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

[LongRiver]

On board the Sky good weather so far.  Sunny but cold today in Gothenburg.  We have a new Captain.  The previous one is on vacation.

[DGHOC]

Hope all is wonderful for you LongRiver.

 

Poor chap I can only imagine the strain he went through. Doesn't help when there is so much ill-informed speculation as to the why's and the wherefores. Hopefully after a decent break he'll be back to work soon.

 

Enjoy the Sky, we certainly did!

[zitsky]

1 hour ago, LongRiver said:

On board the Sky good weather so far.  Sunny but cold today in Gothenburg.  We have a new Captain.  The previous one is on vacation.

 

On vacation?  Riiight.  Lol.

[zitsky]

1 hour ago, zitsky said:

 

On vacation?  Riiight.  Lol.

 

I worry that he is not coming back.  Most people say he did a great job. 

[Silkroad]

3 hours ago, DGHOC said:

 Poor chap I can only imagine the strain he went through. Doesn't help when there is so much ill-informed speculation as to the why's and the wherefores. Hopefully after a decent break he'll be back to work soon.

I agree. Having followed the ordeal of the passengers and crew of the Sky, as well as the speculation during and after the fact, it appeared that the Captain did absolutely nothing wrong. I'll not be impressed with Viking if he doesn't return. I've been considering the very itinerary Sky was on when she ran into trouble, and I wouldn't hesitate to sail with her Captain.

[Pratique]

43 minutes ago, zitsky said:

 

I worry that he is not coming back.  Most people say he did a great job. 

It's hard to say if he'll come back. Maybe he's ready for a change now, or retirement. (Sully Sullenberger.) Or maybe the cruise line will want a change. People get fired or move on all the time even when things are going well, because sometimes it's just time for a change. It's no one's fault. I guess we'll see what happens eventually.

[Haworth]

4 hours ago, LongRiver said:

On board the Sky good weather so far.  Sunny but cold today in Gothenburg.  We have a new Captain.  The previous one is on vacation.

I think that he majority of passengers on board that cruise have a very large reserve of goodwill to all the crew, especially the Captain, whilst I would agree that people move on, up, down, sideways etc, in this case the wealth of goodwill may be a additional factor in any future direction that either the Captain or Viking take

[OnTheJourney]

On 4/8/2019 at 6:48 AM, LongRiver said:

On board the Sky good weather so far.  Sunny but cold today in Gothenburg.  We have a new Captain.  The previous one is on vacation.

 

Certainly interesting, but I'd say he certainly needs some time away after what we all went through that weekend. I suspect not much will be heard publicly about the outcome of the investigation as it pertains to him. My personal feeling is that it was a bad call to sail that day, but as has been mentioned, it's a complex situation involving many different factors. 

[Michelle1234]

On 4/9/2019 at 7:00 AM, gretschwhtfalcon said:

 

Certainly interesting, but I'd say he certainly needs some time away after what we all went through that weekend. I suspect not much will be heard publicly about the outcome of the investigation as it pertains to him. My personal feeling is that it was a bad call to sail that day, but as has been mentioned, it's a complex situation involving many different factors. 

While not on this cruise, we were on a cruise when this was all happening so I gave it some thought, and I agree with you. It was a poor decision to sail into that area with the stormy weather. I can't remember the number of times I've been on a ship and the route has been changed, delayed, speeded up etc. to avoid bad weather. These captains are unsung heros because they didn't get their ship into a dramatic situation.

 

There is no reason in this day and age to get a luxury cruise ship into the position of sailing in weather that puts the equipment so out of spec. that it shuts down. He isn't a modern day cowboy riding a bucking bronco, he has a large number of people's lives and a significant company asset under his command. It could so easily have turned out like the Costa Concordia with a much greater number of lives lost. If anyone deserves the thanks of the cruising community it is the Viking Sky crew and the Norwegian rescuers. They are the real heros. Not the captain.

