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

[Heidi13]

13 hours ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

 

Oh...gosh....What is the purpose of this single voyage anyway?  Will it be available to the public as a brief sightseeing cruise? Or just a repositioning with only crew onboard? Think I'll pass 🙂

This is most likely the ship going to the closest shipyard that can complete repairs. No passengers will be aboard.

 

 

[Pratique]

Latest: engine shutdown was caused by a loss of lubricating oil pressure.

 

https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/skal-opplyse-om-hvorfor-viking-sky-fikk-blackout-1.14493206

 

There are also questions about whether the furnishings were secured well enough, which may be addressed in the incident report.

 

https://www.nrk.no/norge/stoler-og-bord-floy-veggimellom-pa-_viking-sky__-_-mye-som-ikke-var-sikret-godt-nok-1.14490080

Edited March 27, 2019 by Pratique

[kathy49]

13 hours ago, Vineyard View said:

Correct. You do not have the technical knowledge. Spot on 

no technical knowledge required...this is not a professionally geared forum...some like to think so...comments from an actual passenger are far more meaningful to many of us.

[Heidi13]

13 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

My only excuse is that the word "muster" and "drill" have become one word in my mind. 🙂 

 

OK. I do realize that a little more comfort for the passengers is less important then the slightest reason to keep them put at their station.

 

Leading to another question: does the Captain have a backup or is he completely on his own? Although he's the ultimate authority on the ship, he might like to have a virtual "situation room" set up in situations like these, filled with other Captains, Chief Engineers, doctors etc. to give advice? Like asking "One anchor? Both?" or even the advice "Let HD give out cookies, it will prevent panic" (I made both up, but something like that). I didn't see anything like that in the Concordia footage. 

Modern Bridge Management standards are eroding the situations where the Captain is never questioned and are introducing a more participative leadership style. However, the Captain does have the final say, after weighing up other opinions.

 

The ship should have an emergency response/control room close or adjacent to the Bridge. I am not privy to Viking's emergency response organisation, but can provide a best guess from having developed similar plans for another company. Upon engine failure, the Bridge would go to a higher level of manning, requiring the Captain on the Bridge. At this point the watch may remain with Navigator/Co-Nav, with the Captain overseeing, acquiring reports and evaluating options.

 

Down below, the Chief Engineer leads the E/R team and provides information to the Captain, regarding what happened and when available, estimates to get power restored. The Captain will then compare distance off-shore with rate of drift and will determine a response plan, with other senior officers. The Nav/Co-Nav will be providing updates on depth, drift rates, time to grounding, etc.

 

The Staff Captain would be running the emergency response room, receiving feedback from the hotel side that passengers are mustered, cabins are searched/zones cleared and most likely the communcations with SAR. The Staff Captain assumes command if the Captain is incapacitated. The area probably has controls for fire doors, watertight doors, ventilation, stability computer, communications both internal & external, etc. The Staff Captain provides feedback to the Master. This model cuts significantly reduces lower level communications to the Bridge.

 

Again, this is simply a best guess, but hopefully answers your questions.

[Vineyard View]

9 hours ago, Pushka said:

You do realise that poster was onboard Sky don’t you?

You must have missed my post where I sincerely apologized.

 I was wrong in this. 

It was sincere and I am sorry for it. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Vineyard View

[Hanoj]

This discussion has been very informative and I appreciate the commenting from everyone. Yes, everyone. Why? Because, fundamentally, we are all connected. The contributions from those with significant maritime experience (I would name you, but am likely to omit someone inadvertently – you know who are) are especially valuable. Particularly since, as simply a cruise consumer, the gap between the expectations I have formed from the marketing materials of the cruise lines about comfort and safety and the potential for uncomfortable and dangerous conditions while cruising, even if remotely possible, has closed. I am better able to make decisions about how I want to weigh these factors. Thank you all.

 

It is interesting to consider that nearly every human emotion originates in either love or fear. Fear is mostly learned behavior as the sciences have posited we are born with only two fears: loud sounds and falling backwards. Every other fear is learned. That means hate, prejudice, and all other phobias were learned. Why this is relevant is because we often instinctually respond from fear, as a survival or defense mechanism. So, when I read a comment that evokes a judgment toward another or some upset within myself, I seek to uncover what is the source of this within, and it is usually from some fear. I have no control over what anyone else thinks, expresses, does, or of events and circumstances I or others experience; I have learned, however, that I do have control over how I respond.

