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

[newcruiser1956]

24 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Personally, I would not think twice about sailing on the Sky.  There are no repairs to the engines or machinery systems, and the only repairs will be to windows and cosmetic repairs to the hotel side (and a new anchor and chain).  How do they know it wasn't an oil leak that caused the low oil?  Because there wasn't a large area of oil residue in the bilges around the engines.  Each engine sump tank holds about 3 cubic meters of oil (about 800 gallons) and the difference between the normal operating level and the low level alarm would be 200-300 gallons, which would make quite the mess.

I loved my trip on the Sky and would go again in a heartbeat. 

[GeezerCouple]

8 minutes ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

 

Amazing pictures.  Heard from one of the passengers before we left the Oslo hotel yesterday morning that the lounge piano unbolted from the floor? Can't see the piano in any of the pictures.....

 

There is a photo somewhere that shows the grand piano upside down, with legs in the air, like a dead bug.

 

That was quite something to see.

Sorry that I don't remember where it was posted, so I can't provide a link or a copy.

(Perhaps someone else can?)

 

GC

Edited March 27, 2019 by GeezerCouple

[kayjaycowgirl]

I'm booked on the April 16 sailing Amsterdam to Copenhagen and nothing I have seen or heard would deter me from taking this cruise. I'm really looking forward to it! Indeed, I am most grateful to this community for sharing its collective knowledge. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by kayjaycowgirl
Complete

[Haworth]

5 minutes ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

I was suggesting that we don’t know and that I am not aware of anyone making a complaint.

OK, will you be happy when I come and take intrusive photos of you and yours in the same or similar circumstances and post them on line.

 

Why should people have to complain, common decency says you would not do it,  social media does not excuse crass behaviour 

 

 

[old biddy]

32 minutes ago, old biddy said:

In a heart beat I'd be there. I've been following this thread since it first started on Saturday. Viking have too much to loose in not doing the repairs correctly. I'm sure they will be checking with a virtual 'magnifying glass' for oil leaks.  We have 3 viking cruises booked for this year, a river cruise starting next week, Alaska in July and the Ukraine on the Dneiper in September. 

Life is to short to think with a glass half empty. Believe me I am of a cautious nature- drives my OH mad at times, but hey ho that's how I am. But categorically I'd be off to Copenhagen. We've previously done 3 Viking Oceans and loved every minute.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by old biddy
Errors.

[Pushka]

2 hours ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

You’re assuming she didn’t ask people’s permission. She may have done - has anyone complained that their photo was published without permission?

Of course. I’m assuming they didn’t. And posting something online without consent in a non public space is an invasion of privacy.  As to your second point, that’s not relevant, and why would I read it here anyway, and it could take several days months or years to find that your picture has been published without consent but that doesn’t make it right. 

[lackcreativity]

5 hours 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. 

I disagree. I never saw people told to "just trust Viking and shut up". I did see people who were critical of Viking long before there was enough information available to determine what was the cause of the event. There were some who blamed the captain for sailing in that weather, some who claimed the ship was poorly maintained, some said Viking was unfamiliar with the Norwegian seas and should not have been sailing there at all. None of that is true. Early information from the Norweigian Marine Authority indicates that requirements  for the amount of lubricating oil needed in the tank, which Viking met, are not adequate under certain conditions and  standards need to be raised. 

 

And these comments are from one who has thousands of dollars invested in a cruise on the Viking Sky beginning April 26, and final payment on one for next year due before we leave. I am a big fan of Viking, but I would not hesitate to be critical if there had been any degree of negligence on their part. However, it does appear just as I suspected, that the Captain and his crew were exemplary in their handling of a very difficult situation not of their making.

[lackcreativity]

5 hours ago, 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. 

Either the AP has edited their report, or you didn't scroll down below the ad that appeared in the middle of the article, because it does go on to explain about the oil being within set limits. It would certainly have been unfair otherwise. I hope readers do continue reading to the end. Thanks for the links.

[IWantToLiveOverTheSea]

I just saw an update on our local news about the sloshing oil causing the sensors to shut down the engines.  I'm glad to hear that this is a situation that is unlikely to occur except in extremely adverse weather conditions, but I think it's sad that a lot of people will now think Viking's maintenance is bad when that wasn't really the problem. So just how do you fix the problem -  put baffles inside the container to keep the oil from sloshing too low?  Or are they just going to top off the oil all the time in case the same violent weather conditions occur again?