[broberts]

28 minutes ago, Michelle1234 said:

While not on this cruise, we were on a cruise when this was all happening so I gave it some thought, and I agree with you. It was a poor decision to sail into that area with the stormy weather. I can't remember the number of times I've been on a ship and the route has been changed, delayed, speeded up etc. to avoid bad weather. These captains are unsung heros because they didn't get their ship into a dramatic situation.

 

There is no reason in this day and age to get a luxury cruise ship into the position of sailing in weather that puts the equipment so out of spec. that it shuts down. He isn't a modern day cowboy riding a bucking bronco, he has a large number of people's lives and a significant company asset under his command. It could so easily have turned out like the Costa Concordia with a much greater number of lives lost. If anyone deserves the thanks of the cruising community it is the Viking Sky crew and the Norwegian rescuers. They are the real heros. Not the captain.

 

You were not there and did not have contemporary detailed weather data.

You are not familiar with those waters.

You do not know the vessel, its capabilities and vulnerabilities.

You did not consult experts on the local conditions.

You have no experience commanding a vessel of that size and type.

 

Who do you think commanded the crew during the emergency?

Who do you think oversaw the development and implementation of crew training for such emergencies?

Who do you think was making the decisions necessary to keep the ship from a worse fate?

 

Had a complete engine power failure not occurred, the vessel would undoubtedly have had an incident free sailing. Are you blaming the captain for the engine failure? Must captains be oracles?

Edited April 10, 2019 by broberts

[Michelle1234]

30 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

You were not there and did not have contemporary detailed weather data.

You are not familiar with those waters.

You do not know the vessel, its capabilities and vulnerabilities.

You did not consult experts on the local conditions.

You have no experience commanding a vessel of that size and type.

 

Who do you think commanded the crew during the emergency?

Who do you think oversaw the development and implementation of crew training for such emergencies?

Who do you think was making the decisions necessary to keep the ship from a worse fate?

 

Had a complete engine power failure not occurred, the vessel would undoubtedly have had an incident free sailing. Are you blaming the captain for the engine failure? Must captains be oracles?

 No but I am an engineer. And at some point if you tilt an engine over on it's side it is going to fail (I corrected the wording based on a subsequent question) unless it is designed to be operated in that position. It is the captain's job to know this and the other technical limits of his equipment.

 

It's the reason good captains so often announce "We're diverting because of a storm", "We're running ahead to stay ahead of a storm", "We're delaying because of a storm". You know, good judgment sort of announcements, the sort that don't put everyone's lives in jeopardy. 

 

The engines didn't just up and quit. They had oil to spec. They had sensors designed to turn them off if the oil wasn't in place to protect their operation. They just weren't designed to be operated at the extreme angles the Viking Sky was being pushed to. It is the captain's job to know what his ship can do and what it can't.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Michelle1234

[OnTheJourney]

Perhaps what it comes down to is...was the decision whether or not to sail past Hustadvika solely the captain's alone? While the master of the vessel, assuming he is still answerable to someone as to any changes made to the ship's itinerary or schedule. If he alone is 100% responsible for the decision whether or not to have sailed on that Saturday, then that certainly becomes a huge part of the investigation. As Mr. Hagen told us all at the meeting..."it should not have happened, but it did". 

[OnTheJourney]

7 minutes ago, Michelle1234 said:

 No but I am an engineer. And at some point if you turn an engine far enough over it is going to fail. It is the captain's job to know this and the other technical limits of his equipment.

 

I am not an engineer, but have a decent amount of mechanical experience - not that that counts for anything of course relative to this event; however, I still fail to understand - even after all the explanations that were given here - why there is not some sort of failsafe system that would prevent engine shutdown if the ship experiences in excess of 25 or whatever degree of roll and/or in the event that the sump pumps temporarily suck air. I realize there is imminent danger to the engine even if without lubricating oil for even less than a minute...but still....just doesn't seem like the best design. 

