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

[OnTheJourney]

1 hour ago, DGHOC said:

 

I may have described this before but no idea where to direct you to it. We were on the mezzanine level of the explorers lounge before the engines went out. We were standing right at the centre front of the ship watching the ship ride the waves, we watched for the best part of a couple of hours. It was like being on a roller coaster. All was fine whilst we were sailing into the waves.

 

Suddenly the ship started to to move to the left and the waves started to hit us from the side. I suspect this was when the engines went. We were standing holding the rail looking down at the explorers lounge as the furniture started to slide from side to side as the ship rolled. We were on carpet up stairs so things were more stable but as the the rocking became more violent, cabinets started to tip over and smash to the ground followed by everything else around us. The ship alarm started at that point so we exited via the eighth floor corridor to descend to the muster stations.

 

How did you get up to the mezzanine level? At some point did they bring everybody back down and then seal off the stairs? When I got to the Lounge (probably around 1:30 or so) the steps going up there were already sealed off. I wonder how those ship models fared up there during the storm. You must have been in the lounge longer than I was also. I left to head down to the theatre since my wife was there watching a movie, and then the alarm went off as we tried to get from the theatre back to our room on deck 5. Needless to say, never got back up there and so had no coats with us. Does anyone know how long the ship was actually without power?  We had emergency lighting for some time - or was power loss directly associated with engine shutdown and occurred at the same time?  

Edited April 1, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[OnTheJourney]

Interesting how our track and speed varied rather drastically. Tough to estimate for sure, but I believe we were in the stairwells during the timeframe depicted here. 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[just_dont]

Interesting how our track and speed varied rather drastically. Tough to estimate exact times, but I believe we were in the stairwells during probably this timeframe. 

 

I believe that timeframe might've been when the ship had lost power and was "blowing in the wind."

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

Edit: looking at the lat/long values, it appears to be heading north-ish, so it may have been just after regaining power and trying to get away from the shoreline.

[OnTheJourney]

LOL...a whole new meaning to the old Dylan song.....  I'm sure you're right due to the constant stopping and starting. Would love to see a readout like this for the entire afternoon. 

[just_dont]

LOL...a whole new meaning to the old Dylan song.....  I'm sure you're right due to the constant stopping and starting. Would love to see a readout like this for the entire afternoon. 

That data WAS available when it was happening, but the website only makes the data for the past 24 hours available (at least to the general public). It may be possible for someone who subscribes to their data service to obtain older data, but that's not me.
It also showed the track for the past 24 hours. At one point on Sunday, as the ship was arriving in Molde, it occurred to me to capture a screenshot of the track leading up to and including the loss of power and getting back under way. Unfortunately, 24 hours before was after the ship had already lost power, so I didn't bother.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Haworth]

Interesting point about the chronology of the day, we had lunch in the world cafe, and it was still fairly calm, I think the movement started to increase around 13.00 and we decided to go down to our cabin on deck 3, we laid on the bed and very quickly the movement increased dramatically, water jugs and glasses sliding on the desk bedside cabinets moving etc, we placed anything breakable into the sink and went back to lie down, at this point I estimated that we were moving 20 degrees either side of vertical.

 

We heard the call for stretcher party to deck 7 and a little later the code “echo” which we now assume was for the crew to move to their stations for the emergency signal that we think was about 13.30.

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

 

Does anyone know how long the ship was actually without power?  We had emergency lighting for some time - or was power loss directly associated with engine shutdown and occurred at the same time?  

I wasn't there, so I can't say how long the power was off, but to answer your second question, you'll need to explain what you mean by "engine shutdown".  If this means the propulsion "engines" (actually electrical motors) shutting down, then this is not directly associated with the power loss, as you could lose the propulsion motors, but the diesel generator engines could still be working and generating electrical power for lights, etc.  If you mean the diesel "engine" shutdown, then, yes, this is directly associated with the power loss, as the "engine" generate the power, and this is what happened to you.  Once they started shutting down, most likely one at a time, but quickly once it started, the automation would shut off as much power as needed to keep power to the one essential load:  propulsion.  So, lights and AC and all hotel power would go, and finally the propulsion when the last diesel engine stopped.