Edited March 27, 2019 by IWantToLiveOverTheSea

[just_dont]

I just saw an update on our local news about the sloshing oil causing the sensors to shut down the engines.  I'm glad to hear that this is a situation that is unlikely to occur except in extremely adverse weather conditions, but I think it's sad that a lot of people will now think Viking's maintenance is bad when that wasn't really the problem. So just how do you fix the problem -  put baffles inside the container to keep the oil from sloshing too low?

Probabl adjust the level sensors to alert at a higher minimum level, so they would have added more oil before it got to the point where the sloshing/rolling/pitching might cause an issue with the pick-up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[buchhalm]

A few minutes ago there was a news update on Australia's ABC TV, that, according "to a report", cause of the engine loss was that the ship had run out oil. I would assume that's engine oil....

[VK3DQ]

1 minute ago, buchhalm said:

A few minutes ago there was a news update on Australia's ABC TV, that, according "to a report", cause of the engine loss was that the ship had run out oil. I would assume that's engine oil....

Hi Folks

 

Such reporting highlights the reason we should all wait to read the official report before jumping to any conclusions...

 

The Norwegian authorities will commission a proper investigation , anything else is pure speculation 

 

Regards

John

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, buchhalm said:

A few minutes ago there was a news update on Australia's ABC TV, that, according "to a report", cause of the engine loss was that the ship had run out oil. I would assume that's engine oil....

And if you read the press release by the Norwegian Maritime Authority, who is actually driving the investigation, linked above, you will see that that claim is bogus.  One more incidence of journalists "editorializing" facts to make a story.

[Silver Spectre]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Are the ships under Lloyds?  I kind of figured as Norwegian flag they would be DNV.  But, whatever class society is involved, they have no liability for damages or insurance claims.  They will look at it the same way the Norwegian Maritime Authority will, as "how do we adjust the system (the ISM document) to prevent, or at least mitigate this from happening again.  I believe you may be confusing Lloyd's Register (the class society) with Lloyds of London (the maritime insurer).  Most all shipowners have their P&I (property and indemnity, or claims by third parties) written by mutual "P&I Clubs".  A group of shipowners get together, determine how much they pay annually for P&I claims, and set a premium for members according to their share of the club (how many ships).  So, the cruise lines, and all shipowners, are essentially self-insured.  Hull insurance, for claims of damages to the ship, are through places like Lloyds of London, and are fixed based on the build cost of the ship.

Apologies for correcting you, but P&I stands for Protection and Indemnity.

[cgolf1]

2 hours ago, lackcreativity said:

Either the AP has edited their report, or you didn't scroll down below the ad that appeared in the middle of the article, because it does go on to explain about the oil being within set limits. It would certainly have been unfair otherwise. I hope readers do continue reading to the end. Thanks for the links.

 

Either one is possible, but I swear when I initially read it, it was very short. When I went to show my wife later it was a full story. I have a hunch they added to it, but just can’t say for sure. So for now I will go with it is on me. 

 

I just opened the story again and pretty sure the way it shows the extra information it wasn’t there. I think that was when the info was first coming out. Again not 100% but I would like to think I wouldn’t have missed it lol. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by cgolf1

[RJ2002]

34 minutes ago, cgolf1 said:

 

Either one is possible, but I swear when I initially read it, it was very short. When I went to show my wife later it was a full story. I have a hunch they added to it, but just can’t say for sure. So for now I will go with it is on me. 

 

I just opened the story again and pretty sure the way it shows the extra information it wasn’t there. I think that was when the info was first coming out. Again not 100% but I would like to think I wouldn’t have missed it lol. 

 

No need to apologize!

 

This is common on news websites.  They will release a headline and maybe a few sentences, and not a lot of detail.   Then they'll add to the story with more detail.