 

I'd like to know how does the engine setup (relative to the oil level  / sensors, etc.) that Viking uses compare to what other cruise lines use? Is the Viking design uniform across the industry? 

Edited April 10, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[OnTheJourney]

10 minutes ago, Michelle1234 said:

 No but I am an engineer. And at some point if you turn an engine far enough over it is going to fail. It is the captain's job to know this and the other technical limits of his equipment.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by...."turn an engine far enough over"....are you referring to literal turning as caused by the changing angle of the ship during roll? 

[Michelle1234]

6 minutes ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

 

Not quite sure what you mean by...."turn an engine far enough over"....are you referring to literal turning as caused by the changing angle of the ship during roll? 

Sorry, I used poor wording. Yes, I meant to roll the engine on it's side. Unless it is designed to be operated in any position there are angles that it will not operate at. In this instance it had oil sensors that shut it down as a fail safe to protect the engines from destroying themselves. 

[Michelle1234]

28 minutes ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

I am not an engineer, but have a decent amount of mechanical experience - not that that counts for anything of course relative to this event; however, I still fail to understand - even after all the explanations that were given here - why there is not some sort of failsafe system that would prevent engine shutdown if the ship experiences in excess of 25 or whatever degree of roll and/or in the event that the sump pumps temporarily suck air. I realize there is imminent danger to the engine even if without lubricating oil for even less than a minute...but still....just doesn't seem like the best design. 

 

I'd like to know how does the engine setup (relative to the oil level  / sensors, etc.) that Viking uses compare to what other cruise lines use? Is the Viking design uniform across the industry? 

Someone else may be able to address your questions better but what I can say is in every design you make design trade offs for cost. For instance it wouldn't make any sense to design a cruise ship engine that could operate upside down. It it were in that position the ship would be sinking and there would be no point. It would also be considered cost prohibitive.

 

In the design specs. that Viking puts together they take into account the most extreme angle at which they expect the ships to operate at. The ship builder builds to those specs. Viking likely makes cost trade offs also. Designing everything for extreme angles costs more money. And given the nature of their business it doesn't make alot of sense. They know they are operating a luxury cruise ship with "soft" deadlines so no real need to go through extreme storms. They also know they have loose serious projectiles like chairs and pianos on board taking it through extreme storms threatens those assets as well as the windows, railings etc. on the ship. It isn't like a container ship where everything is tied down and there is an escape pod positioned at the back for the crew that is angled down so gravity can get it off the ship in an extreme storm. At certain angles those things go flying across the room and can kill people. They also know they have alot of expensive glassware and fragile people on board. So they make a call as to what angle the ship should operate at. The captains should be well aware they aren't sea cowboys and what the ship is capable of as well as where the edge of comfort (and the point at which dinnerware starts flying) is for the passengers.

 

Added note: I did read that lifeboats could not be used in this instance due to the power outage. Can anyone confirm that? To me that is a very serious design flaw. If it was due to the high seas that also brings into question their design.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Michelle1234

[Pratique]

As I wrote earlier, I think it is reasonable to question whether the decision process was conservative enough given all the information at hand, at least as part of working to ensure this doesn't happen again and that the public has confidence in that. That's not a question that will necessarily be answered by any official investigation, especially if it turns out that everything was done by the book (although this has led to a change in procedure with respect to the oil level). It's more of a risk assessment question. Not saying we need to lower the risk to zero by locking ourselves in padded rooms. I do wonder, however, how people would feel if the ship had run aground despite the skill of the crew, or if this had happened further north where Norway concedes that a rescue would have been more difficult.

[jiminyC_fan]

Michelle,  I'm not sure if you did but, perhaps, you should read the entire thread.   So much has been explained by a couple of true experts.  Luckily, we had them to explain a lot during and after the event.   I am in the camp of waiting to point fingers at the Captain until the result of the true investigation is revealed.  I think any one of us would want the same if we were in his shoes. 