[OnTheJourney]

6 hours ago, Haworth said:

Interesting point about the chronology of the day, we had lunch in the world cafe, and it was still fairly calm, I think the movement started to increase around 13.00 and we decided to go down to our cabin on deck 3, we laid on the bed and very quickly the movement increased dramatically, water jugs and glasses sliding on the desk bedside cabinets moving etc, we placed anything breakable into the sink and went back to lie down, at this point I estimated that we were moving 20 degrees either side of vertical.

 

We heard the call for stretcher party to deck 7 and a little later the code “echo” which we now assume was for the crew to move to their stations for the emergency signal that we think was about 13.30.

 

Haworth....interesting. My wife went down to the theatre for the 1:00 showing of "Green Book", and so since I had already seen it I went down to the spa - hoping to use it since I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Of course, the spa was closed but I was told the captain would "let us know when it would be reopened" (LOL). I then stopped by my room a bit (in retrospect wish I would have grabbed our coats), then went to the Lounge and got the all too familiar video footage that probably a good part of the world has seen in one form or another. After that, when things started getting worse, I went down to the theatre. Not sure what time it was at that point. My recollection was that by this time the power seemed to be going on and off several times (?) but while in the theatre corridor the alarm started. So never got back up to the room. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[OnTheJourney]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I wasn't there, so I can't say how long the power was off, but to answer your second question, you'll need to explain what you mean by "engine shutdown".  If this means the propulsion "engines" (actually electrical motors) shutting down, then this is not directly associated with the power loss, as you could lose the propulsion motors, but the diesel generator engines could still be working and generating electrical power for lights, etc.  If you mean the diesel "engine" shutdown, then, yes, this is directly associated with the power loss, as the "engine" generate the power, and this is what happened to you.  Once they started shutting down, most likely one at a time, but quickly once it started, the automation would shut off as much power as needed to keep power to the one essential load:  propulsion.  So, lights and AC and all hotel power would go, and finally the propulsion when the last diesel engine stopped.

 

Thanks for clarifying how the whole series of cascading events would have occurred. I guess the main question becomes....is there no bypass mechanism inherent in the entire system? If I understand you correctly - the entire 'shutdown' sequence, be it associated with generated (AC) power or propulsion or a combination of both - was directly attributable to the low level oil sensors. Is this an accurate assessment? And, beyond that, is there no quicker restart procedure available to the crew?

 

It just seems that there should be some means of circumventing this situation. If it is suspected that the ship is likely to encounter degree of roll beyond that which will trip the oil sensors, is there nothing the crew can do to still prevent any sort of automatic shutdown, e.g. sensor bypass or whatever? To say, in retrospect, that there probably should have been more oil in the sump tanks is all well and good, but still....  no other way?  I know little about the technical aspects of this other than what you and others have relayed in this thread, but it just seems that some sort of mechanical or electronic backup option should be built into the system that could prevent much of what took place. If, however, the cascading 'engine' issues were associated with more than just the movement of oil in the tanks and the subsequent introduction of air into the system, then that raises additional questions. 

 

I guess I'm probably thinking incorrectly in terms of the oil sensor issue only being associated with a loss of propulsion. In re-reading your post, I suppose the sensor-related shutdown was responsible for the loss of both AC power and propulsion. How many engines are there that involve these oil sensors?  All? Those for propulsion and power? (Sorry...I'm a novice mechanic at best.) 

Edited April 1, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[zitsky]

What did they do after the alarm, if you were cold and needed medicine or clothing from your cabin?