[Emptynesters38]

I have been following this thread since it started.  I appreciate the input of those with actual maritime experience and knowledge and people who were on the Sky during this incident.  It is unfortunate that some took this as an opportunity to bring up complaints about past treatment by Viking.  I was on the Sky on one of its first cruises and am pleased that casualties were kept to a minimum and am sorry for those people who were injured or suffered during the ordeal. I have great respect for Viking Cruise line and have confidence that they will do their best to address any issues raised by this incident.  I thought it was appropriate for Viking to offer refunds and a free cruise to the passengers. Some people have complained that this is an effort by Viking to avoid lawsuits. However, I have not heard anyone suggest that Viking required passengers to sign a release in order to receive the refund or free cruise. As a lawyer, I do not believe any passenger accepting those benefits without a signed release is giving anything up and is a good move on the part of Viking. Also, the Cruise Contracts make it difficult to sue and win.  I assume there will be a law firm or firms attempting to file a class action which could succeed depending on the cause of the engine failure and whether Viking or its agents were negligent but that will be sometime in the future.  I am showing my confidence in Viking by making a payment of almost US$20K on Thursday for a cruise in November without considering cancelling.  This situation reminds me of a flight my wife and I took on Swiss Air in 1998 from Boston to Zurich. The day before our flight an identical aircraft crashed with all souls aboard on a trip from NY to Zurich.  We decided to go ahead with our flight despite the crash perhaps falsely assuming  that whatever the issue was would not happen again. In fact, the cause was not determined for a long time but fortunately there was never another similar catastrophe.  At least here Viking has seven months to review this situation before our cruise and make appropriate changes and I do not feel we are placing ourselves in a dangerous situation.

[zitsky]

Shortly before this happened I made final deposit of $20K on a Viking cruise.  I have no regrets but I recognize that some people have legitimate concerns.  Maybe they are nervous cruisers and need some reassurance.  Maybe they won't trust Viking no matter what they say.

[Hanoj]

Not aquatinted with engine room procedures and resupply protocols, is it likely the Sky would have taken on more oil had it made its scheduled port call at Bodo?

[OnTheJourney]

Can't speak for what would have happened at Bodo, but there were several different hoses hooked up to the ship all day while we were still in Tromsø. 

[azdrydock]

6 hours ago, Haworth said:

Are you seriously suggesting that in that situation the conversation was, can I post your photo on line, she is very lucky that I am not in those posts as it was a very private matter, including 2 people sleeping in a small gap between the theatre and technicians room.

 

You should be removed as a host 

FYI

Permission is not needed for photographs taken in public places or of public people as long as it is for a news worthy purpose. On a ship the only places that are not considered public space would normally be in cabins and restrooms. You must take  reasonable precautions to protect your private space. Example: your neighbor flies a drone past your bedroom window and the blinds are up you normally have no recourse. Permission is needed if the pictures are used for commercial purposes. Host Grandma Cruising photo can be used under the terms of Cruise Critics T&C's or with her permission. 

If you needed permission to post newsworthy pictures the UK tabloids  would not exist

[cgolf1]

4 hours ago, VK3DQ said:

Hi Folks

 

Such reporting highlights the reason we should all wait to read the official report before jumping to any conclusions...

 

The Norwegian authorities will commission a proper investigation , anything else is pure speculation 

 

Regards

John

 

The problem is the damage is done for Viking, insert any line that encounters an issue, most people don’t follow message boards, they will just go with what they heard on the news whether the report was right or wrong. The next time some of them go to book their next cruise they will look at Viking and think, isn’t that the cruise line that didn’t have enough oil and book another line. Sadly consumers are just not informed any more, and with social media scooping reporters It seems they get a story out quicker without getting all the info in and updating the story later. 

[waltd]

If it damages Viking at all it will probably be very short.   I remember the Costa tragedy.    If I remember correctly the first year they had issues with bookings but after that it was business as usual.  I wouldn't have an issue sailing with Viking. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by waltd

[abbydancer2003]

26 minutes ago, waltd said:

If it damages Viking at all it will probably be very short.   I remember the Costa tragedy.    If I remember correctly the first year they had issues with bookings but after that it was business as usual.  I wouldn't have an issue sailing with Viking. 

When they had the Costa tragedy we put a buy order in for another 100 shares of CCL, at about 8.00 less than it was selling for before.  It never got that low.

[waltd]

I have never been sorry that we bought our CCL stock.   😃