[OnTheJourney]

1 hour ago, Michelle1234 said:

\

1)  In the design specs. that Viking puts together they take into account the most extreme angle at which they expect the ships to operate at.

 

2)  Designing everything for extreme angles costs more money. And given the nature of their business it doesn't make alot of sense. They know they are operating a luxury cruise ship with "soft" deadlines so no real need to go through extreme storms.  So they make a call as to what angle the ship should operate at.

 

3)Added note: I did read that lifeboats could not be used in this instance due to the power outage. Can anyone confirm that? To me that is a very serious design flaw. If it was due to the high seas that also brings into question their design.

 

1)  Wait...so 25 degrees is considered the extreme angle of choice? Doesn't seem realistic to me. If you're basically sailing the Caribbean - probably ok...but the Norwegian and North seas? 

2)  So less money spent (which I get..this is how the world works) as a possible trade-off for passenger, crew, and ship safety. Also, if no real hard deadlines, then why take the chance of going through an "extreme storm"..which I think it's fair to say this was?

3) We were told boats could not be launched primarily due to the conditions. Makes sense...I, for one, would not have wanted to be out there amongst 20-30 ft. waves. I read somewhere that the crew was actually preparing to launch but then realized it just wasn't feasible given the circumstances. Never heard anything about it being associated with power loss. 

 

Either way, thanks for further explanation!  Not trying to give you a hard time....but some of the points you raise just seem to generate more questions. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[gatour]

1 hour ago, Michelle1234 said:

Added note: I did read that lifeboats could not be used in this instance due to the power outage. Can anyone confirm that? To me that is a very serious design flaw. If it was due to the high seas that also brings into question their design.

As cheng has posted, lifeboats can be deployed during a power outage.

 

1.  If I remember correctly even if the 4 main engine/generators automatically shutdown for self perservation, there is an emergency generator, that has two primary purposes maintain emergency lighting and power to lower the life boats and life rafts.  In regards to the life rafts (mainly for crew evacuations but also for additional redundancy in regards to evacing passengers.  This generator is also used to "jump start" one of the main engine/generators.  As each is brought on line the restore propulsion, hotel services.

 

2.  If the emergency generator is also offline.  There is a "stored" energy system, that can be used to lower the life boats (not sure if it applies to the life rafts)

 

3.  The last option is to manually lower the life boats and life rafts by gravity.  In regards to the life rafts, there is one davit that will handle multiple rafts.  The cable will need to be manually hoisted, attached to the next life raft and lower, repeat as needed.

 

The seas were 20-30 feet high, the ship was close to shore.  The lifeboats are relatively small.  Where would you rather be in a small lifeboat that may bash against the shore or a large ship where they were actively evac'ing people by helicopter and the potential that they may restore power for propulsion, etc, which they did.  I know what my choice would be.  

[Capt_BJ]

hey

 

keep going

 

I find this most entertaining

 

I did SAR for 30 years .......

 

y'all have kept me entertained for several days!

 

let me offer just ONE point to consider ...... have you ever launched a 'small boat' from a ship at sea (Chang)?  I have thousands of times .... if the conditions are not right and the SKILLS not right ..... if you launch life boats in difficult situations .... I'd expect 50% failure .... they will dump or worse ...... 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Capt_BJ

[Silkroad]

2 hours ago, Michelle1234 said:

The engines didn't just up and quit. They had oil to spec. They had sensors designed to turn them off if the oil wasn't in place to protect their operation. They just weren't designed to be operated at the extreme angles the Viking Sky was being pushed to. It is the captain's job to know what his ship can do and what it can't.

