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

[zitsky]

27 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

In the very beginning you can hear the surprise when the furniture starts moving and no alarm was sounded. I don't blame them for not immediately getting away, as that might have been more dangerous.  

 

This may have been their first trip to the sea, and frankly, I'd feel safer high up too when the ship could end up stranded, which is alo far away from the waves that could smash in windows. Not every passenger has been to sea for years 🙂

 

I think you bring up a good point.  Not every one has experience on the ocean.  This thread is helpful to explain what happened and why it turned out as well as it did.  But we have to recognize that some people are more comfortable than others.  Some people are nervous but they still fly.  Same with cruising.

[Pratique]

51 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

True, a professional opining in his area of expertise.

Yes, an expert and an eyewitness, who's also under investigation. Viking by contrast is being very careful and measured with their public statements so far. Just saying.

[Heidi13]

50 minutes ago, nho9504 said:

 

Agree the list would not be 45 degree (the ship would have tipped over already!)

 

However the need to retrieve lifejacket from outside deck bothers me a lot.Of all the cruises we took, although none of them small ships,  the lifejackets are in your cabin with your muster station number clearly marked - this is the case for RCL, HAL, Princess, Celebrity and Carnival.  The crew interviewed via phone on this article said they had to form a human chain to open the door to the open deck to retrieve the lifejackets for the passengers... 

 

I cannot get over the video showing those passengers sitting at the lounge WITHOUT any barriers between them and the glass floor to ceiling wall, waves pounding and furniture sliding - they just sat there watching as if it is some kind of big show the sea was putting on - nobody thought about this was a VERY DANGEROUS PLACE to be at  during that moment?!  '

 

If I were in such environment, I would gather my important personal belongs - all stuff in the safe and medications, with my lifejacket nearby and be ready for the worst.

 

Of our many cruises, there were many occasions the ships had lost powers, in one occasion, for over 3 hours.  Captains came on PA after the first hour to inform us what was going on... 

 

I am curious to know how Sky handled its communication of the graveness of the situation to her passengers - why people were still allowed to sit at such dangerous place when things were sliding back and forth?  Why the crew had to risk their lives to retrieve lifejackets from outside deck?

 

Personally I think this incident / accident EXPOSE A Lot of Operation Issues the Viking Oceans have - the Master is a hired gun, not a direct employee by the cruise lines like the mass market lines,  for example.  While the crew is very admirable in handling the situations - the procedures in handling such seem to be quite different from other major cruise lines which ships had gone thru WORSE storms when things were crashing down everywhere...

Passengers were gathered in the INSIDE venues AWAY from windows based on what we have seen in past similar situations and the sea was MUCH worse.

The sea the Sky was facing was nothing comparing what we had encountered in our multiple TATL crossings (we have done 12 or 13 or 14 of such, lost count).  The only difference is, the sea was much much deeper when we facing the extremely high sea, versus the coastal area of  the Norway west coast.

While commenting on marine operational issues, I can only assume you have minimal, if any training or experience in ship operations. In response to some of your points:

 

1) Ship would capsize, if heeled 45 degree. This vessel was still intact, so had full stability. Memory is a little hazy, but the maximum righting lever GZ, must occur after at least 30 degrees of heel. To determine when a vessel capsizes you must be privy to the vessel specific cross curves of stability. Yes -every ship is different. My best guess is when intact it will have positive stability to at least 80 degrees and most likely about 90 degrees.

 

2) Lifejacket storage on outer decks is in compliance with SOLAS and Flag State. Had the vessel actually grounded, no time might be available to retrieve L/J's from cabins. If crew had a potential of going overboard then their supervisor should have ensured they were tied-off.  While I discount media reports, if crew were on the outer decks and not secured, then as Captain, I would ensure their supervisor was researching alternative employment options. Jeopordising crew safety is not acceptable.

 

If lifejackets on outer decks bothers you, hope you enjoy the mega ships.

 

3) Having been in many storms, the entire ship is a fairly dangerous environment, so where exactly from your experience would you have them go. BTW, when the ship is moving violently, it is highly recommended to limit movement around the ship, unless completely necessary.

 

Many reports from passengers actually on board have praised the crew for their actions in tending to the passengers.

 

However, from watching a narrow perspective on a film, you apparently gained full situational awareness and know better than the trained crew managing the Assembly Stations. Did you ever consider that other areas, not seen in the film, may be worse.

