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

[dogsarepeopletoo]

1 hour ago, just_dont said:

I worked with fire prevention folks and that concept is a smart one in hotels, cruise cabins, etc.   Before bed, put your essentials together in the same relative spot (wallet, room key, eyeglasses, etc.).   For example, aways on the bedside table; or always on the table closest to the door.  

And put a pair of shoes by the bed.   

In an emergency, put on your shoes and take your room/cabin key with you. 

 

 

 

... maybe in a dry bag.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

Edit: Hah! This was post #1200! I think I was #1100, too.

 

[C1nnabar]

And maybe some clothes next to the shoes. And a jacket. 

[Pushka]

4 hours ago, Vineyard View said:

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

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

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

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

Immediately at hand for the Captain is the Bridge Resource Team, which consists of all Deck Officers onboard.  For a cruise ship, this will typically include the Staff Captain (I'm assuming Viking has this position, as its not required by law), who is also a fully credentialed Captain, and this team will assist the Captain in obtaining information and giving professional advice.  Additionally, once notification is made regarding an incident like this, the company will set up an Incident Response Center, where representatives from various departments in the company will meet to advise the Captain, and deal with shoreside coordination.  Based on the company's MARPOL response plan, there will be notification to a salvage and environmental response contractor, and they will set up an incident center.  Finally, the national authority in whose waters the incident occurs will have an incident command center, and will typically take over coordination of all assets and responses, but will also provide data and advice to the onboard team.

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, Hanoj said:

Is anyone able provide insight about sea trials and whether they put a ship through conditions similar to what the Sky experienced in the Hustadvika?

Well, sea trials do extensive testing of all shipboard systems, and do some pretty extreme testing, but of course it is pretty hard to schedule a storm to fit with the ship's delivery schedule.  So, no, sea trials will not include storm conditions, but they might be in poor weather, that's up to nature.  However, in the design process, the ship is subjected to extreme weather conditions either in a model tank or in computer simulations.

[chengkp75]

I will just say that I have read all the posts on this thread, and I don't feel that I've seen any "Viking apologists" posted here.  I see where those who don't immediately blame the Captain and cruise line for poor decisions, operations, or maintenance are considered to be "apologists".  Now, if I am considered to be an apologist, let me say that I and other posters have merely stated facts about how a ship operates, how they are operated and maintained, and the laws regarding going to sea.  I alone, have posited a theory of the causative "failure" that caused the incident, but that was noted as my personal, professional opinion, and while it did place the onus on an "act of God" and not Viking, I don't feel that I am apologizing for Viking.  I have defended cruise lines in the past when statements made on these forums were incorrect on the facts, and have also castigated cruise lines when I felt the facts justified this, like the Carnival Splendor and Costa Concordia incidents.

 

While I understand that cruise passengers expect to have a fun, stress free vacation experience, the simple fact of going to sea means there will always be some risk.  An airliner can fly into clear air turbulence at any time, with no warning, plummet a thousand feet and injure several passengers.  Do you question the pilot, the airline, and the weather and air traffic controllers about the decision to take off several hours before?  It is snowing and you don't want to drive in it, so you call a cab to take you to a doctor's appointment.  The cab has an accident, do you question the driver's, or the cab company's decision to have that cab out driving that day?  There is a risk in anything you do.  The maritime industry has policies and procedures to mitigate these risks as much as possible, but risk is never completely eliminated.  These same policies and procedures are what will be studied to find possible ways to mitigate risk even further, but it also might be found that nothing could have prevented this.

[BigAl94]

Viking Sky is under way with assistance from Normand Ranger destination Vestbase Kristiansund

[lizmac19]

Due to sail on Viking Sky from Copenhagen at the end of April. 

Not entirely happy about it at the moment.  Having difficulty mentally processing the "four engine cut-out" problem.