Have you read this entire thread? If not, you should. My DH is also an engineer. Neither of you are experts on marine engines, engineering room procedures, or bridge protocol. Unlike you, my DH realizes these areas are outside his areas of expertise. Rather, he prefers to defer to experts like Chengkp (a ship engineer) and the two retired Captains who have also posted on this thread. Then there is the Norwegian entity that has investigated this incident. They are qualified to make pronouncements about the decisions made by Viking and the Captain. You are not.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Silkroad

[gatour]

The various cruise ship and cargo lines do not design ships at their whim.  There are various international rules/regulations that dictate design standards along with the "societies".  These rules and regulations are revised for various reasons.

 

One example, is the ability of mid-size cruise ship to visit Antarctica.  Holland America and other cruise lines that have small to medium size ships in their fleet (besides big ships) have sent these smaller ships to Antarctica  for specialty cruises.  However there is a new rule/regulation that updates the requirements in regards to the hull strength of ships that want to do these type of trips.

 

These new rules/regulations rule out any existing "mass" market ship visiting the Antarctica.  Any new builds from these lines would most like not meet the new regulations due to the cost of building of the ship for a very limited market.

 

In the next year or so you will be limited to expedition type ships, think small and the cruise fare being very expensive.

 

Now back to you original question.

 

There will be a post incident review (actually one has already occurred vis a vi the "low oil pressure") and if there are any other findings from the other investigations the recommendations may be incorporated immediately or in future ship designs.

 

These may also immediately cause internal cruise ship policies/practices to be changed or updated.

[Michelle1234]

1 hour ago, jiminyC_fan said:

Michelle,  I'm not sure if you did but, perhaps, you should read the entire thread.   So much has been explained by a couple of true experts.  Luckily, we had them to explain a lot during and after the event.   I am in the camp of waiting to point fingers at the Captain until the result of the true investigation is revealed.  I think any one of us would want the same if we were in his shoes. 

You are correct in that I only spot read the thread. 

 

gretschwhtfalcon, I think were kind of in agreement that there wasn't a good reason to do this sort of storm with a luxury cruise ship. That is why I'm taking the position that this was a poor decision by the captain. If this failure is due to a reduced roll angle there is some engineer somewhere scratching their head saying, I warned them. It wasn't a good idea to reduce the rolling angle to save money or we should have sold the ship with a caveat it couldn't be sailed in the north sea during the winter despite selling them the ice protection hull package. Luckily it wasn't a titanic level disaster or you would have had someone in this situation:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/21/470870426/challenger-engineer-who-warned-of-shuttle-disaster-dies

 

But you are asking really good questions. Is the rolling angle of the Viking ships different than other cruise ships? I have no idea.

 

I guess people can praise the captain all they want for getting them out of the disaster he got them into. It was a bad  judgement call to sail in known bad conditions. No amount of people excusing him will ever make that go away and if the captain is a true captain he will take ownership of that judgement call. It was a completely avoidable situation and somewhere someone's life is permanently altered due to a broken neck.  I prefer to praise all the captains who never get themselves into this sort of situation in the first place by changing course, speeding up, slowing down, making the call to skip a port etc.

 

gatour, Thanks for answering my question. We were at sea during the episode and only just got back so I am catching up on the incident. I agree, I would prefer to be on the ship as long as it wasn't sinking. I was just curious if there was a technical reason they could not deploy them. There are some articles saying they really aren't deployable in rough sea conditions due to the design and are only useful in calm waters. If so that is something to be looked at by the industry. 

[gatour]

12 minutes ago, Capt_BJ said:

hey

 

keep going

 

I find this most entertaining

 

I did SAR for 30 years .......

 

y'all have kept me entertained for several days!

 

let me offer just ONE point to consider ...... have you ever launched a 'small boat' from a ship at sea (Chang)?  I have thousands of times .... if the conditions are not right and the SKILLS not right ..... if you launch life boats in difficult situations .... I'd expect 50% failure .... they will dump or worse ...... 

Capt_BJ and potentially Cheng,

 

Sorry if my reply stepped over Capt_BJ post a few minutes ago and any other follow-ups that may be forthcoming.

 

I thank all of you experts for your responses.  It has been a learning experience.