 

Personally, while the environment shown was not the safest, without being present and having full situational awareness, it is highly inappropriate to making comments.

 

4) With respect to being in that environment, the message provided at the Muster Drills is very clear. On hearing the General Emergency Signal, proceed to your cabin (if safe), collect warm clothing and medications and go to the Assembly Station. So at the Assembly Station you should already have meds, etc.

 

5) In your experience the Captain makes a PA in about an hour. Well again reports from passengers on board stated they received excellent communications. While every incident is different, as a Captain, my objective is to advise the pax ASAP, however working with the Chief Engineer, Staff Captain and Hotel Director were critical in this incident. Personally, unless an extreme emergency, I consider an hour for the Captain to talk to pax initially might be rather long.

 

6) Your ability to determine this incident exposes operational issues, is truly amazing, since no facts have actually been published by the relevant authorities. I also doubt you have any knowledge of the ISM Code and the requisite operations manuals documenting the company's policy & procedures. Both of these sources are required to making any informed determination.

 

7) Captain is a, "Hired Gun". Wow, can't imaging a more disrespectful comment regarding a marine professional, who led a team that saved the ship and about 1,400 passengers & crew.

 

The use of manning agencies and ship managers is very common practice in the marine industry, which permits companies to outsource specialised HR functions. Whether, the Master is employed directly by ship owner, or a 3rd party, the responsibility does not change.

 

All manning agencies/ship managers have a responsibility to provide quality Masters/officers/crew, as maintaining the contract depends on it. Lots of options are available to ship owners.

 

8- Yes, the depth of water impacts sea state, as does many other factors, including fetch, duration, etc. However, the primary factor on the Viking Sky incident is the ship was "deadship" Ships can easily handle much rougher seas, but with engines, the Captain has the ability to adjust course and/or speed to ease the passage. In the worst case scenario, you go head to wind, with sufficient power to keep the head to wind. This is considered "Hove to".

 

When a ship has no power it will naturally turn beam to the wind, causing significant rolling. I doubt during any of your T/A's you were deadship in a major storm. 

[chengkp75]

22 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Yes, an expert and an eyewitness, who's also under investigation. Viking by contrast is being very careful and measured with their public statements so far. Just saying.

Not sure that he is in fact under investigation.  He is merely an advisor to the Captain, and has virtually no responsibility for the operation of the vessel.  The reason this pilot is making his statements publicly is that he knows he has no dog in this fight, while Viking does.  He will be called as witness, and asked to make a statement, but doubt that any line of inquiry will be pointed at him.

[Pratique]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

Not sure that he is in fact under investigation.  He is merely an advisor to the Captain, and has virtually no responsibility for the operation of the vessel.  The reason this pilot is making his statements publicly is that he knows he has no dog in this fight, while Viking does.  He will be called as witness, and asked to make a statement, but doubt that any line of inquiry will be pointed at him.

I'm not suggesting that the inquiry will be pointed at him, but it appears that he is part of the investigation. And presumably he also wants to preserve his professional reputation lest there be any questions about the advice he gave to the Captain.

 

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not seeking to cast blame, but I'm interested in what lessons, if any, can be learned from this very serious incident. To do that, they will need to get all the facts about a long chain of events beginning from when the ship was designed all the way until it reached port last weekend. It just seems odd that this pilot felt the need to speak out in defense of the crew while the investigation has only just begun.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I'm not suggesting that the inquiry will be pointed at him, but it appears that he is part of the investigation. And presumably he also wants to preserve his professional reputation lest there be any questions about the advice he gave to the Captain.

 

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not seeking to cast blame, but I'm interested in what lessons, if any, can be learned from this very serious incident. To do that, they will need to get all the facts about a long chain of events beginning from when the ship was designed all the way until it reached port last weekend. It just seems odd that this pilot felt the need to speak out in defense of the crew while the investigation has only just begun.

Actually, as far as his advice to the Captain regarding sailing from Tromso, one of the pilots earlier stated that it was never even discussed between them and the Captain, it was that much of a non-issue.

 

He has decided to speak out to stop the public shaming of the Captain by people who have no knowledge of the law, the profession, or the details of the incident at hand.  This is one of the worst aspects of the social media age (and I'm not lumping you into this, you just asked why he is speaking), where a Captain's reputation can be ruined by folks condemning him for things that weren't in fact wrong, and yet when it comes time that the investigation might exonerate him, that receives absolutely no coverage, and the damage is done.  Also, the pilot is not an investigator, so he does not need to stay impartial, and is free to express his professional opinion as he sees fit.

