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

[DGHOC]

1 hour ago, newcruiser1956 said:

Since you were on the ship,  could you share with us how they decided the order of who was going up in the helicopters after the obviously injured ones?  

As Haworth stated, we were unsure about this. There is no doubt that the seriously injured or infirm were lifted first. Initially they were publicly announcing cabin numbers and we wondered whether it may be that they had prior knowledge of those who were less able. What we did see was that two officers were coming into the theatre and instructing a random row of passengers that they should be ready to move as they were next to be taken off. The passengers organised themselves, they were unable to carry belongings. The officers returned, the passengers stood, their life jackets were checked, then they had to walk in line clutching the shoulder of the passenger in front. 

 

It seemed to be random selection, it was done in a very measured orderly manner and there was absolutely no drama or upset. It would seem in the early stages, when all looked bleak, that passengers were told, not asked. Later when all looked more optimistic, it would seem that passengers had a choice.

[TayanaLorna]

On 3/24/2019 at 9:14 AM, PEverdell said:

Kudos to the captain and crew of the Viking Sky for their quick and accurate response. As a former passenger on the Viking Sky and a USCG petty officer on an icebreaker, I have traveled in a "football shaped" 310' vessel through the Gulf of Alaska in a March gale and around the horn from the Antarctic in rough seas. Ships can handle these seas but if the engines go, the ship can lose steerage, fall off and hit seas broadside.Yikes! Dropping the anchor to prevent the ship from drifting onto the rocks was the best alternative and to immediately begin helicopter evacuations was I think correct considering the ship might hit the shore if the anchor should slip(which I read it did at first). I am sure at the same time they were struggling to get the engines going again. Thankfully they did get three going and were able to head out under enough power. It also looks like from the videos that the crew was present and actively supporting everyone. I certainly hope all those injured will recover and all passengers heal from the experience. Anyway, we need to be always reminded that whenever we travel by whatever means it is always an "adventure" as this cruise certainly was.

I am sure we will all wait to hear the verdict on the engines. I still wonder having looked at videos of the interior of many cruise ships during a storm (not just these latest videos of the Explorers lounge) why things like big heavy planters and ceiling panels aren't bolted and secured well enough for heavy rolls.

I still remain a Viking "groupie" and my wife and I look forward to traveling on Jupiter around the horn this January, 2020. Can't wait.

 

PEverdell.  Which January date are you doing the Viking Chilean Fjords SA trip?

[JDincalif]

3 hours ago, newcruiser1956 said:

Since you were on the ship,  could you share with us how they decided the order of who was going up in the helicopters after the obviously injured ones?  

We were in muster group B, which was moved from the starboard side of the restaurant to the starboard atrium after the water rushed in. From our perspective (trying to sleep on the floor and on a straight-backed chair, respectively), it seemed that, apart from the injured, the groups evacuated all came from the theater (muster group A?) until the very end, when people from muster group B began to be selected. Can anyone from other muster groups report what they observed?

[newcruiser1956]

4 minutes ago, JDincalif said:

it seemed that, apart from the injured, the groups evacuated all came from the theater (muster group A?) until the very end, when people from muster group B began to be selected. Can anyone from other muster groups report what they observed?

I wonder if it had also had to do with which group was in more danger?    Were you given an opportunity to decline? I am younger and in decent healthy,  I would have been ok with waiting.

[DGHOC]

JD, we all wondered whether the majority were being taken from your group as the moves from the theatre were very sporadic. We were truly amazed that they'd got that many passengers airlifted off. I think the whole selection and movement of groups was done in such a discreet and ordered fashion that few, aside from those very close by, realised what was happening. It was all managed exceptionally well.

 

In the theatre groups were taken from the back and cinema sections so many of those facing forwards would probably have been unaware

 

[JDincalif]

10 minutes ago, newcruiser1956 said:

I wonder if it had also had to do with which group was in more danger?    Were you given an opportunity to decline? I am younger and in decent healthy,  I would have been ok with waiting.

