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

[chengkp75]

2 hours 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?

Again, I'll leave that mainly for our resident Captains, but again what I've read doesn't show this to be an unusual storm (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and ships sail in storms all the time.  I don't believe the Norwegians would have told the press anything about their investigation at all, let alone shine a light on one aspect.

[Hanoj]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Again, I'll leave that mainly for our resident Captains, but again what I've read doesn't show this to be an unusual storm (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and ships sail in storms all the time.  I don't believe the Norwegians would have told the press anything about their investigation at all, let alone shine a light on one aspect.

The UK press added editorial content. Here's the announcement content from AIBN's website:

 

The Accident Investigation Board Norway has initiated a safety investigation after the incident with the cruise ship Viking Sky’s engine failure at Hustadvika Saturday 23 March 2019. The United States and the United Kingdom consider they are substantially interested states and will participate in the investigation with their respective accident investigation branches.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Hanoj said:

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?

Additional to whom?  I believe this is the Norwegian government agency tasked with investigating, in this case, a "serious marine incident" (which is an international legal term), and as I surmised earlier, the USCG has applied for "interested party" status along with the UK MAIB since both countries had substantial numbers of passengers onboard.

[ffnole]

The bottom line is this will be investigated by the proper authorities, including Viking management and conclusions will be reached as to the factor or factors contributing to this terrible situation which could have been catastrophic. What we know is that the Viking brand took a big hit to its reputation, which is more difficult when you consider they are a new company when it comes to ocean cruising. The tarnish is off the rose of previous glowing accolades. How they respond to crisis management today and in the future will determine whether it is permanent or temporary.

 

The captain of this ship is fully accountable for sailing in forecasted bad weather and being far too close to a rocky shore line....and only averted disaster by a reported 300 feet. Bad things happen when you make poor decisions....like engines failing in extreme weather. I imagine he has sailed his last voyage with Viking...because he didn’t put the customers safety first. You can debate that...give him kudos making the best of a bad situation, whatever....but a company with a new brand can’t afford to have questionable leadership driving their ships. Viking needs a fall guy to demonstrate they are serious with their mission of putting customers first.....and he is not going to survive this. Nor should he in my opinion. Class action lawsuits are just around the corner. How do you measure financial hits to your reputation as an industry leader in safe, luxury cruises?  

 

Will I cruise Viking in the future? Well we have a 93 day cruise scheduled next year and look forward to the journey. Will Viking be a better company as a result of this incident....I certainly expect so. But time will tell how they respond and how the public responds. 

[Hanoj]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Additional to whom?  

I was under the impression from earlier comments that Norwegian Maritime Authority has jurisdiction. 

If you or anyone else can clarify, that would be appreciated.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

 

 

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.

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.

[azdrydock]

16 minutes ago, Tom47 said:

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.related. 

When you do failure or reliability analysis you soon find that there are a higher number of failures when a product is introduced  (infantile failures). The failure rate then flattens out and eventually starts rising again (end of life failures) The infantiles tend to be more design and operational and the start of the end of life cycle is maintenance related.

Again, as mentioned many times, no one has determined that the cause is "engine failure". I am sure you have analyzed the thousands of cruise ships and incidents to determine Viking is failures above the norm. 

I have been on two Azamara cruises and both had toilet and plumbing problems but based on this sample I will not conclude that there will be toilet problems on my next Azamara cruise nor does it reflect on Azamara as a cruise line. I don't know how you determined Azamara has more maintenance people then Viking and if so, one can conclude that the R ships need more maintenance. That is  expected because of it's age and lower levels of automation then Viking

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, steamboats said:

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

Actually, I remember that incident, and in fact they probably did more damage dropping those anchors than just letting the engines eventually take the way off.  To stop the ship, you have to drop the anchor and then brake off the winch to keep more chain from running out as the ship moves forward.  This can cause stress and/or failure of the winch, with the result that you again may not be able to retrieve the anchors.  Also, if you've noticed from tendering, the ship will be almost stopped or actually have a slight stern way on, before the anchors are dropped, so that the ship does not "run over" the chain (meaning it will drag along the hull as the ship passes over the anchor.  This can cause damage to the hull from the chain, and in shallow water like the Armonia's case, you could easily actually run over the anchor and damage or hole the bottom of the ship.

