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

[Bubbalikesme]

33 minutes ago, Pratique said:

VGTV streamed a live press conference the other day, sorry I can't find a link to it at the moment. Matt Grimes represented Viking at the press conference and said 10 days for the repairs, but he didn't give further details. I almost felt as if that statement was a slip up, because otherwise he was very cautious answering most of the reporters' questions. So take it for what it's worth.

 

I would hope that if the cruise is canceled that they will give you adequate notification.

Thank you for this.

iI am wondering if maritime authority would certify ship if not all repairs are complete

[chengkp75]

28 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

And of course the Sky needs to be re-certified in order to get a permanent sailing permit.  Although the Norwegian Maritime Authority released preliminary cause of the engine failure(s), the AIBN and other agencies had announced other aspects of the incident would be addressed, like decision to sail, adequacy of furnishings being secure, and other procedures. Might these things cause a delay to getting the permanent sailing permit, or is it just a formality? 

To the best of my knowledge, the AIBN is merely an investigative body, who report to the regulatory bodies, in this case the NMA.  Any investigation into decision making with regard to sailing and even the recommendations regarding oil levels are things that have to be dealt with at the corporate/fleet level in their policies and procedures, and won't preclude the ship from sailing.  As the ship sails under the current ISM code the company has produced and been approved by the NMA,  recommendations to revise the ISM will only apply to the company's vessels when they are written and approved.  I'm not sure that any agency (at least a maritime agency) covers the securing of furnishings in a cruise ship.   There may be some application of land based Norwegian laws to consumer safety applied, but I don't see that as holding the ship up, from a regulatory viewpoint.  Guidelines may be issued, but again until they are issued, they are not in force, and the regulatory bodies can only detain a ship if it does not meet current laws and regulations.  The temporary sailing permit was from class and NMA to proceed to a port for repairs prior to the investigation being completed.  If the investigation shows that there was no failure of equipment, that the equipment meets current requirements, but that requirements need to be revised, then they don't have grounds to deny removing the "condition of class" that reduced the ship to a temporary certificate.  The temporary certificate can also be due to the loss of one anchor.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Bubbalikesme said:

Thank you for this.

iI am wondering if maritime authority would certify ship if not all repairs are complete

That depends on what you mean by "repairs".  The ship can be certified as seaworthy as long as all windows and doors that may have been damaged are repaired.  The NMA does not care about ceiling panels in passenger spaces, wet carpeting, or damaged furniture and pianos.

[jakob71]

To Bubbalikesme: I think your April 6 sailing will go as planned.

 

[AmazedByCruising]

13 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

The one sentence "update" presently on their website is awfully brief:

 

"All passengers and crew who were on board Viking Sky are safe, and almost all passengers have returned home."

 

While caution would dictate avoiding providing too much information, sometimes not giving enough can work against a company's intention to control damage to its brand and image.

 

 

 

Which caution?  There's no reason to be secretive about the incident, the first report is out, pax have been on TV, you name it.

 

Would it be that bold to put up a vlog or blog showing how much work is being done to make the next cruise happen? Just like new ships are shown as they are being build, or TV series show how much work goes into turn-around day. It would give me a much nicer feeling than press releases saying that the boss feels sorry.

 

"All crew are busy cleaning, except for Suradi whose marriage will take place on the ship tomorrow. Some of the rooms will need new carpets that will be flown in the next few days. While Peter is still trying to find someone to tune all three new pianos, the Captain pays a visit the Norwegian Coastguard to thank them".

 

[GeezerCouple]

2 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Which caution?  There's no reason to be secretive about the incident, the first report is out, pax have been on TV, you name it.

 

Would it be that bold to put up a vlog or blog showing how much work is being done to make the next cruise happen? Just like new ships are shown as they are being build, or TV series show how much work goes into turn-around day. It would give me a much nicer feeling than press releases saying that the boss feels sorry.

 

"All crew are busy cleaning, except for Suradi whose marriage will take place on the ship tomorrow. Some of the rooms will need new carpets that will be flown in the next few days. While Peter is still trying to find someone to tune all three new pianos, the Captain pays a visit the Norwegian Coastguard to thank them".

 

 

 

Nice.  Thanks for something to make us all smile.

And, of course, all Best Wishes to "Suradi" 

 

Yeah, something like this would definitely be an upbeat way of keeping everyone posted a bit better.