We were among the last two groups selected for evacuation, and we were, in fact, given the opportunity to decline. We decided to stay on board and bet that the tug operation, that could not be attempted until daybreak, would be successful. More than a few times in the hours that followed we questioned the wisdom of our choice, of course.

[newcruiser1956]

17 minutes ago, JDincalif said:

We were among the last two groups selected for evacuation, and we were, in fact, given the opportunity to decline. We decided to stay on board and bet that the tug operation, that could not be attempted until daybreak, would be successful. More than a few times in the hours that followed we questioned the wisdom of our choice, of course.

I was in muster A when I was on the Sky in Jan.  I am also a retired paramedic. I would have elected to stay and help.  And I am sure I would have been terrified also :)

 

[just_dont]

We were among the last two groups selected for evacuation, and we were, in fact, given the opportunity to decline. We decided to stay on board and bet that the tug operation, that could not be attempted until daybreak, would be successful. More than a few times in the hours that followed we questioned the wisdom of our choice, of course.

Something I've wondered about, but I'm pretty sure hasn't been covered yet in this thread - how bad were sea conditions between when the ship got its engines running again and the arrival in port there next day?

We all saw the early Explorers Lounge videos of how badly the ship was rolling when adrift before the muster alarm, and there was the video of the water sloshing around the Restaurant, but I believe that was somewhat early as well.
And I was one of the thousands of people watching the live video stream from the Molde camera as Sky was arriving there, and I was surprised just how calm the weather and seas were there at that time. (I realize Molde is relatively well sheltered in general)
After the ship finally got back underway Saturday evening, its sea track seemed fairly steady and consistent up to the point she turned 180 and began heading back toward Molde Sunday morning.

So for any of you passengers 'lucky enough' (?) to have stayed onboard all the way to Molde, how much of those 24-ish hours were truly terrifying ship/sea conditions? When did it begin to be more "normal" bumpy seas? Was it mostly the uncertainty combined with the dark of night and continued evacuation?

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Haworth]

A little difficult to answer, once they had restored some engine power and in conjunction with the anchors we were able to face into the sea and thus reduce some of the rolling, from the theatre we had no sight outside, again difficult to judge.

 

By around 07.30 the next day when the large tug had a line at the bow it felt more stable, may have been psychological? However the wind and seas had been due to reduce.

 

The next issue was when we had to make a 180 turn across the seas to head towards Molde, the Captain warned we could get a lot of movement, I think we were waiting for the turn to happen when he announced that it was completed, I certainly did not notice!

 

After that it all seemed calm and relaxed, the crew brought round some excellent hot food, life jackets were removed and everyone started to move around a bit.

 

I hope that I have given a flavour of how things evolved

 

 

 

[just_dont]

A little difficult to answer, once they had restored some engine power and in conjunction with the anchors we were able to face into the sea and thus reduce some of the rolling, from the theatre we had no sight outside, again difficult to judge.  

By around 07.30 the next day when the large tug had a line at the bow it felt more stable, may have been psychological? However the wind and seas had been due to reduce.

 

The next issue was when we had to make a 180 turn across the seas to head towards Molde, the Captain warned we could get a lot of movement, I think we were waiting for the turn to happen when he announced that it was completed, I certainly did not notice!

 

After that it all seemed calm and relaxed, the crew brought round some excellent hot food, life jackets were removed and everyone started to move around a bit.

 

I hope that I have given a flavour of how things evolved

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Haworth. I guess I can understand that sheltered interior wouldn't let you see what was going on outside.

There's a Cruise Critic page/article that has a bunch of images related to the Sky incident, and one of the images is the ship's track from shortly after losing power until Molde. It shows the ship adrift to the southeast toward shore, and then stopping when the anchor held. Then, after getting back under power, it arcs back to nearly the exact spot where it originally lost power, at which point it started heading almost due west it a very straight course, but at a very slow speed (~3 knts) for the remainder of the night, up to the point when the tug hooked up in the morning.