[BearsAhoy]

10 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Liferafts can also be included in a Marine Evacuation System - this comprises a shute/slide and multiple rafts. Currently you have 3 major systems available in the market - Viking, RFD Marin-Ark II and Liferaft Systems Australia.

...

Many cruise ships and ferries now use Marine Evacuation Systems and many ferries have eliminated the requirement for Lifeboats and are entirely liferafts. 

 

 

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?

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Tom47 said:

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.

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).

[Hunding]

5 hours ago, ditmar2007 said:

@chengkp75, you must be one of the most patient men I've encountered.

Thank you for spending so much time answering all the questions.

 

I, too, am very grateful for the time you have given to explain these matters to us.  It helps to clarify, which, in turn, allows the anxiety levels to drop.

[cruzin4us]

It sounds like there is a LOT of speculation on this thread.   After the investigation is complete, then everyone can chime in on the conduct of the Captain.   There still is the "innocent until proven guilty" at least where I live.   If the captain is at fault then he will be punished I'm sure.  In the meantime, don't presume he is guilty of anything until the investigation is complete.   It serves no purpose.

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

I was under the impression from earlier comments that Norwegian Maritime Authority has jurisdiction. 

If you or anyone else can clarify, that would be appreciated.

While the Norwegian Maritime Authority is the regulating body, I don't know if they have an investigative arm or leave that to the Accident Investigation Board.  Similarly in the US, the USCG is the regulatory body, but in many cases they will call the NTSB in to get their investigative expertise.  Its been decades since I operated in Norwegian waters, so my grasp of their maritime laws has faded.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, cruzin4us said:

It sounds like there is a LOT of speculation on this thread.   After the investigation is complete, then everyone can chime in on the conduct of the Captain.   There still is the "innocent until proven guilty" at least where I live.   If the captain is at fault then he will be punished I'm sure.  In the meantime, don't presume he is guilty of anything until the investigation is complete.   It serves no purpose.

One further factor is the ISM (International Safety Management) convention, where first off "blame" is not apportioned to any one person, but factors that can mitigate another occurrence are what are important to find.  And with the ISM, if the Captain was found to have followed all of the company's ISM policies and procedures for heavy weather sailing, then there will be no action taken against the Captain and no blame.  This is similar to the Anthem of the Seas storm incident a couple of years ago, where the Captain was found to have followed all of RCI's ISM policies and procedures, but RCI decided that they needed to amend their ISM code to tighten up decision making and information availability for heavy weather sailing.  Another factor of the ISM is that the Captain has "overriding authority" to make decisions regarding the safety of the ship, passengers, crew, and environment, and no one can force him/her to change that decision at the time.

[Dekksguten]

34 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

I was under the impression from earlier comments that Norwegian Maritime Authority has jurisdiction. 

If you or anyone else can clarify, that would be appreciated.

The NMA, the AIBN and the police are all participating.  To my understanding the police have opened their own separate investgation, however this is routine in such cases and there is currently no suspicion of any criminal negligence. 

 

A former director of the NMA has come ouy questioning why the ship opted to sail this close to shore. According to him larger vessels are advised to sail "the outer lane". He left his position in 2008, so I don't know if his information is still accurate. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Dekksguten

[azdrydock]

For chengkp

I may have perpetuated the one engine out for maintenance theory and it was not based on fact or knowledge. A few years ago on the Prinsendam at forum with the Chief Engineer I recall him stating that the ship would be safe with only one engine under any condition, might not meet schedule with two engines, and will be rarely be under full power with four engines and jokingly added he has to pay for the fuel under full power. 

Earlier you mentioned that the requirements since 2010 is the ships must have enough redundancy to return to port due to system failures. Due they take weather into account?