[RMLincoln]

I am a 16 yr member of a rural volunteer fire department (my retirement career), and EMT and firefighter, plus safety trainer... I have the following Observations and comments to share, for what they may be worth to the discussion; I am not a maritime engineer or captain and I greatly appreciate the comments of those who have added to the conversation.

 

In the  Explorer's Lounge video we see that most of the people are seated in chairs on the carpeted surface, while the furniture that is sliding is on the smooth wood planking surface.  Because the Muster Station signal is heard at the end of some of these clips we can assume that no warning had been given to avoid certain areas of the ship.  Starting a few years ago, on Holland America Line ships they are using a multi-stage emergency warning system:  first signal is for staff and crew to investigate an incident, passengers have no action; second signal, passengers are to move to their cabins while crew begin a response to the incident.... I really like this part because it will clear the hallways for easier access of the crew to the incident; then third signal is the Muster Station signal when the passengers (who should already be in their cabin) are to don warn, covering clothing, their life jackets, take their essential medications and IDs with them and proceed to their stations.  Having inside muster stations is great, as on Viking Sky, keeping passengers better sheltered, more comfortable and more able to hear instructions.  

 

Many times when a ship is rolling the crew will corral the chairs and other lightweight and free furniture, overturning chairs and entwining the legs to keep the grouping more stable and from injuring people.. and often the crew will put them on the carpet or in the pool.  I think some of the still photos being posted elsewhere show corralled furniture, some in the pool to keep them from causing injury. No, I would not choose to be in the lounge with tall windows but many people want to see the exciting views of the rolling sea.  Yes, I would be concerned about furniture hitting me, hitting the windows, but not everybody feels the same risk levels.  As for the ceiling tiles falling, my guess is that flexing of the ship caused the tiles to drop through their support grid openings.  

 

I read that a crew member reported to a journalist that he/she saw a passenger with a broken neck on a stretcher.... as an EMT my guess is that the passenger had on a precautionary neck brace applied by medical staff; this is known as a C-Collar, used to protect the cervical spine from possible further injury, including whiplash, if the patient has endured a forceful trauma, such as being thrown into a wall; this is especially advised if the patient is elderly or has known osteoporosis history.  The medical staff would have provided this as a precaution and protection.  Apparently the crew member made inappropriate assumptions and could not have diagnosed a broken neck from observation.  We (rural Emergency Medical Services as I serve with) regularly use C-Collars  for patients in motor vehicle accidents, but also for victims of falls, brawls or other violence who may have been tossed about.  

 

Medical staff on ships have a busy time caring for patients under ordinary circumstances; I have assisted at least 5 fellow passengers as I have happened to come upon them in hallways, the theater, the buffet and once upon the elevator doors opening at my cabin floor foyer: 2 were injured from falls, 2 were too ill to navigate and had collapsed, one was in cardiac arrest but was resuscitated.   The medical staff on board is always a contracted staff and all those I have dealt with have been excellent.   I would expect excellence of a bridge team too, and not assume that because they are contracted they might be of lesser ability.  

 

 

 

 

  

[Pratique]

40 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

...where a Captain's reputation can be ruined by folks condemning him for things that weren't in fact wrong, and yet when it comes time that the investigation might exonerate him, that receives absolutely no coverage, and the damage is done.

Could you please explain the reputational damage some more? Is this a real problem? I am genuinely curious. I would think that public opinion has little to no effect (most people don't even know or care who the captain is, much less his or her reputation), and that those knowledgeable in the profession will see through the noise and recognize the Captain for what he has or hasn't done. In my observations of the world, people get riled up about things and then move on. This Captain will be forgotten soon enough. So I'm not understanding the concern about the extent of the damage being done, or how the pilot's public remarks will make much of a difference in the long run. Thanks in advance for engaging with me on this. I am learning.

[Haworth]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

While commenting on marine operational issues, I can only assume you have minimal, if any training or experience in ship operations. In response to some of your points:

 

1) Ship would capsize, if heeled 45 degree. This vessel was still intact, so had full stability. Memory is a little hazy, but the maximum righting lever GZ, must occur after at least 30 degrees of heel. To determine when a vessel capsizes you must be privy to the vessel specific cross curves of stability. Yes -every ship is different. My best guess is when intact it will have positive stability to at least 80 degrees and most likely about 90 degrees.