And ditto, even if there is another delay (but TELL people asap, so they can make plans and not get even MORE angry because of late notice, etc.).

 

GC

[Pratique]

7 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

Which caution?  There's no reason to be secretive about the incident, the first report is out, pax have been on TV, you name it.

I'm assuming that they don't want to make any promises they can't keep, draw further attention to the incident, or make any statements that could potentially be used against them. That kind of caution.

[Hanoj]

2 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I'm assuming that they don't want to make any promises they can't keep, draw further attention to the incident, or make any statements that could potentially be used against them. That kind of caution.

Thanks @Pratique. And I agree it would be good for the company to get out in front of this by providing information to assuage customers concerns. Turn an averted tragedy into a compelling human interest story. Write the script for a future movie. That is, I would hire a PR company that specializes in these types of incidents. Everything is so transparent today with social media. Viking should use it to tell and promote their story and brand. Done well it could prevent a deleterious impact to sales and profitability (the cost of making repairs is sunk - accounting pun recognizing it already occurred). Done exceptionally well, it could improve future sales and profitability.

[AmazedByCruising]

11 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I'm assuming that they don't want to make any promises they can't keep, draw further attention to the incident, or make any statements that could potentially be used against them. That kind of caution.

 

OK, I think secrecy would hurt more than openness would help.  

[Hanoj]

3 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

OK, I think secrecy would hurt more than openness would help.  

Yep, drive people to their website and other resources to get the most up to date information where they have control over the content. People searching for information will get the media's interpretations and stories, over which Viking has no command.

[Pratique]

4 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

OK, I think secrecy would hurt more than openness would help.  

Probably, but I think this was an embarrassing incident for them. Not good PR. They were roundly criticized and mocked in the media for sailing into a storm, losing engine power, and having to evacuate people by helicopter. Also there have been some interviews with passengers giving harrowing accounts of their experience to the media. So maybe it makes sense for them to lay low. It's a possibility. I'm not a PR expert so I wouldn't know the best approach but I do think that at the very least they should be making public statements to help give customers confidence that their concerns about the safety of the ship and the scheduling of upcoming cruises are being addressed.

[broberts]

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

Probably, but I think this was an embarrassing incident for them. Not good PR. They were roundly criticized and mocked in the media for sailing into a storm, losing engine power, and having to evacuate people by helicopter. Also there have been some interviews with passengers giving harrowing accounts of their experience to the media. So maybe it makes sense for them to lay low. It's a possibility. I'm not a PR expert so I wouldn't know the best approach but I do think that at the very least they should be making public statements to help give customers confidence that their concerns about the safety of the ship and the scheduling of upcoming cruises are being addressed.

 

I would guess the legal department has suggested saying nothing to the media is prudent at this time. Until the official accident investigation has completed anything said is going to be viewed in its worst light by some parties and everything said can end up in a legal proceeding.

 

[cmaasfamily]

5 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

Yep, drive people to their website and other resources to get the most up to date information where they have control over the content. People searching for information will get the media's interpretations and stories, over which Viking has no command.

 

I love the idea of an upbeat, we're-getting-ready-for-you approach. Thirty years in business tells me marketing's enthusiasm gets thrown to the floor and gagged when they run something like that by legal. 🙂  

 

By the time they vet it, scrub it, water it down, the ship will have sailed. (see what I did there?)

[Pratique]

6 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

I would guess the legal department has suggested saying nothing to the media is prudent at this time. Until the official accident investigation has completed anything said is going to be viewed in its worst light by some parties and everything said can end up in a legal proceeding.

 

Yes, that too. Lawyers are risk adverse, sometimes to the detriment of the business (unintended consequences).

 

The bad part is dealing with this:

 

[Richard2]

I hope those on the April 6 departure will let us know when Viking informs them about their trip. I have been reserving judgment about the incident itself, but it would be extremely poor form for Viking to create major inconveniences for those booked on the next cruise. We almost always spend 3 or 4 days on our own in the embarkation and disembarkation cities, and do not use Viking Air, so they have no record of our plans. If we left town and took an international flight on April 1st or 2nd only to learn days later that our trip was cancelled, I would be furious.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Richard2
typo

[Hanoj]

1 minute ago, Richard2 said:

I hope those on the April 6 departure will let us know when Viking informs them about their trip. I have been reserving judgment about the incident inself, but it would be extremely poor form for Viking to create major inconveniences for those booked on the next cruise. We almost always spend 3 or 4 days on our own in the embarkation and disembarkation cities, and do not use Viking Air, so they have no record of our plans. If we left town and took an international flight on April 1st or 2nd only to learn days later that our trip was cancelled, I would be furious.