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by zitsky

[OnTheJourney]

Well...we were REALLY cold..as we wound our way further up the stairs it got colder and colder being that the door leading out to deck 8 was open all the time since people were constantly taken out to be airlifted. Once we got in the rescue area (a large gymnasium / indoor sports facility), the Norwegian rescue / Red Cross personnel were just fantastic. They had blankets for us to cover with, registered all our names with the police, and then took info about any medications that we needed, etc. Later, at the hotel, they brought around to our rooms as many meds as people needed. As to getting meds from our ship cabins, those that WERE in the rooms before the alarm was called probably got to take some items along (at least a coat....we didn't even have that!), but those that were in various parts of the ship likely reported directly to muster stations since that is the procedure. I had heard that some passengers asked crew members to go back to their cabins for them to retrieve certain articles. However, while we were waiting on the stairs, the crew came around and collected everyone's room key cards so as to account for everyone that was going to be airlifted. So once that happened, there was really no way to get back into our cabins. I had my camera with me and my wallet. My wife had little with her also since she was down in the theatre at the time watching a movie. It was scary not knowing whether or not we'd even see our belongings again. Noone really knew what condition the ship was in until the captain started announcing that they got one engine restarted, had dropped anchors, and were keeping in position. The precise chronology of the entire afternoon is a bit blurry unfortunately since, at least speaking for myself, I wasn't keeping track of time. I don't typically wear a watch. My wife told me later that we were actually in the stairwells for over 3 hours. Really didn't even seem that long. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

 

Thanks for clarifying how the whole series of cascading events would have occurred. I guess the main question becomes....is there no bypass mechanism inherent in the entire system? If I understand you correctly - the entire 'shutdown' sequence, be it associated with generated (AC) power or propulsion or a combination of both - was directly attributable to the low level oil sensors. Is this an accurate assessment? And, beyond that, is there no quicker restart procedure available to the crew?

 

It just seems that there should be some means of circumventing this situation. If it is suspected that the ship is likely to encounter degree of roll beyond that which will trip the oil sensors, is there nothing the crew can do to still prevent any sort of automatic shutdown, e.g. sensor bypass or whatever? To say, in retrospect, that there probably should have been more oil in the sump tanks is all well and good, but still....  no other way?  I know little about the technical aspects of this other than what you and others have relayed in this thread, but it just seems that some sort of mechanical or electronic backup option should be built into the system that could prevent much of what took place. If, however, the cascading 'engine' issues were associated with more than just the movement of oil in the tanks and the subsequent introduction of air into the system, then that raises additional questions. 

 

I guess I'm probably thinking incorrectly in terms of the oil sensor issue only being associated with a loss of propulsion. In re-reading your post, I suppose the sensor-related shutdown was responsible for the loss of both AC power and propulsion. How many engines are there that involve these oil sensors?  All? Those for propulsion and power? (Sorry...I'm a novice mechanic at best.) 

The ship has 4 diesel engines that drive generators to generate 10,000 volt AC power.  The propulsion motors and air conditioning chillers use this 10k volt power directly.  The power is then stepped down to 480 volt for machinery, and then to 220v and 110v for general use (lighting, outlets, etc).  All 4 diesel generators provide power to a common "buss" from which power is distributed to wherever it is needed, be it propulsion or hotel services.  Think of an electric car, the same batteries power the propulsion (drive the wheels) and the "hotel" load (radio, heater, lights). 