 

2) Lifejacket storage on outer decks is in compliance with SOLAS and Flag State. Had the vessel actually grounded, no time might be available to retrieve L/J's from cabins. If crew had a potential of going overboard then their supervisor should have ensured they were tied-off.  While I discount media reports, if crew were on the outer decks and not secured, then as Captain, I would ensure their supervisor was researching alternative employment options. Jeopordising crew safety is not acceptable.

 

If lifejackets on outer decks bothers you, hope you enjoy the mega ships.

 

3) Having been in many storms, the entire ship is a fairly dangerous environment, so where exactly from your experience would you have them go. BTW, when the ship is moving violently, it is highly recommended to limit movement around the ship, unless completely necessary.

 

Many reports from passengers actually on board have praised the crew for their actions in tending to the passengers.

 

However, from watching a narrow perspective on a film, you apparently gained full situational awareness and know better than the trained crew managing the Assembly Stations. Did you ever consider that other areas, not seen in the film, may be worse.

 

Personally, while the environment shown was not the safest, without being present and having full situational awareness, it is highly inappropriate to making comments.

 

4) With respect to being in that environment, the message provided at the Muster Drills is very clear. On hearing the General Emergency Signal, proceed to your cabin (if safe), collect warm clothing and medications and go to the Assembly Station. So at the Assembly Station you should already have meds, etc.

 

5) In your experience the Captain makes a PA in about an hour. Well again reports from passengers on board stated they received excellent communications. While every incident is different, as a Captain, my objective is to advise the pax ASAP, however working with the Chief Engineer, Staff Captain and Hotel Director were critical in this incident. Personally, unless an extreme emergency, I consider an hour for the Captain to talk to pax initially might be rather long.

 

6) Your ability to determine this incident exposes operational issues, is truly amazing, since no facts have actually been published by the relevant authorities. I also doubt you have any knowledge of the ISM Code and the requisite operations manuals documenting the company's policy & procedures. Both of these sources are required to making any informed determination.

 

7) Captain is a, "Hired Gun". Wow, can't imaging a more disrespectful comment regarding a marine professional, who led a team that saved the ship and about 1,400 passengers & crew.

 

The use of manning agencies and ship managers is very common practice in the marine industry, which permits companies to outsource specialised HR functions. Whether, the Master is employed directly by ship owner, or a 3rd party, the responsibility does not change.

 

All manning agencies/ship managers have a responsibility to provide quality Masters/officers/crew, as maintaining the contract depends on it. Lots of options are available to ship owners.

 

8- Yes, the depth of water impacts sea state, as does many other factors, including fetch, duration, etc. However, the primary factor on the Viking Sky incident is the ship was "deadship" Ships can easily handle much rougher seas, but with engines, the Captain has the ability to adjust course and/or speed to ease the passage. In the worst case scenario, you go head to wind, with sufficient power to keep the head to wind. This is considered "Hove to".

 

When a ship has no power it will naturally turn beam to the wind, causing significant rolling. I doubt during any of your T/A's you were deadship in a major storm. 

I said earlier that  I would stay out of this debate, I would like to thank you for your wise, considered and sensible response to one of the many “arm chair experts” who seem to have total knowledge of the events on the Sky.

 

Perhaps they would like to experience those 26 hours and then come back and post their thoughts.

[Pushka]

3 hours ago, gatour said:

If you are in a public space then you should have the expectation that you may be photographed.

 

I agree with that in the street or a department store for example but a ship or plane etc is different and is a security area. Faces should never be shown without consent in these circumstances. 

 

Im sure Viking are reviewing their policies right now with regards to where they put people in cicrcumstances like this. Thankfully no significant injuries so it’s going to be an important learning experience. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Pushka

[Pratique]

I don't know if has been mentioned here yet, but apparently the ship will eventually be moved to Kristiansund for repairs. The AIB reports that they already have a good idea of what caused the mechanical failure but there is still much more data to review before releasing any findings. No timeline given.

[AL3XCruise]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

He has decided to speak out to stop the public shaming of the Captain by people who have no knowledge of the law, the profession, or the details of the incident at hand.

