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

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, orvil said:

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.

 

9 minutes ago, Pratique said:

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.

So, they let the chains go?  That would be likely if they dropped both of them.  Anchors and chain are not that expensive, and they can come back in good weather and grapple for them and retrieve them.  We did this many times in the North Sea for drilling rigs that broke their anchors or chains.

[Pratique]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

 

So, they let the chains go?

Apparently they did. I thought something was missing when watching the ship arrive in port, but didn't think much of it.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Pratique said:

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

Translation was a bit garbled, so didn't read the whole thing, but if he only wants cruise ships to sail when there is no risk when deploying lifeboats, then they would never sail.  I don't know this man's credentials, but I doubt he's ever sailed commercially or experienced using a lifeboat in practice.  There is always a risk when using a lifeboat, even when in harbor.

 

Thanks for the confirmation that the Captain was not warned not to sail by the authorities, as others on other threads have posited.

[Silkroad]

3 hours ago, ffnole said:

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. 

I find it interesting that you began a post with this fairly reasonable statement, but then went on to fully condemn the master of the ship. Perhaps you should let the experts do their jobs, and await their conclusions before convicting a person who is quite likely innocent.

[gatour]

2 hours 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.

I am in IT and program for "Event Management" and you have this exactly correct

 

Our business partners want us to correlate various alarms and immediately merge all alerts to a central root cause and just provide one alert with drill down to the various alarms.  The tough part is that the various ancinalary alarms may come along with the root cruise alarm, in some random order.  You have to glue all of this together. 

 

When you are dealing with business partners, their response is generally is "I don't know, you figure it out".  My thought is I don't know your business process so I need your input.  How does this alarm along with other alarms that come in some random order over a period of time affect the root cause determination.

[Pratique]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Translation was a bit garbled, so didn't read the whole thing, but if he only wants cruise ships to sail when there is no risk when deploying lifeboats, then they would never sail.  I don't know this man's credentials, but I doubt he's ever sailed commercially or experienced using a lifeboat in practice.  There is always a risk when using a lifeboat, even when in harbor.

 

Thanks for the confirmation that the Captain was not warned not to sail by the authorities, as others on other threads have posited.

There's always a grain of salt to be taken when someone speaks from the ivory tower. He seems to be suggesting that they were taking an unreasonable risk, but I suppose that's easy to say from his armchair. On the other hand, if someone calls him as an expert witness in court, then maybe his words will have more weight. The cynic in me says he's posturing for that role.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Pratique

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, ffnole said:

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. 

Why is the Captain accountable for sailing in bad weather.  As posted above, the Norwegian authorities have said that they did not see that there was anything out of the ordinary with this weather, and the ship should have had no problem if the engines had not stopped.  As to sailing his last voyage with Viking, if you look at my previous posts regarding the ISM code, if he followed procedures and policies clearly stated in the company's ISM document, then he is not at fault, the company's system is at fault.  The ISM code was promulgated by the IMO to formalize the use of regulations and industry best practices in operating ships, and requires adherence to the policies and procedures set forth by the company.  When you've got some experience in the maritime industry, come back and make your statements about the fitness of the Captain.

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, gatour said:

I am in IT and program for "Event Management" and you have this exactly correct

 

Our business partners want us to correlate various alarms and immediately merge all alerts to a central root cause and just provide one alert with drill down to the various alarms.  The tough part is that the various ancinalary alarms may come along with the root cruise alarm, in some random order.  You have to glue all of this together. 

 

When you are dealing with business partners, their response is generally is "I don't know, you figure it out".  My thought is I don't know your business process so I need your input.  How does this alarm along with other alarms that come in some random order over a period of time affect the root cause determination.

Maybe there is something that can be done with machine learning, but IMHO there is still no substitution for human judgement. Machines can do unexpected things.

[Hanoj]

14 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 I don't know this man's credentials, but I doubt he's ever sailed commercially or experienced using a lifeboat in practice.  There is always a risk when using a lifeboat, even when in harbor.

There's that saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

[gatour]

7 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Maybe there is something that can be done with machine learning, but IMHO there is still no substitution for human judgement. Machines can do unexpected things.

No disagreement, spoken as someone who started programming on a TRS80 and an Apple 2  🙂

[Pushka]

8 hours 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.

 

I guess it’s a case of people not being familiar with the size of the Viking fleet posting here and why people cruise on it. 

 

Huge thankyou to those posting with the accurate information on all the engineering and associated issues. 

 

The lifeboats were all removed and tested by the crew on a cruise we were on in the Med a couple of years ago on Liberty of the Seas. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Pushka

[Pratique]

2 minutes ago, gatour said:

No disagreement, spoken as someone who started programming on a TRS80 and an Apple 2  🙂

LOL me too, actually even earlier on an HP scientific calculator and DEC VAX 11/780.