 

The more we allow for this human condition and learn to love, the better off we all become. The quantum sciences have revealed there is a reality which is beyond our senses, and it is energy frequency based. Positive emotions like peace, love, and joy manifest much higher vibrational frequencies than do hate, anger, and fear. For example, negative emotions have a toxic effect on our own biology. Research shows that even one five-minute episode of anger can impair our immune system for more than six hours. Laughter has the opposite effect.

 

Based upon the contributions in this thread, I will likely be more selective in which itineraries I choose and when I sail, if only to mitigate the risks of an incident like what happened with the Viking Sky. I don’t like the prospect of sailing in rough seas, but as much as I would prefer only placid conditions, I now appreciate better than before this incident and because of the commenting herein, such risks cannot be completely eliminated.

 

I remember sailing in a ferry from Victoria, BC to Port Angeles, WA nearly 36 years ago where the current and winds traversing the Strait of Juan de Fuca on a beautifully clear day in the middle of August were so strong that the ship got to rolling so you could no longer see the tops of the Olympic mountains on one side, and where the sky met the water on the other side. I don’t recall what, if any, announcements were made, but the conditions got everyone’s attention and we all took seats inside. After safely across the strait, the Master had to go back west on the other shore for 20 minutes before reaching the terminal. Recollecting this, I realize that I approached risk differently when I was younger. Having kids and now grandkids has contributed to this no doubt.

 

What I offer here is my perspective and to promote greater acceptance of one another, civility, and cooperation.

Thank you,

Steve

[Pratique]

http://www.themeditelegraph.com/en/shipping/shipowners/2019/03/27/viking-sky-lost-engines-due-low-level-lubricating-oil-l4qWNLRTHrdclh9MGJK0wM/index.html

[Hanoj]

6 minutes ago, Pratique said:

http://www.themeditelegraph.com/en/shipping/shipowners/2019/03/27/viking-sky-lost-engines-due-low-level-lubricating-oil-l4qWNLRTHrdclh9MGJK0wM/index.html

So a system designed to protect the engines, coupled with storm conditions, put the lives of all on board in peril. Is this likely to mandate changes to the acceptable limits for oil pressure, etc., which obviously vary by vessel? Or, will it be incumbent on each company to evaluate its own policies and procedures?

 

Is passenger comfort, which is separate from safety, likely to remain a policy determined at the discretion of each company?

[Heidi13]

Couple of final points. I thought the previous post was a well crafted and I'm happy that this unfortunate incident has provided some additional thoughts when selecting a cruise that meets your preferences.

 

However, I believe this thread has run the course and it's time to leave it to the real experts, one of whom I responded to yesterday.

 

Many of us marine professional, from both the deck & engineering departments have tried to provide a factual response to questions and at times some informed speculation from our years of professional experience. While I have a basic understanding of what happens in the Engine Room, I always defer and accept Cheng's vastly superior training and experience with mechanical issues, current knowledge of SOLAS, etc. I do however take exception to the insinuation that I and fellow marine professionals are "Viking apologists."

 

I am a very happy Viking customer and nothing in this incident has convinced me to cancel next year's World cruise.

 

This is my final post on this thread, but will remain active on the other VO threads & WC Roll Calls.

[cgolf1]

It is interesting reading some of the stories and how they can mislead some. 

 

This story leaves out the bit that the oil was within limits, which gives the reader the impression the ship was not maintained properly. 

 

https://www.apnews.com/8ca8ad0c722d41b197c9f5697cc27730

 

This other article reports the full information, which does make one think there are lessons learned for future designs and current ships sailing to mitigate the issue that occurred in rough water. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-ship/luxury-cruise-ship-lost-engines-due-low-level-of-lubricating-oil-norway-idUSKCN1R81PW

 

It isn’t surprising how the news is reported, but the first story is very unfair to the cruise line, and will definitely leave a false impression with many. 

[Hanoj]

Just now, cgolf1 said:

It is interesting reading some of the stories and how they can mislead some. 

 

This story leaves out the bit that the oil was within limits, which gives the reader the impression the ship was not maintained properly. 