Noticed Viking Sky left Molde this morning heading north for Vestbase.  I thought the original plan was to bring her south to Bergen, but she is headed north.  May be a sea trial.

New to cruising!

[G.M.T.]

9 hours ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

Was I just slapped on the wrist for NOT having technical knowledge?  If so...I can accept that. But can venture my opinions anyway. Alot of "armchair quarterbacking" going on here anyway. Think I'll just follow this from now on instead of posting. I lived through it and have pics and videos to document all of it for my own keepsake...the rest I will leave up to the experts AND those with technical knowledge.....

Glad you made it home safetly.

 

One thing that is coming out of this thread (same thing happened on the Costa Concordia accident thread) is that the actual passengers are very calm about their experience.

 

Please disregard the armchair captains (all full of BS) and keep please keep posting.

[G.M.T.]

9 hours ago, nho9504 said:

 

First of all, I feel for you and all the passengers that have gone thru that horrifying experience - hanging on their dear lives.

 

The point is, this should NOT have happened,  because the ship should be able to handle that weather conditions - even the Norwegian officials said that.  Even the avid retired seafarers said that.  Then why would the situation turned into an almost life and death situation?  Dont you feel there are a lot of questions need answers?   Dont you feel the ship's management / company's management have some decision making process went wrong?  I were you I would question this, instead of one-sided praising the captain for doing a great job.  The great job that has never got done is, NOT to lead your passengers thru such horrifying journey!

 

The lounge should be closed and off limit to the passengers with those glass walls.  I understand you and other passengers had the false sense of being safe, because you would think the ship should be able to handle such,  being a ship only 2 years old,  and your captain decided to sail into the rough water that has been forecasted.   However even the water did not break the glass walls,  the flying furniture should be obvious to anyone that this was truly dangerous - it is so obvious that one can easily be hit and suffer a broken bone or have open wound...  I seriously dont understand why passengers ignored the crew's plead to retreat to a safer location...

 

About the sea conditions - on a few northern crossings  when weather forecasts show there would be rough patches in front of the original planned course, our captains often change course to stay away from the forecasted conditions often taking a more southern routes that made us missed ports or delayed next port's arrival.  Happened a couple times we missed 2 ports at Ponta Delgada on HAL's ships,  once on a Princess ship.

Captains often announced these changes well ahead of time when we were still at relatively calm sea, during their noon updates. 

 

By the way, on one Southern crossing, the Atlantic remained calm - it was after we entered Med the weather turned rough, with 30 ft sea for some stretch.

 

We have seen 30 to 40ft water a few times but the important thing is, our ships did not lose power - both stabilizers were deployed - we saw the horizon going up and down dramatically but we could still walk albeit like a bit drunk.  In fact during one of such occasions an elderly gentleman with walker refused my assistance to help him when we navigated the cabin corridor back to the stateroom. 

 

Not just in TATL, at the Caribbeans you could run into high sea during hurricane season.  Happened.

 

The things that the mass market lines operate differently, at least comparing to what Sky is operated, is that all precautions were taken LONG BEFORE really bad sea - from the warnings the captains gave during the noon updates and updates as needed thru out the bad weather.

 

All the doors to the outside were secured, swimming pools drained with nets on them,  we were advised not to use the pool deck to go across but use the cabin corridor to go to the restaurant at the stern because of the high wind and slippery decks.  Captains updated the conditions relatively frequently... 

 

BTW, those captains of the mass market lines all are company's direct employees, most work for years with the line before moving up to the staff captain and captain positions,  Only the service sides crews, like the room attendants and the wait staff, the bar tenders, the kitchen staff, the laundry staff and basic maintenance staff, are contracted employees supplied by contractors.  But the people responsible the sailing of the ship, are all directly employed by the lines and worked their way up.  I personally think this makes some difference.  Of course the apologists here would not agree.

 

Basically during all such bad weathers our ships sailed normally thanks to stay in full power and deployment of the stabilizers but everyone is told to take precaution, stayed away from doors to the promenade deck and use handrails whenever possible.

