of there primary purposes is to sort our what went wrong in a "serious marine incident," or worse.

 

6 minutes ago, jakkojakko said:

It's got nothing to do with power supply or redundency there of. It is the multitude of alarms comming in at the same time and the difficulty in determening what came first.

 

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

I suppose many of these are false alarms caused by the power loss and not by the actual problem indicated by the alarm. Like "low oil pressure" when the problem is only that the oil pressure sensor lost power, or something like that. So it's not just figuring out the sequence but also the veracity.

The automation systems have a power feed from the normal AC power system, and also from a battery backup system charged by the emergency generator, and further will have a UPS backup power supply to keep it running when both other feeds fail.

 

As noted, it is not that there is no backup or power failure, it is a fact common with all data multiplexing systems, the data is collected at various signal processors, and then the central system goes around and "polls" all those data points, asking "what is your status" or "what is your reading", and it all comes back to the central processor every second, but any status changes or alarms that happen during that second will not be determined in any order, just as the system processes it.  And, as Pratique says, you will get reams of alarms that show the "symptoms" but not the "cause", like a "low fuel oil pressure" to an engine, but what actually caused that low fuel pressure was nothing to do with the engine, but with loss of power to to the fuel oil pump motor, causing it to stop and cease producing pressure.  The sensors will always have power, but disregarding "consequence" alarms from "causitive" alarms requires some study and analysis.  Just like an airplane's black box requires "study" during any accident investigation, this is the same type of "study" to determine timeline and causation.

[philw1776]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

There are really two possibilities in my opinion.  Either a random failure of a generator caused a "waterfall" shutdown of the entire system, or weather caused the waterfall shutdown.  Yes, the ships are designed to weather far worse than what the Sky encountered, but there is always the random element to weather, just like there is a random element in any situation in life.  

<EDITED for conciseness of my response>

Until I get a confirmation that an engine failure started the whole situation, I will lean towards a random sea causing an overspeed of the propellers, leading to the total loss of power.  Could a sister ship, with the same propulsion and power generating plant, sailing a half mile away at the same time have sailed through this storm without incident?  You bet.  I am of the opinion that this was an act of the randomness of the universe.

I'm an electrical engineer and also knowledgeable of things astronomical.

First, the possibility of a solar CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) powerful enough to knock out ships electronics IS possible in physics but such CMEs except for rare ones (For Extreme Example, Google: Carrington Event 1859) would have been detected and reported and would have big time effects felt elsewhere.  No such CME occurred.  They are monitored by solar physicists (astronomers).  No danger from "normal" Northern lights events.

No sailing expert at all but been to sea enough in small boats to appreciate above normal waves in wave sequences and have a healthy fear of them.  Randomness of the sea conditions could well have caused (back to electrical engineer again) the overspeed and waterfall consequence shutdown scenario you hypothesize.  As someone who made a living designing fault tolerant redundant systems, I'm eager to learn the outcome of the incident investigation and GUESS that maybe some better design improvements may emerge addressing overloads and response.

[Pratique]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The sensors will always have power, but disregarding "consequence" alarms from "causitive" alarms requires some study and analysis.

It's interesting to hear that's how marine systems work, very similar to the factory automation controls I used to program. Usually we could figure out what happened because there is a corresponding alarm such as "pump failed to run" along with the "low pressure" alarm, which told us that the reason for the loss of pressure was that the pump stopped. Admittedly the troubleshooting part was interesting work sometimes, even when the reason for it wasn't much fun.

[orvil]

I'm glad that ChengKG75 is here to not only explain potential scenarios, but also to pop the balloon on some of the more wild speculation.  

 

At first, I had read that the ship was encountering a bombogenesis weather phenomena.  It turns out that the weather conditions do not appear to have been particularly nasty.  Just sort of nasty.  They were definitely within the reasonable range of the ship's capabilities.

 

While weather was one of the contributors to the event, what made it spectacular and potentially dangerous was the wind blowing a large sail (The Sky) into a lee shore and the ability film it.  But for the proximity of the shore, this would have been a minor event and soon forgotten once all the generators were back on line and the ship on it's way.

 

I'd like to thank ChengKG75 unintentionally explaining to me what I had encountered on Cunard's Queen Victoria a few years ago.  We encounter a winter hurricane crossing the Atlantic off of Ponte Delgado.  We made best possible speed and skirted the worst of the weather, but kept getting hull slapped pretty hard by the following swells.  These were enormous, random booms on the hull.  This now makes more sense as to why this would happen.  As a personal note ChengeKG75, I spent four days wishing I was on the QM2 instead of the QV.  I know she would have handled beautifully in these conditions.

 

Having sweated anchorage in sailboats, I was very impressed that the Sky was able to successfully drop that anchor and find a spot to hold it.  That was pretty impressive and a little lucky.

 

The world of aviation has a lot of similarities to the world of maritime.  The loss of generators and propulsion is generally more quickly disastrous than in the maritime world.  But, both are unforgiving if not handled properly.  I can assure everyone that these crews spend a lot of time honing the skills necessary to keep everyone safe.  It's good to see when all of the precautions and practice work the way they are supposed to work.