I'm not sure the best way to approach this, but if working with a travel agent I would have him or her contact Viking. I would also consider emailing tellus@vikingcruises.com. 

[just_dont]

With regard to the "tight timing", don't forget that they would still have to get the ship from its current location along the western coast of Norway to the departure city for the cruise (which I don't recall as I type this).
I'd imagine that once all mechanical and safety issues have been addressed, they might be able to get 'approval' to sail with crew and other workers, and as long as they've gotten all the new "stuff" onboard, they could proceed with interior 'cosmetic' repairs and installations (and piano tuning [emoji6]) while sailing to the cruise departure city.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Pratique]

10 minutes ago, just_dont said:

With regard to the "tight timing", don't forget that they would still have to get the ship from its current location along the western coast of Norway to the departure city for the cruise (which I don't recall as I type this).
I'd imagine that once all mechanical and safety issues have been addressed, they might be able to get 'approval' to sail with crew and other workers, and as long as they've gotten all the new "stuff" onboard, they could proceed with interior 'cosmetic' repairs and installations (and piano tuning ) while sailing to the cruise departure city.

I would not be surprised if repairs are ongoing during the first few cruises, but probably most of it will be done before the first one. I vaguely remember seeing that Anthem of the Seas sailed with some visible damage for awhile after their incident before they could get the replacement parts fabricated. It may also turn out that Copenhagen or wherever else Sky is calling next month is a more convenient place to onboard some of the new materials they will need.

[gatour]

13 hours ago, Pushka said:

 

I can’t agree. A ship is not a public space. Yes there are public spaces, but that is not the same as public space.  Viking ships are privately owned. You cannot gain access to a ship unless you are invited in, work there, or pay a fare.  This is the reality in Australia:

What exactly is public space?

Public space consists of areas that are not privately owned or occupied, such as public parks and streets. Shopping malls are not public areas, they are owned by large (read potentially litigious) corporations.

 

You can, however, photograph private spaces from a public space, such as a home or homeowner from the footpath across the street. But you can't take images of the person inside their home, (like through a bedroom window). It would have to be if that homeowner was at their front door, at the gate or walking to their parked car on the street.

Using your logic then no one can ever take photograph onboard a cruise ship, theme park, department store, should I go on, that includes other people without their permission.  At this day and age there are literally millions of photographs posted on line and even before shared among friend of the photographer.  If this was an invasion of privacy then there would have been lawsuit.

 

You are correct that you can't take images of a person inside their home because there is a expectation of privacy.  In a quasi-public space there is no expectation of privacy (at least in the US).

 

I am not sure if it was you, but someone mentioned "profiting from the photographs".  The photographs I have seen have been posted without renumeration so there is no profiting that applies.  When you go to Walt Disney World there are signs posted that filming may be happening which may be used for commercial purposes.  The signs state, by entering the park, you are giving your consent that your image may be included in advertising etc.  Now if you want to push this contractualy, I am not sure what the outcome would be as I am not a contract lawyer.   

[Pratique]

NRK reports to have gained access to a portion of the VHF communications from Viking Sky. There is audio linked in the story below, so you can listen for yourself. The Google translation of the article leaves much to be desired, but it seems that the phrase "went for their own machine" means "under their own power" based on the context in which it has been used in other Google-translated articles.

 

It seems that it took 30 minutes for the anchors to take hold. There is praise for the calmness of the crew. Other ships/boats in the area express frustration at being unable to assist. Also there's mention of the cargo ship Hagland Captain watching the rescue unfold before they run into problems of their own.

 

This will make for a good made-for-TV movie lol.

 

https://www.nrk.no/mr/hor-dramatikken-pa-hustadvika-1.14493607

[GeezerCouple]

Does anyone know the status of the one person hospitalized in critical condition?

 

It was stated (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that there was a broken neck.

But "broken neck" can include quite a variety of injuries... and likely outcomes.