[newcruiser1956]

4 minutes ago, gatour said:

No disagreement, spoken as someone who started programming on a TRS80 and an Apple 2  🙂

Oh the good old days of Dos  :)    I started on a 4 K color computer.  We had to save to a cassette player LOL

[voyageur9]

A useful review -- in English -- of Norwegian news coverage, including some very differing opinions from mariners experienced with that stretch of treacherous passage in bad weather. 

https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/03/25/investigation-begins-into-cruise-drama/

 

[Hanoj]

12 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Why is the Captain accountable for sailing in bad weather.  As posted above, the Norwegian authorities have said that they did not see that there was anything out of the ordinary with this weather, and the ship should have had no problem if the engines had not stopped.  As to sailing his last voyage with Viking, if you look at my previous posts regarding the ISM code, if he followed procedures and policies clearly stated in the company's ISM document, then he is not at fault, the company's system is at fault.  The ISM code was promulgated by the IMO to formalize the use of regulations and industry best practices in operating ships, and requires adherence to the policies and procedures set forth by the company.  When you've got some experience in the maritime industry, come back and make your statements about the fitness of the Captain.

@chengkp75, is there anything from your reading on this thread to indicate the ship may have been having "system" issues beforehand, which may have made it more susceptible to it incident it experienced? I recall seeing a comment (I thought here) and a route map of the journey from Tromso that Bodo was missed and that a route between islands was used to shelter from the brunt of the storm. I recall the comment suggested this, if true, may have been due to an known issue, but it may have been speculation.

[Horatio Hornblower]

A lot is being talked about of how this happened and hopefully one day we will read the cause and the fix to this problem.  I'd like to point out the Helicopter crews and maintainers who were involved in the hoist operations.  Any country including the US would be hard pressed to gather the aviation resources to hoist a cruise ships passages from a ship in distress.  These operations can't be done quickly.  The professionalism and outstanding airmanship of these aircrews was outstanding as well as the maintainers who keep these birds running.  

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, voyageur9 said:

A useful review -- in English -- of Norwegian news coverage, including some very differing opinions from mariners experienced with that stretch of treacherous passage in bad weather.

Thanks for this. In the article is another critic, a former captain for Norwegian search and rescue vessels. I am starting to wonder if this incident is bringing to a boil a controversy that had been brewing for some time in Norway, with talk in the media of changing the regulations and the authorities saying no change is needed. Not so much a matter of whether the ship could handle the storm, but whether it was reasonable to subject the passengers to the risk.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

@chengkp75, is there anything from your reading on this thread to indicate the ship may have been having "system" issues beforehand, which may have made it more susceptible to it incident it experienced? I recall seeing a comment (I thought here) and a route map of the journey from Tromso that Bodo was missed and that a route between islands was used to shelter from the brunt of the storm. I recall the comment suggested this, if true, may have been due to an known issue, but it may have been speculation.

No, I haven't seen anything more than pure speculation that there was a system failure or problem before they lost power.  Bodo was cancelled due to high winds from what I've read, and lack of tugs.  I took a RO/RO ship into Bodo about 20 years ago, and we were longer than the dock, and had to have tugs hold us against the dock the entire time we were there.  It is not a nice place to get to in winds from the east, and there is no suitable anchorage once in the fjord unless you go about 60 miles away, and that was likely already full of ships sheltering.  Using an archipelago to shelter from a storm is pretty standard.  It tends to break up both the wind and the seas.  The islands were to windward of the ship's course, so they posed no threat to the ship.

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Thanks for this. In the article is another critic, a former captain for Norwegian search and rescue vessels. I am starting to wonder if this incident is bringing to a boil a controversy that had been brewing for some time in Norway, with talk in the media of changing the regulations and the authorities saying no change is needed. Not so much a matter of whether the ship could handle the storm, but whether it was reasonable to subject the passengers to the risk.

One problem with changing the regulations as described in the article to mandate a Captain's decision making is the fact that Norway is signatory to the ISM convention of the IMO, and as such the ISM convention is law in Norway.  One aspect of the ISM convention is that it makes clear that the ISM document written by the shipowner, and the enabling legislation of the flag state (Norway in this case) must include the proviso that the Captain has the "overriding authority" to make decisions relating to the safety of the ship, cargo, passengers, crew and environment.  This means that the law in Norway says they cannot pass a law that forces the Captain to change his decision.  If they want to do this, they must repudiate the ISM convention, and risk other countries not allowing Norwegian flag ships into their ports, or attempt to change the ISM convention, which would require a majority of maritime nations to agree.  As I've said before, this is similar to the Anthem of the Seas storm, and RCI decided that their ISM needed revision, so that the Captain's decision could be based on more information, but again it does not take the decision away from the Captain.

 

Now, the Norwegians have every right to close a port and not allow a ship to sail from Tromso if they so believe that it might run into difficulties a day or two down the road, but doing this would put them in a situation where ships would forego entering Norwegian ports for fear of being denied sailing.

[Pratique]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

One aspect of the ISM convention is that it makes clear that the ISM document written by the shipowner, and the enabling legislation of the flag state (Norway in this case) must include the proviso that the Captain has the "overriding authority" to make decisions relating to the safety of the ship, cargo, passengers, crew and environment.  This means that the law in Norway says they cannot pass a law that forces the Captain to change his decision.