 

 

[zitsky]

I don't remember the details but there was an issue with a cruise ship about 6 months ago.  At the time, the people on board pleaded, begged to have a thread for only people on the cruise, families etc.  Someone created a general discussion in a separate thread.

 

Maybe we need something similiar for situations like this.  A thread limited to "approved" posters and another thread for general discussion.

[SLSD]

Zitsky, it should be enough to just ask that only those onboard post.  

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, orvil said:

 

I'd like to thank ChengKG75 unintentionally explaining to me what I had encountered on Cunard's Queen Victoria a few years ago.  We encounter a winter hurricane crossing the Atlantic off of Ponte Delgado.  We made best possible speed and skirted the worst of the weather, but kept getting hull slapped pretty hard by the following swells.  These were enormous, random booms on the hull.  This now makes more sense as to why this would happen.  As a personal note ChengeKG75, I spent four days wishing I was on the QM2 instead of the QV.  I know she would have handled beautifully in these conditions.

 

Actually, the QM2 has some serious problems with following seas.  They were so severe during sea trials, that the ship had to return to drydock to have a "skeg" or false keel installed forward of the azipods to lessen the heading instability the ship experienced in following seas.  Her wide, flat hull above the 4 azipods led to following seas throwing the stern back and forth side to side, and the azipods would swing to attempt to correct the ship's heading and would exacerbate the swing.

 

And, any ship, even the QM2, if not operated at the proper speed for those exact weather conditions at that exact time will experience seas slapping into the hull.  Also, the typically flat transoms of cruise ships don't provide any reserve buoyancy above the waterline, so the sterns tend to not rise with a sea as well as the bow does, and this leads to slapping.

[Hanoj]

7 minutes ago, SLSD said:

Zitsky, it should be enough to just ask that only those onboard post.  

Are passengers still on board?

[jiminyC_fan]

chengkp75, just a simple thank you for taking time to address all the questions and putting a stop to many of the uninformed speculation.  Your time and expertise is much appreciated. 

 

 

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

One of the big differences between USCG inspections of US flag ships and international regulations.  Simply because the violent inflation of the raft by the CO2 cartridge stresses the raft fabric, USCG requires that the rafts be inflated by the supplied inflation device and not slowly by compressed air.  This, of course, increases the cost of USCG certified inspections and the cost to replace rafts more often.

Hi Cheng - This is definitely a concern/issue, especially with the older glued Butyl rafts, which received the shock load, plus the fabric deteriorated when subjected to CO2, becoming porous much faster. The newer electric welded fabrics are less susceptible to the CO2, but still don't do well with the annual shock load. Have had this discussion with a number of newer TC Inspectors regarding why we don't do annual inflations, and my response was always, why would we knowingly damage the integrity of the lifesaving appliance on an annual basis, when SOLAS only requires ev 5 years. The annual CO2 also provides an minimal increase in safety, as it really only tests the CO2 release system.

 

Fortunately, our Lifesaving Appliance Regs remained in agreement with SOLAS & OEM, as we only required a CO2/Nitro inflation every 5 years, hence with proper servicing we were getting 30+ years from a 25 D/L, where most commercial service stations fail them after about 15 yrs, with very few reaching 20 yrs. During CO2 inflations we required TC Inspectors to witness the inflation and verify it inflated within the correct time. All other years, when inflating with air, only the technicians were present

 

TC got fairly strict with the MES, as just after I purchased Marin-Arks, but before doing the first install, they had a fatality during a deployment in Dover. Prior to Marin Arks, we also had numerous TC regulatory issues when installing a local MES system on another ship, so TC was a little on edge.

 

 

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, BearsAhoy said:

 

 

Did you work on BC Ferries? A few days ago, we were on a Spirit Class ferry, and one of my kids pointed out that the canister rafts were from Australia. Presumably the manufacturer you mentioned?

Affirmative, the SOBC received a major refit last year and the original DBC system was removed and replaced with the Liferaft System of Australia system. This is currently the most common evacuation system on BC Ferries.

[NTurner]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Just because Azamara has a higher crew to passenger ratio is meaningless in regards to maintenance.  How large is the engineering department on each ship?  That is the only real measure of how many people are dedicated to maintenance.  Cabin stewards, wait staff, bartenders, laundry and dishwashers to no maintenance on the ship.  And regardless of whether the ship is owned by Viking or Azamara, the maintenance plan will be almost identical, since it is required to follow the equipment manufacturer's (not the cruise line's) recommended maintenance schedule, and if the ship is found to not have followed the maintenance plan, the class society will issue a "condition of class" (kind of like points on your driver's license, but with a stipulation on when repairs or maintenance needs to be made up).

Well stated chengkp75! 

Let me also say that all your comments are very educational and greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to educate and enlighten us.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, buchhalm said:

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.

Not sure of any changes since I retired, but all our crew were required to actually have descended an MES system during initial training. After initial training, refresher training is provided by training films and the crew working during an annual deployment have the option of descending again.