Shops actually also took precautions by putting away the objects that would easily fly loose or crashing down.  Plates normally on the counter of the outdoor grills were taken away.  We heard they had some stuff broken in the kitchen / galley and dining rooms according to the captains but nothing anywhere near what were shown in those videos. 

 

The guy(s) want to know why a 2 years new ship would completely lose power got run off by the apologists on this thread.  Personally I want to know that too -  we are just passengers who care for our own safety, no need to understand how things work, just expect they should work, especially on such a new ship and such a "luxury line".  

 

 

 

 

Laughable!

[lc73]

12 hours ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

 

OK....I'll try.... 

 

 

 

gretschwhtfalcon:  This was an excellent response and answered a lot of my questions.  This helps me considerably and appreciate the time you took to answer and your understanding.  Wishing you and all the passengers and crew from that cruise the very best!

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, nho9504 said:

 

BTW, those captains of the mass market lines all are company's direct employees, most work for years with the line before moving up to the staff captain and captain positions,  Only the service sides crews, like the room attendants and the wait staff, the bar tenders, the kitchen staff, the laundry staff and basic maintenance staff, are contracted employees supplied by contractors.  But the people responsible the sailing of the ship, are all directly employed by the lines and worked their way up.  I personally think this makes some difference.  Of course the apologists here would not agree.

 

This is totally incorrect.  Only the concessions onboard, like casino, spa, photographer, art auction, shops, are subcontracted personnel from the company providing the service.  Cabin stewards, wait staff, bartenders, kitchen staff, and laundry staff are employees of the cruise line, and this applies to all mass market, premium, and luxury cruise lines.  This crew, is frequently sourced through staffing agencies, as is common in the maritime field, but those are merely recruiting agencies, the crew is not employed by the agency.  Many times, the officers are recruited this way.  And the supervisors and senior officers have worked for the cruise line for years after being recruited using the staffing agency, and rise with ability and seniority, just as you say the Captains do.  I am no apologist for Viking, but you are stating incorrect "facts" about the industry as a whole, and Viking's hiring policy is no different from other lines.

[gatour]

14 hours ago, Pushka said:

 

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. 

How is a ship or airplane a "security" area that is different than a department store?  If they were, then there would be signs posted much like they are posted in certain areas of ship/airport terminals.  Unless otherwise posted if you are in a public or quasi public space you must assume that their is the potential to be photographed.

 

Would I have take a photo of the one couple, probably not, but that is just me.  However it does tell part of the story of what was happening on the ship.

[G.M.T.]

14 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This is totally incorrect.  Only the concessions onboard, like casino, spa, photographer, art auction, shops, are subcontracted personnel from the company providing the service.  Cabin stewards, wait staff, bartenders, kitchen staff, and laundry staff are employees of the cruise line, and this applies to all mass market, premium, and luxury cruise lines.  This crew, is frequently sourced through staffing agencies, as is common in the maritime field, but those are merely recruiting agencies, the crew is not employed by the agency.  Many times, the officers are recruited this way.  And the supervisors and senior officers have worked for the cruise line for years after being recruited using the staffing agency, and rise with ability and seniority, just as you say the Captains do.  I am no apologist for Viking, but you are stating incorrect "facts" about the industry as a whole, and Viking's hiring policy is no different from other lines.

Cheng what is the situation regarding Doctors and Nurses onboard, are they directly employed or supplied via a medical agency?

[gatour]

18 hours 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 know each ship has big boxes on the outside decks to store EXTRA lifejacket in case in an emergency passengers have no time to return to their staterooms to retrieve the lifejackets then go to Muster stations.

 

I have been on 3 of the 4 Oasis class ships (RCL) the largerst cruise ships afloat, and the lifejackets are not in the cabins.  I also sailed on the Enchantment within the last year a smaller older ship and again there were not in the cabins.  There can be various reasons, passenger may be summoned to muster stations, where life jackets would not be necessary.