 

https://www.apnews.com/8ca8ad0c722d41b197c9f5697cc27730

 

This other article reports the full information, which does make one think there are lessons learned for future designs and current ships sailing to mitigate the issue that occurred in rough water. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-ship/luxury-cruise-ship-lost-engines-due-low-level-of-lubricating-oil-norway-idUSKCN1R81PW

 

It isn’t surprising how the news is reported, but the first story is very unfair to the cruise line, and will definitely leave a false impression with many. 

It's possible, even if only theoretical, the prescribed limits for oil pressure are no longer adequate. Ironic that a system designed to protect property (i.e., the engines) caused a shutdown that put the lives and equipment (the entire ship) in peril of loss.

[zitsky]

The term Viking apologist came about because of the perception that no criticism of Viking is allowed.  Only pax on the ship or people with marine experience were allowed to comment.  Those of us investing many thousands of dollars on a future cruise were told to just trust Viking and shut up.  I'm sorry if it offends anyone but the rest of us have a vested interest in seeing this resolved. 

[philw1776]

9 minutes ago, zitsky said:

The term Viking apologist came about because of the perception that no criticism of Viking is allowed.  Only pax on the ship or people with marine experience were allowed to comment.  Those of us investing many thousands of dollars on a future cruise were told to just trust Viking and shut up.  I'm sorry if it offends anyone but the rest of us have a vested interest in seeing this resolved. 

Say what?

I am no marine experienced person, not a pax and I was "allowed to comment"

[dogsarepeopletoo]

53 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

.I remember sailing in a ferry from Victoria, BC to Port Angeles, WA nearly 36 years ago where the current and winds traversing the Strait of Juan de Fuca on a beautifully clear day in the middle of August were so strong that the ship got to rolling so you could no longer see the tops of the Olympic mountains on one side, and where the sky met the water on the other side. I don’t recall what, if any, announcements were made, but the conditions got everyone’s attention and we all took seats inside. After safely across the strait, the Master had to go back west on the other shore for 20 minutes before reaching the terminal.

Oh boy, that crossing is etched in my memory --- similar story from long ago.  Blue bird skies, calm day, and huge rolling waves that resulted in an alarming number of passengers being seasick.  Myself included.  

[zitsky]

10 minutes ago, philw1776 said:

Say what?

I am no marine experienced person, not a pax and I was "allowed to comment"

 

I've read most of this thread and there certainly were people discouraging some members from joining in the discussion.  Allowed is not meant to be taken literally. 

 

Some of us just want to see whatever final report is produced.

Edited March 27, 2019 by zitsky

[jakob71]

To information I have copied a press release today from the Norwegian Maritime Authority about the reason

why Viking Sky suffered power «blackout» on 23th. of March:

“Press release: Viking Sky

·        Published: 27/03/2019

Throughout the night, the NMA has worked together with the ship's classification society, Lloyd’s,                                                                        and the company in order to identify the reason why the Viking Sky suffered power “blackout”                                                                             at Hustadvika in challenging weather conditions on Saturday 23 March. For the present, our conclusion                                                               is that the engine  failure was directly caused by low oil pressure.

Last night, the Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) granted the company a permit to sail on a single

voyage to Kristiansund to have necessary repairs made. Throughout the night, the NMA has

worked together with the ship's classification society, Lloyd’s, and the company in order to identify

the reason why the Viking Sky suffered power “blackout” at Hustadvika in challenging weather conditions

on Saturday 23 March.

For the present, our conclusion is that the engine failure was directly caused by low oil pressure. 

The level of lubricating oil in the tanks was within set limits, however relatively low, when the

vessel started to cross Hustadvika. The tanks were provided with level alarms, however these had

not been triggered at this time. The heavy seas in Hustadvika probably caused movements in the tanks

so large that the supply to the lubricating oil pumps stopped. This triggered an alarm indicating a low level

of lubrication oil, which in turn shortly thereafter caused an automatic shutdown of the engines.

The NMA has drawn up a general safety notice about ensuring a continuous supply of lubricating oil to

engines and other critical systems in poor weather conditions. This should be done in cooperation with the

engine supplier and, moreover, be included in the ship’s risk assessments in the safety management system.

Viking Ocean Cruises has made the following statement: “We welcome the prompt and efficient

investigation carried out by the NMA and we fully understand and acknowledge their findings. We have

inspected the levels on all our sister ships and are now revising our procedures to ensure that this issue could not be repeated. We will continue to work with our partners and the regulatory bodies in supporting them with the ongoing investigations,”

Norwegian Maritime Authority is in a continuous dialogue with the company and classification society,

and this cooperation has been successful. We will follow up the ongoing work to rectify damages on vessels. Furthermore, we will continue the constructive dialogue with the classification society, company and the Accident Investigation Board

Norway in order to reveal underlying causes and identify appropriate measures.”