[Pratique]

34 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

Are passengers still on board?

There was just a press conference. Matt Grimes says most guests have departed and the rest will depart tomorrow morning.

 

Viking expects the ship to return to service in early April.

 

"One anchor was let go" the other is still chained to the ship, they will both be replaced.

 

Five guests still in the hospital, all are expected to be discharged in the next few days.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Pratique

[RealNorwegianCruiser]

The main stockholder/owner of Viking - Mr. Torstein Hagen, gets A LOT of critism in Norway today. He is Norwegian, living in Switzerland, worth 3 000 000 000 US dollars, points out that he is pround of beeing Norwegian, praises the Norwegian spirit.....and taxed the whole amount of 60 000 NOK last year (7000 US dollars)..

 

... One of the members of the resuce team was 12 (!!) hours straight in air with one of the rescue helicopters. At most 4 helis was hovering over the ship..

 

Im REALLY curious if he or Viking will make a small donation to The Norwegian Society for Sea Rescue after this.. 

 

7000 US dollars.. Pff.. 

 

Welcome to Norway!

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by RealNorwegianCruiser

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, PelicanBill said:

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.

Not sure of SOLAS changes since I retired. A passenger v/l (>12 pax) on International voyages, required either:

 - Lifeboats, 50% capacity (pax+crew) on each side of the vessel, OR

 - Lifeboats, 37.5% capacity + Liferafts, 12.5% capacity on each side of the vessel

 

PLUS the vessel must have additional liferafts for 25% capacity..

 

Personally, while I have no desire to use a davit launched liferaft, I prefer the large capacity MES rafts over a lifeboat. They provide greater space per person. So yes, when you add the capacity of the lifeboats, it may be less than the total compliment.

[orvil]

Letting go an anchor is going to be expensive.  The lines alone are expensive.  

 

Still, it was a good show of seamanship to get that anchor to take a bite and hold in those seas.

[Cienfuegos]

There's been extensive coverage of the rescue on TV news in south Florida.  Passengers were nearly unanimous in their praise for the crew, and for the information flow from the bridge. The staff did a great job informing passengers what was happening, and the short term plan.

 

Several were enthralled with the adventure.  Surviving, with a great story to tell.  One woman described being winched up with a jolt, and tossed to the back of the heli like a sack of potatoes. She seemed delighted.

[Pratique]

The press conference this evening was mostly in Norwegian, but Matt Grimes spoke in English. He said the new anchors have already been ordered and will be ready in a few days. They will move the ship elsewhere for repairs, but didn't say where. He said most of the damage was to furnishings, but he had not yet been on the ship to inspect it. He mentioned 10 days for repairs but twice said "early April" for the next cruise. He said that the crew was in good spirits and that they were assisting the guests in repatriation. A reporter asked about assisting guests who have experienced trauma from their experience, the answer was not definitive. For the remaining questions he said they'll have to wait for the investigation to conclude to make any further statements.

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, PelicanBill said:

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.

 

14 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Not sure of SOLAS changes since I retired. A passenger v/l (>12 pax) on International voyages, required either:

 - Lifeboats, 50% capacity (pax+crew) on each side of the vessel, OR

 - Lifeboats, 37.5% capacity + Liferafts, 12.5% capacity on each side of the vessel

 

PLUS the vessel must have additional liferafts for 25% capacity..

 

Personally, while I have no desire to use a davit launched liferaft, I prefer the large capacity MES rafts over a lifeboat. They provide greater space per person. So yes, when you add the capacity of the lifeboats, it may be less than the total compliment.

SOLAS requires lifeboats on passenger vessels on international voyages equal to 75% of all souls onboard.  It also requires total lifesaving equipment (boats, rafts, MES) equal to 125% of all souls onboard.  Typically, the 75% number equals the maximum passenger capacity minus the crew members assigned to the boats.  As stated before, MES systems can be used for passengers, as they will be able to evacuate a minimum of 300 people (or the maximum capacity of the rafts) in 30 minutes, unlike davit launched rafts which are markedly slower.  As stated above, there must be 50% (in a combination of boats and inflatables) on each side.

 

While a MES raft may provide more space per person, I've actually rode a liferaft in a seaway, about 6 miles offshore Halifax while taking survival training as mandated by Canadian Board of Trade, and had to sit in 6 foot seas for 4 hours, and that was the only time in my career that I've been physically sea sick.  It is like being on a trampoline with a dancing elephant.  Boats are not pleasant either, but the motion is better, IMHO.

[Pratique]

For what it's worth, a professor at Norwegian University of Science and Technology is criticizing the decision to sail into the storm considering that it would not be possible to use the lifeboats in those sea conditions. For their part, authorities are saying that there was "nothing to suggest that the ship could not cross Hustadvika because of the storm, and that the captain's decision was in line with the advice he received from the two lodges on board."

 

https://www.nrk.no/norge/mener-skipsledelsen-gamblet_-_-skandalost-1.14489618