That is interesting info. My feeling is that there is a flip side, which is when a captain chooses to sail into treacherous weather when there is a chance to avoid it, and an incident occurs, then he/she is also putting rescue crews at risk, thus possibly causing push back from that side of the equation. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayers in general, unless the cruise line is fined accordingly to recover the costs. Here in New Hampshire, we fine hikers who use poor judgment and need to be rescued off the side of a mountain, but at the same time we don't want to discourage people from calling for help to avoid the fine. It's not an easy question to answer. Just a thought.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, Pratique said:

That is interesting info. My feeling is that there is a flip side, which is when a captain chooses to sail into treacherous weather when there is a chance to avoid it, and an incident occurs, then he/she is also putting rescue crews at risk, thus possibly causing push back from that side of the equation. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayers in general, unless the cruise line is fined accordingly to recover the costs. Here in New Hampshire, we fine hikers who use poor judgment and need to be rescued off the side of a mountain, but at the same time we don't want to discourage people from calling for help to avoid the fine. It's not an easy question to answer. Just a thought.

But the difference is, that the Captain makes his decision based on his experience, his observations, and the company's written policies and procedures which are promulgated in compliance with international guidelines, and approved and audited by the shipowner's class society (insurance underwriter).  As long as Norway has approved the Viking ISM code, which it must do as flag state, and that document has been followed by Viking and the Captain, there really isn't much the Norwegian government can do, except require a revision to the policies and procedures in the ISM document.

[Pratique]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

But the difference is, that the Captain makes his decision based on his experience, his observations, and the company's written policies and procedures...

Understood. I guess we'll find out if the Captain went "by the book" on this one, and whether the pilots gave him good advice, after the investigation is complete.

[loge23]

1 hour ago, Cienfuegos said:

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.

Indeed an adventure! 

The incident, which I'm sure we are all thankful for the outcome, reminds me that cruising is still an adventure into the wild. Sure, we all expect the safest conditions humanly possible, but the fact is we're still in the wild. We all like nice weather for our cruises but if one is worried about being out at sea, then one should head to the Ritz. These folks on board the Sky are now tempest-tossed veteran sailors and the newest members of the King Neptune Society!

I would only be upset if it was clearly negligence on the part of the Captain/Crew (I'm thinking Concordia here), but this incident does not appear to be so pending an investigation. The loss of the power seems to be the biggest culprit so we'll have to wait on that explanation. What an adventure but I'm not envious!

[Heidi13]

12 hours ago, steamboats said:

 

But... which consumer law comes into action depends on where the customer did "sign" his contract. So all US pax are a subject to US law. The Brits onboard are a subject to EU consumer laws.

 

The flag of the ship is not important regarding consumer laws. Same for the location of the company´s headquarter (which is Basel, Switzerland).

 

@chengkp75 Isn´t it a standard emergency manoveur to drop both anchors for an emergency stop? For a regular anchorage one anchor is the routine. But here they wanted the ship to get to an immediate stop to prevent a grounding.

 

steamboats

When requiring the use of an anchor for an emergency manoeuvre, there really isn't any standard procedure. The Captain decides what response is required, based on the circumstances and previous experience.

 

Using the anchor to bring the ship to a stop, in the event of an engine malfunction, or coming in too hot, I believe most Captains will probably only use 1 anchor. As a cadet and deck officer I have observed 2 Captains utilising the anchor and both of them only used 1 anchor.

 

The first time was going into a very busy anchorage at Dubai and we couldn't get the engine to kick over astern. Once the anchor hit bottom the ship sheered in that direction. He didn't put out much chain to prevent the flukes really digging in and possibly breaking the chain. We basically dragged the anchor along the bottom, stopping fairly quickly.

 

As Captain, I have stopped a ship using the anchor probably at least a half dozen times. When approaching a berth, on all occasions, I only used a single anchor on the side I needed the bow to turn. Works like a charm. Have also used the anchor on many occasions departing a drydock, again I only used 1 anchor, as with limited, if any engines and/or thrusters, I have no desire to compound the situation with tangled cables.  

 

However, in a narrow channel with a 6 kt following tide, I lost the inner engine rounding a 90 degree turn. Once the tide grabbed the stern, I was unable to stop the swing, so was heading for the beach.  Dropped the stbd anchor, which slowed down setting onto the beach and brought the head towards the tide. However, I wasn't going to stop before hitting the beach (vertical cliff). Dropping a 2nd anchor creates a risk of getting the cables crossed, but the ship's head was far enough around to take a chance with dropping the 2nd anchor. Fortunately, we came around head to tide, brought up to both anchors, missing the beach by 50-100 feet, as estimated by the 2nd Officer on the Foc's'le. However, I would say this is a rare case where 2 anchors were used, as none of my fellow Masters had ever tried it.

 

That was about 20 years ago and have required the anchor a number of times since, but have only used 1 each time.

[indigosea]

Thanks posters especially chengkp75.   I have learned more on this thread than I have ever before on cruisecritic.   Also 22 years ago I was on the RVSun when she ran aground in the Red Sea   So I have much interest and sympathy  for all pax and crew on this Viking ship. Thanks to the well trained experienced Captain and his staff no lives were lost in either events. Still cruising and feeling secure. Coming from Nova Scotia I respect the North Atlantic. See you on my next cruise!