[Pratique]

10 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

I guess I was too optimistic that the Chief and Captains had chased away the pearl-clutchers, as now we have a new batch of them.  So I'm checking out of this thread.  But based on everything I have read so far (meaning ALL the posts here, and none of the 'fake news' press), I will not hesitate to sail with Viking Ocean again.  Bon Voyage all...

I for one value the diversity of opinion here. I can thank some of the people posting bad information because then the experts set us straight, so now we're all more knowledgeable than we would otherwise be. That's a good thing IMHO.

 

It seems that some people don't like all of the negativity that crops up in CC, but I don't think all of the criticism is necessarily unreasonable in a discussion about a very serious incident like this. Even if it turns out that the crew went by the book and performed heroically, and there was nothing "wrong" with the ship, the Captain still has discretion within the bounds of his authority, and I think it is fair to question whether he as the ultimate decision maker made a sound decision to sail into the weather. For one thing, the experts here opine that engine failure under those sea conditions is not unprecedented and even somewhat predictable, and that the biggest unknown is Mother Nature. But even Mother Nature wasn't entirely unpredictable, since some ferries decided to stay in port for passenger comfort reasons based on the conditions and forecast. The Captain made an assessment that the risk was acceptable, but perhaps he could have been more conservative in that assessment. Or maybe not. I think it's a fair question even if it's never resolved.

 

But when all the negative nellys are chased away, this place can become an echo chamber, which causes me to check out of an otherwise interesting conversation. My $0.02 and hoping to hear more from the people who were onboard Sky. I think we can learn a lot from them too.

[chengkp75]

28 minutes ago, G.M.T. said:

Cheng what is the situation regarding Doctors and Nurses onboard, are they directly employed or supplied via a medical agency?

The medical staff are typically independent contractors.

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I for one value the diversity of opinion here. I can thank some of the people posting bad information because then the experts set us straight, so now we're all more knowledgeable than we would otherwise be. That's a good thing IMHO.

 

 For one thing, the experts here opine that engine failure under those sea conditions is not unprecedented and even somewhat predictable, and that the biggest unknown is Mother Nature. But even Mother Nature wasn't entirely unpredictable, since some ferries decided to stay in port for passenger comfort reasons based on the conditions and forecast.

 

I also don't mind differences of opinion, but I do not appreciate being labeled as an "apologist" for anything.

 

The engine shutdown I posited is not unprecedented, but I would not say it was "predictable".  And to say that Nature was "predictable" because other ships did not sail in those conditions is not quite correct either.  Ships are fairly unique entities, with handling characteristics that vary widely by ship type, size, machinery, and even between "sister ships", which is why a specific set of maneuvers are performed at sea trial and the results are posted on a card on the bridge for the knowledge of the officers and pilots who conn the ship.  If each ship in a class handled exactly the same, then these maneuvers would only need to be done on the first ship in the class, and the card copied to each subsequent ship.  This doesn't happen, because despite all the technological advancements over the last few decades, shipbuilding is still more art than science, and like a violin made by a master craftsman, while appearing the same, each has a unique sound.  So, comparing the decision of Hurtigruten to not sail does not make the decision of Viking to sail wrong.  If the Hurtigruten ships were at the same location that the Sky lost power, at the same time, would they have lost power?  Likely not.  Would a sister ship of the Sky in the same location and time have lost power?  Also likely not.  That is not only due to each ship handling differently, but because there would be some minute difference in the ship's speed, the heading, the location, the timing, and whether or not the randomness of nature would provide the exact conditions that the Sky experienced.  Could the Sky have sailed through the exact weather conditions in the exact location 100 times (if you could replicate storms exactly, multiple times, though computer simulations can come close) and not lose power?  Surely, and I would posit that the odds would be one in ten thousand at a minimum.