 

I applaud him for taking that action.  It seems to me that several officials have made statements which include something along the lines of "we will look into the weather conditions and the decisions related to routing through the forecast storm".  Obviously, this will be part of any investigation; it has to be.  Sadly, this has been picked up by pundits as "We are concerned that ship shouldn't have been where it was" or "the Captain proceeded knowingly into bad weather."  

 

I've worked in safety and risk management, so while I don't have the depth of ship specific knowledge several posters do, I do have some understanding of the processes involved.  The Master would have gathered and evaluated information, including the forecast, and compared that information with the established guidelines of the company and other relevant organizations.  If his actions show that he did this properly (and while no one knows for sure, I'm not aware of one any evidence that he failed in this responsibility), then the question becomes do the guidelines need to be reevaluated, not what did the Master do wrong.

 

There may be significant outcomes to the investigation.  New maintenance procedures, weather criteria, ship design requirements, etc. can all reduce the risks for millions of travelers.  The fact that changes could be made does not suggest that anyone was negligent.  Simply put, improving the system used to make decisions going forward is far more important than assigning blame

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by AL3XCruise

[VK3DQ]

Hi Folks

 

Just a comment on storage of life jackets ... better NOT in cabins , in case of Fire and smoke the last thing you want to do is is to enter / re enter an area that may be subject to smoke  better go directly to your muster station  or if your muster station is smoke filled directly to your boat boarding area.

 

If you remain in an area invaded by smoke your chances of survival are greatly reduced

 

When you hear the general alarm and you are NOT in your cabin my suggestion is you do NOT return to your cabin

 

Best regards

 

John

[VK3DQ]

Hi Folks

 

Be aware that although the Captain is "Master Under God" modern bridge management encourages challenge , so if the master was say drunk or Ill or making a decision that would put the ship in real danger its quite likely his no 2 or other officers would challenge  .

Or I would hope they would 🙂

 

Regards

John

 

[broberts]

54 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Could you please explain the reputational damage some more? Is this a real problem? I am genuinely curious. I would think that public opinion has little to no effect (most people don't even know or care who the captain is, much less his or her reputation), and that those knowledgeable in the profession will see through the noise and recognize the Captain for what he has or hasn't done. In my observations of the world, people get riled up about things and then move on. This Captain will be forgotten soon enough. So I'm not understanding the concern about the extent of the damage being done, or how the pilot's public remarks will make much of a difference in the long run. Thanks in advance for engaging with me on this. I am learning.

 

I would have thought that obvious. Should public opinion, especially in the cruise traveller community turn very negative an employer (or a potential employer) would likely be concerned about the potential impact on sales of employing the person. Fact and truth don't really matter at that point. Perception becomes reality.

 

[Pratique]

2 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

I would have thought that obvious. Should public opinion, especially in the cruise traveller community turn very negative an employer (or a potential employer) would likely be concerned about the potential impact on sales of employing the person. Fact and truth don't really matter at that point. Perception becomes reality.

 

I get that in the general sense, but is this a real problem in the cruise industry? Have other captains been blackballed because of public opinion in social media?

[Hanoj]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Actually, as far as his advice to the Captain regarding sailing from Tromso, one of the pilots earlier stated that it was never even discussed between them and the Captain, it was that much of a non-issue.

 

He has decided to speak out to stop the public shaming of the Captain by people who have no knowledge of the law, the profession, or the details of the incident at hand.  This is one of the worst aspects of the social media age (and I'm not lumping you into this, you just asked why he is speaking), where a Captain's reputation can be ruined by folks condemning him for things that weren't in fact wrong, and yet when it comes time that the investigation might exonerate him, that receives absolutely no coverage, and the damage is done.  Also, the pilot is not an investigator, so he does not need to stay impartial, and is free to express his professional opini  sees fit.

While social media may be (or become) the bane of modern civilization, it is a present reality. Fortunately (in some cases) and unfortunately (in many cases), social media, because of how quickly perceptions are cast over an incredibly broad platform, must be considered when making decisions in many commercial enterprises, especially for those businesses with extensive interaction with the public and large groups of consumers. A brand's image can suffer irretrievable damage because of how news (fake or real doesn't matter for this purpose) and incidents are broadcast so quickly.  Sadly, gone are the days when someone can make all the right decisions, and yet be condemned when there is an unfortunate outcome. When I got my MBA 30 years ago, PCs were just emerging and there was no social media content (because it didn't exist yet). Today there are MBA in Social Media degrees available. Truly, social media has made "by the book" a whole new endeavor rife with problems not easily anticipated.