 

 

 

• Share

 

 

[zitsky]

Thanks Jakob.  Interesting.

[Pratique]

So it seems that changes to the oil levels are being implemented based on the findings by NMA so far.

[ditmar2007]

1 hour ago, Hanoj said:

So a system designed to protect the engines, coupled with storm conditions, put the lives of all on board in peril.

The Danish news said that apparently the alarm for low lubrication levels didn't go off.

[Hanoj]

1 minute ago, ditmar2007 said:

The Danish news said that apparently the alarm for low lubrication levels didn't go off.

Which, if true, demonstrates the dangers of relying solely on such systems and alarms. Is it possible to manually check various levels and systems? 

[Grandma Cruising]

The alarms didn’t go off because it was within accepted levels. The problem was the waves causing the oil to move around, so the system thought there wasn’t enough.

[ditmar2007]

11 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

Which, if true, demonstrates the dangers of relying solely on such systems and alarms. Is it possible to manually check various levels and systems? 

Should be, but I have no idea.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Pratique said:

Latest: engine shutdown was caused by a loss of lubricating oil pressure.

 

https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/skal-opplyse-om-hvorfor-viking-sky-fikk-blackout-1.14493206

 

There are also questions about whether the furnishings were secured well enough, which may be addressed in the incident report.

 

https://www.nrk.no/norge/stoler-og-bord-floy-veggimellom-pa-_viking-sky__-_-mye-som-ikke-var-sikret-godt-nok-1.14490080

 

1 hour ago, Hanoj said:

So a system designed to protect the engines, coupled with storm conditions, put the lives of all on board in peril. Is this likely to mandate changes to the acceptable limits for oil pressure, etc., which obviously vary by vessel? Or, will it be incumbent on each company to evaluate its own policies and procedures?

 

Is passenger comfort, which is separate from safety, likely to remain a policy determined at the discretion of each company?

Okay, this puts a different spin on things, and is an interesting finding.  Interesting in that each engine has a separate oil supply, so all four engines must have had about the same level of oil in their sump tanks.  As I stated before, these engines don't have oil in their crankcase like a car or truck engine, the oil flows down to a separate tank that contains the oil below the engine.  These tanks are equipped with level sensors, both high and low, and the low sensor is required to be at a point where if the ship is listing 25* the pump suction will not be uncovered (lose suction of oil, causing low oil pressure).  If the tanks were above this level, then there might be a problem with the original design calculations, or the ship was rolling more than 25*.  There will be no change to limits on oil pressure, as low oil pressure is destructive to the engine, and the low oil pressure alarms are set at a point where the engine will stop before it gets damaged.  There will likely be a change either in Viking's policy of how low to maintain oil level in the sump tanks, and/or a change in the low level alarm setting.

 

So, what I believe the findings will be is that while the Captain was not aware of what level the engineers were maintaining (or what level they were currently at, and were soon to be replenished), knowing that the engines can operate in 25* rolling, he did not see any reason to not sail, if the predicted weather conditions were within the company's ISM policies, and no fault is found with the Captain.  All equipment operated as designed, with the possible exception of the original setting of the oil level sensor, and unless the actual oil level was below what the class society (doubtful, as they are the ones to approve the original heeling calculations), the manufacturer, or the company's ISM required, then there is no fault found with the engineers or the equipment.  The take away will be that Viking, and all ships of similar design review their policies on oil level in diesel engine sump tanks, and determine a more conservative level to operate at, and include this in the ISM policies.  Even at this, the chances of this happening to all four engines is pretty small, but as with all things, that small chance can and does happen once in a while.

[ditmar2007]

5 minutes ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

The alarms didn’t go off because it was within accepted levels. The problem was the waves causing the oil to move around, so the system thought there wasn’t enough.

That sounds very reasonable and logic. I wonder why it didn't trigger an alarm, then.

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, ditmar2007 said:

The Danish news said that apparently the alarm for low lubrication levels didn't go off.

That is correct.  The level in the tank was sufficient to not set off the alarm, but depending on where the alarm sensor is in the tank, and where the pump suction is in the tank, the level in the tank can be different, when the ship is heeled over.