[richsea]

21 hours ago, ABoatNerd said:

 

Like others, trying to keep up.

 

gretschwhtfalcon - was the missed port Bodo, on this specific voyage?  No tug to assist is bull. 

 

To anyone on this awful voyage - this is important.

 

Missing a port or being late to a port can indicate a mechanical issue with a vessel, especially when there is no weather/dock strike etc.  The history of this particular voyage and the voyage or 2 before is material in this incident.

 

 

And.....here come the “lawyers”. It was just a matter of time.

[Pratique]

I can only imagine the difficulty the crew endured trying to restore power under those sea conditions. Perhaps I've seen too many movies.

 

Another media report with some new evacuation video I've not seen before.

https://www.wmur.com/article/rye-woman-on-stranded-cruise-ship-we-were-horizontal-in-the-water/26929000

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, azdrydock said:

For chengkp

I may have perpetuated the one engine out for maintenance theory and it was not based on fact or knowledge. A few years ago on the Prinsendam at forum with the Chief Engineer I recall him stating that the ship would be safe with only one engine under any condition, might not meet schedule with two engines, and will be rarely be under full power with four engines and jokingly added he has to pay for the fuel under full power. 

Earlier you mentioned that the requirements since 2010 is the ships must have enough redundancy to return to port due to system failures. Due they take weather into account?

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.

[Hanoj]

How much information will be on the Voyage Data Recorder and over what duration of time surrounding this incident?

Edited March 25, 2019 by Hanoj
typo

[Dekksguten]

For those interested in how investigations are conducted in the aftermath of incidents in Norway, you will find some information here. A short summary: 

- The AIBN will determine the cause of the incident

- The Police will launch a criminal investigation

- The NMA will determine which measures must be taken to put the vessel back in operation. 

[Frenchberet]

21 hours ago, ABoatNerd said:

 

Like others, trying to keep up.

gretschwhtfalcon - was the missed port Bodo, on this specific voyage?  No tug to assist is bull. 

To anyone on this awful voyage - this is important.

Missing a port or being late to a port can indicate a mechanical issue with a vessel, especially when there is no weather/dock strike etc.  The history of this particular voyage and the voyage or 2 before is material in this incident.

----------------

We did the February 6 Northern Lights cruise on the Sky.  We didn't miss any ports.  The weather was a little rough crossing the North Sea but no mechanical problems.  Love Viking and scheduled to cruise with them again in 2020.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Frenchberet

[richsea]

19 hours ago, just_dont said:

OMG.
You must be an attorney.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

I suspect in their own mind, at the least. Or perhaps they play one on television.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, Hanoj said:

How much information will be on the Voyage Data Recorded and over what duration of time surrounding this incident?

There is a Voyage Data Recorder and a Voice Recorder on the bridge and engine control room.  So, all conversations will be recorded, as will things like heading, speed, weather conditions, GPS location, helm commands, engine commands, etc.  These are overwritten after 30 days, but are supposed to be frozen by stopping overwriting (one button) at the time of any "serious marine incident".

 

The engine room automation will have alarm logs and event logs, and these will be available for typically longer periods (it depends on how many data points are recorded and the file storage size), but over a month.  The big problem when you get a power blackout like this is that the alarms may come in all together (hundreds or thousands of them in a single second), and the system can't differentiate which came first in any given second, so it takes some analysis time to dig out a root cause.  This is due to multiplexing issues, where the central automation goes out and "polls" all the alarm points every second, and routes the data back to the central processor, and the first alarm that comes in may actually be the first point polled, not the first alarm condition to happen in that second.

[Hanoj]

10 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The big problem when you get a power blackout like this is that the alarms may come in all together (hundreds or thousands of them in a single second), and the system can't differentiate which came first in any given second, so it takes some analysis time to dig out a root cause.  This is due to multiplexing issues, where the central automation goes out and "polls" all the alarm points every second, and routes the data back to the central processor, and the first alarm that comes in may actually be the first point polled, not the first alarm condition to happen in that second.

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.