 

So, the diesel engines need to run to generate electrical power to power both the propulsion and the lights.  If none of the diesels are running, there is no power for propulsion or lights.  Now, one thing that people are confusing when they read the statements about the low oil level.  A low oil level alarm will not shutdown a diesel engine, and did not do so in this case.  What happened is that the oil in the sump needs to be pumped into the engine for lubrication.  On large engines like this, that pump is not part of the engine, it is separate and has its own electrical motor to drive it.  In fact, there will be two of these pumps per engine, in case one fails.  What happened is that due to the lower oil level, and the rolling and pitching of the ship, the oil level at the intake to the pump got so low (think of tipping a bottle of juice at an angle, the liquid on one side goes down, and the liquid on the other side goes up) that the pump sucked air instead of oil.  This means the pump is no longer supplying lubricating oil to a running machine, and if this condition exists for more than a couple of seconds, you can have catastrophic failure of the engine (with no hope of restarting it until you've done an overhaul that costs $250,000 or more).  This is why the "low oil pressure" alarm (caused by the air in the oil system) has no override, overriding it can lead to total loss of the engine and perhaps the ship, because when an engine like this fails, it can cause a serious fire as was the case in the Carnival Splendor fire.  All of the engines will have this low oil pressure shutdown feature.  The fact is that the incidence of all 4 engines tripping off due to a low oil level causing a low oil pressure is very remote (which is why they have more than one engine), and another ship in the same storm, or the Sky herself in a slightly different scenario would not have experienced the blackout.  Again, this is what we call in risk management, the "swiss cheese" process, where to get from normal operation (one side of the block of cheese) to the blackout (the other side of the cheese), all of the holes (each separate condition that led to the failure) have to line up (happen at the same time) for the blackout to happen.  Shift any one of the "holes" away (one engine had just a few gallons of oil more), and the blackout does not happen.

[Canal archive]

Well the gods are not happy with Viking at the moment one of their river boats was in a collision this morning. Let’s hope that everything is resolved both on sea and rivers and all cruisers are well. CA

[OnTheJourney]

chengkp75....that's a great explanation...but I'm still having trouble with why there isn't some way to avoid the pump from sucking air. We're not talking about a vehicle that operates for the most part on a basically horizontal and flat surface. These are engines in a ship that is going to be subject to varying degrees of pitch and roll. I can't imagine whoever designed this assumed that the ship will either never encounter in excess of 25• roll OR that some means of coping with an excessive roll situation wouldn't be accounted for. It doesn't seem to make sense.  So why isn't the oil sump portion of the engine constructed in a manner by which it would be impossible for the pump to suck air in the event of substantial roll? All that would be needed, it would seem, is some sort of recycling tube that would continue to supply oil. Using your tipped bottle analogy, it'd require some sort of tube on either side of the 'bottle' so that no matter which side the liquid is tilting towards, at least enough would be directed back down to the pump (or even underneath the suction end of the pump directly to whatever lubricating channel exists that then carries the oil to the necessary parts of the engine). Why don't ship engines (or at least these) simply use more of a traditional crankcase-style system whereby a shaft is always dipping down into and supplying oil?  Seems that this would not be subject to the same sort of problems encountered with the sump tanks in the event of high roll. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[GeezerCouple]

Chengkp75 - this may be naive, but given what you've mentioned before and repeated/explained further here, might it make sense (or "would it have made sense, but too late now", etc.) to have the different engines/pumps/etc., to have some sort of varying orientation?  That is, a tilt, say, to exactly 90* (can insert any degree number here) would affect Engines 1 and 4 (and their pumps), but would have very little effect on the flow of oil being sucked in on Engines 2 and 3?

[I hope that makes sense.]

 

That way, there would never be a time that ALL of the pumps had one opening sucking air.  For example, thinking of your tipping the bottle of liquid, although the *top* would have no liquid and the bottom have lots, the *sides* would still have something close to normal liquid coverage...?

Thus, if at least one of the pumps were oriented slightly "off", then not ALL pumps would be sucking air at the same time...?

 

Are there backup/redundancies that try to anticipate this type of thing, such that by design, "not everything is lined up nice and neat..."?

My example may be inaccurate, but it's the principle of having some sort of alternating "what if's" planned for, to the extent possible (even if the probability seems remote or, as we statisticians sometimes say, "vanishingly small", which does not mean a *zero* probability ; I suppose it means all the swiss cheese lining up "just so" after all...).