 

If my scenario is correct, what can be done?  Certainly giving more guidance to Captains about speeds in heavy weather, but unfortunately, given the randomness of storms, this becomes more of a "gut feeling" of how the ship is riding than any set of data points could provide.  I know that the Captains I work with will frequently call me to the bridge for a "second opinion" on how the ship is riding in heavy seas, and what my thoughts are on best speed, as well as how the plant is performing at the current conditions, and whether I recommend a change.  Its something you build a feeling for over years of experiencing ships actually riding through heavy weather.

[Pratique]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

If my scenario is correct, what can be done?

Precisely my point. If nothing else could have been done differently, then what's left other than potentially making a more conservative decision? And if that's all there is to it, and there are no new lessons learned, then we just say that those passengers should go and buy lottery tickets because this may never happen again. I suppose.

[Pratique]

23 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The engine shutdown I posited is not unprecedented, but I would not say it was "predictable".  And to say that Nature was "predictable" because other ships did not sail in those conditions is not quite correct either.

Also, I just want to set the record straight that I didn't write that the shutdown was "predictable," I wrote "somewhat predictable," and I didn't write that the weather was "predictable," I wrote that it "wasn't entirely unpredictable." I chose those words carefully and don't want to be misquoted here. But I get the gist of your argument.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Pratique

[Hanoj]

16 minutes ago, Pratique said:

buy lottery tickets because this may never happen again. I suppose.

With the money I spend cruising I could buy a lot of lottery tickets. It would increase odds of winning a jackpot, but only negligibly. Although much safer, it wouldn’t be nearly as fun as cruising. 

[zitsky]

33 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Precisely my point. If nothing else could have been done differently, then what's left other than potentially making a more conservative decision? And if that's all there is to it, and there are no new lessons learned, then we just say that those passengers should go and buy lottery tickets because this may never happen again. I suppose.

 

Thank you for those last two posts.  I also don't like an echo chamber.  I agree, it's fine to sit back and listen to the experts.  But it is not unreasonable to question whether this might happen again.  The consensus seems to be... this was a random freak accident.  

 

Of course, the reports that come out from this will be interesting to say the least.

Edited March 27, 2019 by zitsky

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, zitsky said:

But it is not unreasonable to question whether this might happen again.  The consensus seems to be... this was a random freak accident that might never happen again.  

That's the feeling I'm getting about the consensus, and it bugs me when people say life has risks so if you don't like it stay home or deal with it. There's always room for improvement. Always. At least that's what my bosses have always told me lol.

[chengkp75]

35 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Precisely my point. If nothing else could have been done differently, then what's left other than potentially making a more conservative decision? And if that's all there is to it, and there are no new lessons learned, then we just say that those passengers should go and buy lottery tickets because this may never happen again. I suppose.

 

9 minutes ago, Pratique said:

That's the feeling I'm getting about the consensus, and it bugs me when people say life has risks so if you don't like it stay home or deal with it. There's always room for improvement. Always. At least that's what my bosses have always told me lol.

Yes, there is room for improvement, but would that apply to this case?  Only time will tell. If nothing could have been done in the current situation, and the odds of repeatability are very low, then you have to base that "more conservative" decision, on a risk/reward calculation of risk to passenger safety vs risk to company's profitability (and therefore its existance).  As I've said, I've been in a couple of instances where the engines have shut down due to weather tripping them off, but many of my colleagues have never experienced it in their careers.  Is it likely to happen again to a Viking ship, even if they don't change anything in their policies?  Probably not, and all of life is a constant risk/reward calculation:  do I cross the street, or may I get hit by a car, what are the odds, and then I decide whether to cross or not. 

 

I apologize for misquoting you.  

[jasardeax]

To the:  Norwegian KystVakt

Thank you for a job well done .

Your bravery, skill, and efficiency are admired by Coast Guard men and women worldwide. 

 

Semper Paratus