[Hanoj]

1 hour ago, Pushka said:

 

 Thankfully no significant injuries so it’s going to be an important learning experience. 

I don't know if verified, but I have seen accounts that once passenger suffered a broken neck, reportedly in critical condition in an intensive care unit. Sad, truly. Prayers of healing with love offered.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Hanoj

[Hanoj]

49 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I don't know if has been mentioned here yet, but apparently the ship will eventually be moved to Kristiansund for repairs. The AIB reports that they already have a good idea of what caused the mechanical failure but there is still much more data to review before releasing any findings. No timeline given.

If so, things will likely leak out soon. They always do.

[helen haywood]

7 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

I don't know if verified, but I have seen accounts that once passenger suffered a broken neck, reportedly in critical condition in an intensive care unit. Sad, truly. Prayers of healing with lover offered.

 

See post # 1132

[Nunagoras]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Thanks.  Fairly typical report from short term employee, and likely entertainment staff.  Don't doubt ship was rolling heavily, but not 45* as stated, as nearly every ship when listed 45* would have the promenade deck in the water.  Totally ignorant about lifeboats, and yes, storing lifejackets on the promenade deck can cause difficulties, but that's what the crew are there for, to assist the passengers, and if they were out on the open deck without being tied off, then their supervisor should be fired, as this is basic seamanship.  There are trade offs between lifejackets in cabins  and in central locations, you can argue either way, and IMO allows either.

Many thanks @chengkp75 for your contribution.

 

Sadly nowadays the number of those "crew members" on ships whom aren't real crew members are exploding rapidly. Some 10 years ago I would say only the photographers, Casino, entertainment and a few shop assistants would to fall on that category... But now let us to see: The international maritime laws only mandate that all the people involved in satisfying the operation, security and the basic needs of the people inside a ship should be considered Crew Members. All the others can to be external workers on the ship and those afford passenger level benefits and obligations. Seems clear? Not so much! Take for example restaurants: Once all pay for the buffet and the MDR, the basic need is almost considered satisfied on those venues coupled with their near be bars. So now, why not to rent all the other food and beverage areas to "celebrity chefs" and drink trademarks? Once on the RCI's Allure 4 years ago I learnt that all the workers working on the Starbucks coffee shop aboard and most of the ones on the speciality restaurants were subcontracted workers with their partner businesses! Obviously no doubt those individuals might to have very basic, if any, maritime knowledge, to let alone Emergency Rescue activities knowledge! And that trend is spreading on all the mainstream industry!...

 

Supposedly the luxury and lite luxury lines should be more immune to that trend... Or maybe are they just doing it on a more discreet fashion?

 

Something will need to be change in the next years before we have a new Costa Concordia... Fortunately this time all are well and safe now!...

 

Have a nice day!...

[VK3DQ]

16 minutes ago, Nunagoras said:

Many thanks @chengkp75 for your contribution.

 

Sadly nowadays the number of those "crew members" on ships whom aren't real crew members are exploding rapidly. Some 10 years ago I would say only the photographers, Casino, entertainment and a few shop assistants would to fall on that category... But now let us to see: The international maritime laws only mandate that all the people involved in satisfying the operation, security and the basic needs of the people inside a ship should be considered Crew Members. All the others can to be external workers on the ship and those afford passenger level benefits and obligations. Seems clear? Not so much! Take for example restaurants: Once all pay for the buffet and the MDR, the basic need is almost considered satisfied on those venues coupled with their near be bars. So now, why not to rent all the other food and beverage areas to "celebrity chefs" and drink trademarks? Once on the RCI's Allure 4 years ago I learnt that all the workers working on the Starbucks coffee shop aboard and most of the ones on the speciality restaurants were subcontracted workers with their partner businesses! Obviously no doubt those individuals might to have very basic, if any, maritime knowledge, to let alone Emergency Rescue activities knowledge! And that trend is spreading on all the mainstream industry!...

 

Supposedly the luxury and lite luxury lines should be more immune to that trend... Or maybe are they just doing it on a more discreet fashion?

 

Something will need to be change in the next years before we have a new Costa Concordia... Fortunately this time all are well and safe now!...

 

Have a nice day!...