There was a guy on YouTube that was live streaming the rescues all night by following the ship's position on Marine Traffic website and the helicopter locations on an air traffic website.

In hindsight, I imagine we may have had more information on what all was going on in general than you guys did, but details about what all was going on onboard was limited to social media posts from those onboard and a few interviews on Norwegian TV of some passengers who had been evacuated.

I'm very glad everything worked out on the end for nearly everyone involved, and I hope those who were more seriously injured have a speedy and full recovery.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[Jack E Dawson]

I apologize if this has recently been answered but with over 1400 replies, I may have missed it.

When is Sky projected to get back into service and from which port?

Where is Sky now?

 

Jack

[chengkp75]

21 minutes ago, Jack E Dawson said:

I apologize if this has recently been answered but with over 1400 replies, I may have missed it.

When is Sky projected to get back into service and from which port?

Where is Sky now?

 

Jack

Best of my knowledge, she is in Kristianstad, will be going to Copenhagen to start a cruise on April 6th.

[JDincalif]

2 hours ago, just_dont said:

 

 

Something I've wondered about, but I'm pretty sure hasn't been covered yet in this thread - how bad were sea conditions between when the ship got its engines running again and the arrival in port there next day?

We all saw the early Explorers Lounge videos of how badly the ship was rolling when adrift before the muster alarm, and there was the video of the water sloshing around the Restaurant, but I believe that was somewhat early as well.
And I was one of the thousands of people watching the live video stream from the Molde camera as Sky was arriving there, and I was surprised just how calm the weather and seas were there at that time. (I realize Molde is relatively well sheltered in general)
After the ship finally got back underway Saturday evening, its sea track seemed fairly steady and consistent up to the point she turned 180 and began heading back toward Molde Sunday morning.

So for any of you passengers 'lucky enough' (?) to have stayed onboard all the way to Molde, how much of those 24-ish hours were truly terrifying ship/sea conditions? When did it begin to be more "normal" bumpy seas? Was it mostly the uncertainty combined with the dark of night and continued evacuation?

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

 

Very little diminution of winds and swells between the evacuation order and daybreak the following morning. 

[Mura]

Someone posted on the Oceania list this afternoon that it had been determined that the cause of the engine failure(s) was low oil.  Has anyone here heard that?  I must admit that while the poster said this was an official determination by the Norway investigation I haven't seen anything elsewhere to this effect.  Apparently it was announced at Fox News.

 

I wonder if this could be the case if the ship is scheduled to start another cruise soon.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, Mura said:

Someone posted on the Oceania list this afternoon that it had been determined that the cause of the engine failure(s) was low oil.  Has anyone here heard that?  I must admit that while the poster said this was an official determination by the Norway investigation I haven't seen anything elsewhere to this effect.  Apparently it was announced at Fox News.

 

I wonder if this could be the case if the ship is scheduled to start another cruise soon.

Read back in this thread starting about page 53, and you will find posts that link to the NMA's press release regarding the root cause of the incident, and discussion regarding how this happened, and what it really was, not what Fox News likely said it was.  There was, in fact, no "failure" of the engines, safety systems shut the engines down as designed to prevent damage to the engines, which is why power was able to be restored as quickly as it was.

[Mura]

Thanks so much.  When I saw the source was Fox News I admit I had some big questions!

 

Mura

[just_dont]

10 minutes ago, Mura said:

Thanks so much.  When I saw the source was Fox News I admit I had some big questions!

 

Mura

 

In the US I think USA Today's coverage has been the worst.  None has been what I would consider very good.

[lackcreativity]

2 hours ago, Mura said:

Someone posted on the Oceania list this afternoon that it had been determined that the cause of the engine failure(s) was low oil.  Has anyone here heard that?  I must admit that while the poster said this was an official determination by the Norway investigation I haven't seen anything elsewhere to this effect.  Apparently it was announced at Fox News.