And yes, it is NEVER possible to anticipate ALL of the "what if's", but in many cases, more of the "unlikely but still possible" situations *can* be anticipated (and, unfortunately sometimes, just be discounted entirely as "too unlikely").

 

As for your answer to my question about filling the oil more, I didn't mean add "too much" such that there was splashing; just don't let the levels get quite so low, such that - my question at the time - IF there was a maximum tilt (or the ship flips!?), the oil would *never* get "THAT* low...?

Is it too time-consuming/costly to refill/top off more frequently?

 

GC

Edited April 1, 2019 by GeezerCouple

[OnTheJourney]

Another thing for Mr. Hagen to deal with!  Almost unbelievable so soon after the Sky. 

[zitsky]

1 hour ago, Canal archive said:

Well the gods are not happy with Viking at the moment one of their river boats was in a collision this morning. Let’s hope that everything is resolved both on sea and rivers and all cruisers are well. CA

 

Google isn't helping.  Where did you hear this information? 

[capriccio]

 

1 hour ago, Canal archive said:

Well the gods are not happy with Viking at the moment one of their river boats was in a collision this morning. Let’s hope that everything is resolved both on sea and rivers and all cruisers are well. CA

 

4 minutes ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

Another thing for Mr. Hagen to deal with!  Almost unbelievable so soon after the Sky. 

 

A thread on the River Cruise forum contains the text of German and Dutch reports about the accident.  Note that Viking says no passengers were injured; the other reports say multiple injuries (4 passengers) but only one crewman taken to the hospital..

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

chengkp75....that's a great explanation...but I'm still having trouble with why there isn't some way to avoid the pump from sucking air. We're not talking about a vehicle that operates for the most part on a basically horizontal and flat surface. These are engines in a ship that is going to be subject to varying degrees of pitch and roll. I can't imagine whoever designed this assumed that the ship will either never encounter in excess of 25• roll OR that some means of coping with an excessive roll situation wouldn't be accounted for. It doesn't seem to make sense.  So why isn't the oil sump portion of the engine constructed in a manner by which it would be impossible for the pump to suck air in the event of substantial roll? All that would be needed, it would seem, is some sort of recycling tube that would continue to supply oil. Using your tipped bottle analogy, it'd require some sort of tube on either side of the 'bottle' so that no matter which side the liquid is tilting towards, at least enough would be directed back down to the pump (or even underneath the suction end of the pump directly to whatever lubricating channel exists that then carries the oil to the necessary parts of the engine). Why don't ship engines (or at least these) simply use more of a traditional crankcase-style system whereby a shaft is always dipping down into and supplying oil?  Seems that this would not be subject to the same sort of problems encountered with the sump tanks in the event of high roll. 

The requirement for an engine to operate at an angle of 25* is a SOLAS requirement, and they had to pick a number, one that would cover 95% of situations.  Because of incidents like the El Faro and the Viking Sky, the IMO may go back to restudy and revise the requirements.

 

The kind of oil lubrication you mention, "dip lubrication" is not used even on cars or trucks anymore, they all have pressurized oil systems, not one where a rod dips down and splashes oil around the crankcase.  This is fine for very low power applications, but high load engines and things need the oil supplied at pressure to create the lubricating film in the bearing and counteract the high loading.  If you have two suction pipes leading to the pump, while you increase the likelihood of always having one in the oil, you also increase the likelihood of having one out of the oil as well.  Since oil is thicker than air, if one suction is in air, the pump will suck from the path of least resistance, the air.  Also, having the two suction pipes going to a common suction at the pump, there is the possibility of a portion of the oil merely flowing from one suction back to the tank via the other suction, and not entering the pump, reducing oil flow.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, GeezerCouple said:

Chengkp75 - this may be naive, but given what you've mentioned before and repeated/explained further here, might it make sense (or "would it have made sense, but too late now", etc.) to have the different engines/pumps/etc., to have some sort of varying orientation?  That is, a tilt, say, to exactly 90* (can insert any degree number here) would affect Engines 1 and 4 (and their pumps), but would have very little effect on the flow of oil being sucked in on Engines 2 and 3?