 

This practice goes back many years.. The Ala carte Restaurant on board Titanic operated by Mr Gati was just such a case  He survived because he was mistaken for a passenger , all of his Italian staff perished

 

Regards

 

John

Oh PS Might I suggest some bedside reading "Ferry Down" by Brian Callison lots of good insight into issues of manning

 

 

 

[Hanoj]

@Nunagoras, demand for cruising has nearly tripled since 2005, with 30 million people expected to cruise in 2019. When there is this kind of demand, it affects how the industry supplies is services, including personnel. Partnering with other business (like to provide spa treatments) is increasingly common. Too much success?

[OnTheJourney]

5 hours ago, nho9504 said:

 

Exactly how I felt when I watched that video - a woman got up and walked to a chair near by - a big chair just flew across the floor right behind her, barely missed her legs.  Just 5 to 10 seconds later, the panels on the ceilings gave in and hit some people sitting right below.

All the while these passengers just sat there, WITHOUT any barriers in front of their seats while the heavy furniture were flying back and forth, plus the planter...

I was like, What were these idiots thinking?  You can get hurt in any moment! 

There was a crew (in white shirt and black plants) walked around obviously trying to keep order - what he should have done was to ORDER these idiots to move far away from the potential dangers - the glass panels could give way to the crashing waves and water gushing in (that happened in the restaurant, right?)  the sliding furniture could easily hit somebody's feet or legs...

 

Yeah, these are supposed seasoned cruisers who paid 6000 sterling pound each for the cruise - yet they are SO MUCH LACK OF COMMON SENSE!

 

I see your point and, being one of the passengers who spent a decent amount of time in the Explorer Lounge during part of early Saturday afternoon, I must admit to thereby probably falling under your designation of being an "idiot"; however, one likes to think that the ship is safe even under such conditions especially since up until that moment it for the most part seemed like just going through high seas and wind. I don't think anyone expected any impending danger. All that being said, once I heard the increasing roar of plates, etc. crashing and the chairs sliding around WITH people in them (obvious at least in the video I took), I knew it was time to get out of there. I will say this....the crew member referred to who was telling folks to move back was basically ignored (I have that on video too). In retrospect, I think the lounge should have been evacuated completely and the doors shut. Heard from one of the passengers who remained on the ship that the lounge piano came unbolted from the floor and is in bad shape. I briefly took a peek up on Deck 7 once I and the rest of the evacuees were allowed back on the ship in Molde  and saw the lounge was closed off. Things on the pool grill side looked pretty disastrous so can only imagine it's not much better in the lounge.

 

Now, your comment..  "The sea the Sky was facing was nothing comparing what we had encountered in our multiple TATL crossings (we have done 12 or 13 or 14 of such, lost count). "  struck me a bit . I have no way of knowing what you've actually faced during your rocky sea journeys, but I can't help but wonder if your statement somewhat smacks of how the caught fish always gets bigger with each retelling. I think perhaps your having not been on the Sky on Saturday afternoon, I might hazard to suggest that you may not be completely correct. Let me ask this....in the "much worse" conditions you refer to ...was there damage taking place in the vessel, let alone a general alarm sounded?  Please know I'm not trying to gainsay you, but I feel your statement may be a bit presumptuous. Just my take on it having lived through this. I suppose every situation is different. As you say, you refer to deeper water than we were in. Then, too, much depends on how much wind is present and what direction it comes from . We had WSW pushing the Sky towards a rocky lee shore. And, the area we were in is apparently noted for the types of conditions we experienced. I don't think it's quite comparable to other "high sea" incidents since, based on what has been stated in this very long thread, we were sailing through a "bomb cyclone". Ultimately doesn't matter. Guess your statement just got under my skin a bit since the terrifying experience of hanging over the water in a hoist is still pretty fresh in my mind. 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[VK3DQ]

Hi Folks

 

There WILL be an investigation in to what happened , and you will all be able to read it when its published , however MOST authorities include a clause like this (This is from the UK agency MAIB)

 

“The sole objective of the investigation of an accident under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012 shall be the prevention of future accidents through the ascertainment of its causes and circumstances. It shall not be the purpose of an investigation to determine liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve its objective, to apportion blame.” NOTE This report is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 14(14) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012, shall be inadmissible in any judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes is to attribute or apportion liability or blame.

 

And very sensible in these litigation prone days

 

Regards

 

John