 

I wonder if this could be the case if the ship is scheduled to start another cruise soon.

This description is not completely wrong, but it is very misleading. The oil level was within the recommended levels, but on the low side. When the rough seas caused the ship to tilt, the oil dropped below the level set for the sensors, which caused alarms to go off and the engines to be automatically shut down. The loss of power caused the loss of navigation, which led to the dangerous situation we all followed. While I know that this is my simplified version of what was posted here by those in the know ( and thank you all again), I think that this is closer to the truth than what I have seen in several news articles. It's not like some dimwit on Viking forgot to check the oil and they were sailing the ship till the engines fried! There was no damage to the engines, and the Norwegian Maritime Authority has recommended that the high/low specifications for the engines be altered so this won't occur again.

 

This once again proves why the news media should report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. (At least in my fantasy world they would.)

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by lackcreativity

[Mura]

Thanks for your comment as well.  When I saw the first notice I immediately concluded that the engines had been damaged, and how could the ship sail so soon.  Glad to know the Fox News report was at best superficial.

 

[broberts]

Good reporting and fact checking costs money. Profit making media are rarely willing to invest enough resources for decent research on such small stories.

 

[OnTheJourney]

11 hours ago, JDincalif said:

We were in muster group B, which was moved from the starboard side of the restaurant to the starboard atrium after the water rushed in. From our perspective (trying to sleep on the floor and on a straight-backed chair, respectively), it seemed that, apart from the injured, the groups evacuated all came from the theater (muster group A?) until the very end, when people from muster group B began to be selected. Can anyone from other muster groups report what they observed?

 

I don't think what you're saying is completely right, being that we were also in B and seemed to be among some of the first selected for evac. We wound up in the stairwells shortly after the window broke in the dining room. Must have taken 3 hours to wind our way slowly up to deck 8. We were at the hotel in Kristiansand by about 10:00 or so. Then, some of the last people to have been evac'd got to the hotel by the next morning. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[OnTheJourney]

15 hours ago, newcruiser1956 said:

Since you were on the ship,  could you share with us how they decided the order of who was going up in the helicopters after the obviously injured ones?  

 

Seemed completely random to me. They'd bring up one person with an injury occasionally, then a good number of passengers would be evac'd, and then would come another stretcher and everyone on the steps would have to get to the side and make room. I suppose (hope anyway) that most of the injured all went first, but am not certain of this. Otherwise, I saw no specific order to how we went out. For instance, my wife went out and was lifted off, and then I assumed I'd be next, but then yet another stretcher came up and I was told to wait, then went after the stretcher. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[C1nnabar]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

Good reporting and fact checking costs money. Profit making media are rarely willing to invest enough resources for decent research on such small stories.

 

 

I think it also has a lot to do with speed -- the urge to get information out as quickly as possible to feed the voracious appetites of the public (that's you and me, too). As far as I know,  no final report has come out yet, and here we are discussing the conclusions. Not that I plan to stop. 

[lackcreativity]

1 hour ago, C1nnabar said:

 

I think it also has a lot to do with speed -- the urge to get information out as quickly as possible to feed the voracious appetites of the public (that's you and me, too). As far as I know,  no final report has come out yet, and here we are discussing the conclusions. Not that I plan to stop. 

Indeed, a final report has not been issued, but the information I have mentioned came from a press release by the Norwegian Maritime Authority. I suppose more information may come out later, but I doubt they would make these statements without a fair degree of certainty.

[C1nnabar]

20 minutes ago, lackcreativity said:

Indeed, a final report has not been issued, but the information I have mentioned came from a press release by the Norwegian Maritime Authority. I suppose more information may come out later, but I doubt they would make these statements without a fair degree of certainty.

 

Oh, I don't doubt it -- I think we're more careful than many. But it's the public's impatience that feeds some of the inaccuracy.