[I hope that makes sense.]

 

That way, there would never be a time that ALL of the pumps had one opening sucking air.  For example, thinking of your tipping the bottle of liquid, although the *top* would have no liquid and the bottom have lots, the *sides* would still have something close to normal liquid coverage...?

Thus, if at least one of the pumps were oriented slightly "off", then not ALL pumps would be sucking air at the same time...?

 

Are there backup/redundancies that try to anticipate this type of thing, such that by design, "not everything is lined up nice and neat..."?

My example may be inaccurate, but it's the principle of having some sort of alternating "what if's" planned for, to the extent possible (even if the probability seems remote or, as we statisticians sometimes say, "vanishingly small", which does not mean a *zero* probability ; I suppose it means all the swiss cheese lining up "just so" after all...).

And yes, it is NEVER possible to anticipate ALL of the "what if's", but in many cases, more of the "unlikely but still possible" situations *can* be anticipated (and, unfortunately sometimes, just be discounted entirely as "too unlikely").

 

As for your answer to my question about filling the oil more, I didn't mean add "too much" such that there was splashing; just don't let the levels get quite so low, such that - my question at the time - IF there was a maximum tilt (or the ship flips!?), the oil would *never* get "THAT* low...?

Is it too time-consuming/costly to refill/top off more frequently?

 

GC

I suppose you could design the sump tanks to allow engines to operate at different maximum angles of roll, but then it becomes "how do you know those engines will be in use when that weather is encountered.  What if one of the "high roll" engines is down for maintenance when a storm crops up?  As a statistician, you must know that you cannot plan for every contingency.  You cover the most likely, and the most important of the unlikely ones, and trying to cover all eventualities will drive you out of business.

 

Yes, they could have filled the engines sooner, or more frequently.  There are usually reasons for the operating schedule the senior engineers set up, like being able to track oil consumption by adding oil routinely every Sunday (let's say) so we get a consumption/week.  Also, not every engine is running all the time, so some will have more running hours on them and some less, so those with more running hours since the last time the oil was added will have a lower oil level than one that hasn't run much in the last week.  Also, the overhauls of the engines are staggered, so one engine will be worn more than another, and that more worn engine will consume more oil more quickly than one that is just overhauled.  So, were the engine oil levels all the same?  Not likely, but they were below the "optimum" level (like your car dipstick being between the "full" and "low" marks).  So, again, can you predict which engine's oil level is "just enough" to keep running.  As to time consuming, it isn't like opening a can of oil and dumping it in your engine, it takes a time to open valves and start pumps, monitor the oil level as it rises, and then ensure the valves are closed again, and continue to monitor the level in that engine while you fill the other engines (common fill system for all engines) to ensure that the valves are properly closed and not leaking.  Can it be done more frequently?  Sure.  But engineers will look at the number of vessels where they have lost propulsion or power over the last decade, and say, okay the USCG and NMA have set guidelines for oil levels, we'll keep to those, but whose to say that even guidelines issued by the maritime authorities will cover every situation.

[C1nnabar]

I am, of course, entirely in favor of examining and improving the standards for these ships (for the best of good reasons -- I travel in them). 

 

I am also aware that Murphy's Law clearly states that if a rule is adopted that different oil levels, angles at which the tanks are installed, or  whatever is required, then when the storm comes, the engine that could have ridden it out will be the one that's down for maintenance. 

 

We strive to minimise the danger of natural disasters, but stuff happens. Whoever can't handle that should stay home and hope a meteorite doesn't come through the ceiling (happened once). 