 

GC

[Pushka]

39 minutes ago, gatour said:

Using your logic then no one can ever take photograph onboard a cruise ship, theme park, department store, should I go on, that includes other people without their permission.  At this day and age there are literally millions of photographs posted on line and even before shared among friend of the photographer.  If this was an invasion of privacy then there would have been lawsuit.

 

You are correct that you can't take images of a person inside their home because there is a expectation of privacy.  In a quasi-public space there is no expectation of privacy (at least in the US).

 

I am not sure if it was you, but someone mentioned "profiting from the photographs".  The photographs I have seen have been posted without renumeration so there is no profiting that applies.  When you go to Walt Disney World there are signs posted that filming may be happening which may be used for commercial purposes.  The signs state, by entering the park, you are giving your consent that your image may be included in advertising etc.  Now if you want to push this contractualy, I am not sure what the outcome would be as I am not a contract lawyer.   

 

To be honest I think your first statement is true. When at an airport as an example  I never take photos of people where they can be identified. And that is a public space. I do know here in Australia that parents have been prevented from taking photos of groups of children at their various group activities. I think that’s taking things too far but that seems to be the trend. 

 

If you are publishing anything online then that could be deemed to be profiting, especially these days for instagrammers and so on. And maybe it’s a moral compass thing. When people are in distress, eg as in Sky, then I would never think that posting recognisable photos of them online is acceptable. But of course I’m assuming that no consent was obtained. 

 

In many countries you cannot take photos of people. And some people in tourist areas insist that a photo taken of them = money please. So for me the bottom line and safest line is don’t take photos of people if they can be recognised without consent. 

[azdrydock]

15 hours ago, Pushka said:

 

I can’t agree. A ship is not a public space. Yes there are public spaces, but that is not the same as public space.  Viking ships are privately owned. You cannot gain access to a ship unless you are invited in, work there, or pay a fare.  This is the reality in Australia:

What exactly is public space?

Public space consists of areas that are not privately owned or occupied, such as public parks and streets. Shopping malls are not public areas, they are owned by large (read potentially litigious) corporations.

 

You can, however, photograph private spaces from a public space, such as a home or homeowner from the footpath across the street. But you can't take images of the person inside their home, (like through a bedroom window). It would have to be if that homeowner was at their front door, at the gate or walking to their parked car on the street.

What was quoted refers to liability and property law

For the purpose of general photography, with some exceptions, if you have the right to be in a space, public or privately owned, you have a right to take photographs unless specifically prohibited. On a ship if you are in an area that that you are not prohibited from being in, snap away. The T&C’s of the cruise may restrict what you can do with the photos, and use of social media. Privacy and permission laws usually apply to the photographer’s intent; if the picture is of copyrighted material, used to insult, shame etc. the photographer is in trouble. If the pictures are describing a news event normally no permission is required except in rare conditions such as government restricted locations. 45 years ago the “news” use was restricted to credentialed news photographers and organizations but I  that is currently true. Most news organizations will edit and blur if so requested; not true on social media. I think the internet pictures did an excellent job of describing the situation in real time, no ones privacy was invaded and there was no intent to defame Viking or anyone else.

[azdrydock]

12 hours ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

Just wanted to say that I didn’t publish any photos or a link to them. I just commented that I thought assumptions were being made without knowledge.

Sorry, I was referring to your CC signature pic.  

 

signing off for a while....  Next cruise starts tomorrow

[Pushka]

22 minutes ago, azdrydock said:

What was quoted refers to liability and property law

For the purpose of general photography, with some exceptions, if you have the right to be in a space, public or privately owned, you have a right to take photographs unless specifically prohibited. On a ship if you are in an area that that you are not prohibited from being in, snap away. The T&C’s of the cruise may restrict what you can do with the photos, and use of social media. Privacy and permission laws usually apply to the photographer’s intent; if the picture is of copyrighted material, used to insult, shame etc. the photographer is in trouble. If the pictures are describing a news event normally no permission is required except in rare conditions such as government restricted locations. 45 years ago the “news” use was restricted to credentialed news photographers and organizations but I  that is currently true. Most news organizations will edit and blur if so requested; not true on social media. I think the internet pictures did an excellent job of describing the situation in real time, no ones privacy was invaded and there was no intent to defame Viking or anyone else.

 

This was on a photographers guideline website for Australia. Clearly the laws are different in each country. Intent has nothing to do with it here, it’s the mere act of publishing without consent unless that person is in a public space, ie street.