[UDSpud]

I am posting this due to what may be at least a very poorly worded comment on this event I just read on MSN -Lifestyle

entitled " We survived the Norwegian cruise accident and still recommend Viking" .  Right under this heading was the name Elizabeth Anne Brown.

 

The third section of this report was called "Pinned down by Artic water"

 

In referring to the windows broken in the dining room ( I believe it was muster station B ) this appeared - " and some passengers were sucked into the ocean as the wave receded "

 

Having read most of the 59 cruise credit pages included before this and other outside reports, I have read nothing to indicate that any passengers were "sucked into the Ocean itself ( ie were sucked off the ship ).

 

Please advise if I am wrong or were passengers just sucked across the dining rom by ocean water.

[lackcreativity]

1 hour ago, UDSpud said:

I am posting this due to what may be at least a very poorly worded comment on this event I just read on MSN -Lifestyle

entitled " We survived the Norwegian cruise accident and still recommend Viking" .  Right under this heading was the name Elizabeth Anne Brown.

 

The third section of this report was called "Pinned down by Artic water"

 

In referring to the windows broken in the dining room ( I believe it was muster station B ) this appeared - " and some passengers were sucked into the ocean as the wave receded "

 

Having read most of the 59 cruise credit pages included before this and other outside reports, I have read nothing to indicate that any passengers were "sucked into the Ocean itself ( ie were sucked off the ship ).

 

Please advise if I am wrong or were passengers just sucked across the dining rom by ocean water.

After closing Cruise Critic for the night, I saw this same article on MSN from USAToday with a story originally from a paper from Asheville, NC.I was so stunned that I came back here to comment on it. I was not on the Viking Sky during this event, but as we are sailing on this ship on April 26, I have followed the story pretty carefully. The link on MSN is no longer available, but I was pretty shocked by its content. I had copied part of it and saved it to share with my husband in the morning.  While I cannot prove that it is untrue, I would be more than surprised if the description below is accurate.

 

"The ship was battered by 19-25 foot swells, which the passengers in the restaurant muster could see all too clearly through the panoramic plexiglass windows. Between the torque of the ship attempting to steer, the waves, and brutal 40-50 mile-per-hour winds, three window panels popped out of place and a door was wrenched open at a severe angle.

A wall of Arctic water washed in, and Elaine Barkus was thrown about 20 feet and pinned to the floor by the sheer weight of the water, Umberger said. Bruce was able to swim down to his wife and drag her up to the surface for air. Broken glass and furniture swirled in the water and some passengers were sucked into the ocean as the wave receded, battered by dining room tables and chairs. "

 

Again, I was not there, but all my instinct agrees with UDSPud that this is either a blatant lie or a gross misrepresentation.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by lackcreativity

[C1nnabar]

1 hour ago, lackcreativity said:

Again, I was not there, but all my instinct agrees with UDSPud that this is either a blatant lie or a gross misrepresentation.

 

If people had been swept into the ocean, in the (icy cold) Arctic waters, in a storm, with a disabled ship, how would you get them back? Everybody survived this.

[DGHOC]

We weren't in the Restaurant muster station but spoke with many who were, this is what we were repeatedly told. 

 

A metal door was buckled by the said wave, I do have a photo of it somewhere, and water rushed into the room. Some passengers who were close by were swept up by the water, some being turned with it along with everything else taken up by the force of the water.

 

Some of these passengers were brought into the theatre where we were, soaked through and injured, they were being cared for by Jamie a brilliant US paramedic guest and her firefighter husband. Other passengers were giving them the clothes off of their backs and blankets were found. We suspect they were airlifted off as they were taken from the theatre..

 

It must have been truly terrifying for those poor souls, no-one wants to see water flowing onto a ship when in a muster station emergency situation. They were certainly shocked and very shaken up, goodness knows what went through their minds. However, I feel absolutely sure that nobody was sucked into the ocean, I can't see how they could have survived that.

 

Sensationalism, it seems to be the way of the world. I have read much that has been embellished.