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

[Heidi13]

11 minutes ago, just_dont said:

Thanks for the insight. I suspected some of this. I'd wondered about the "10 shackles" reference. I'd also wondered exactly how an anchor would actually be let go. Is the bitter end attached, such that the chain (or attachment) actually needs to be physically broken?
I truly do appreciate your experience-based perspective, as well as that of the other former mariners on these boards. And I'm still eager to get the Chief's perspective on the report.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

 

The anchor chain comprises 10 - 12 shackles, each of which is 15 fathoms or 90'. Each one is connected with a joining shackle, which can be broken. The requisite number of links are painted on each side of the joining shackles to identify how much cable is out. Therefore, at 5 shackles, you will have 5 links before & 5 links after the joining shackle painted.

 

As the anchor cable goes out, we count the painted sections going out. When the cable is going out slowly, or held we can confirm by counting the painted links.

 

The bitter end is the very last link. It is secured to a ring, etc in the chain locker. It also comes with a weak link, so in the event of a brake failure the weak link releases rather than ripping the structure.

 

When breaking the cable we use wire secured to the cable and a bollard to take the weight off the chain. The joining shackle is split apart and the cable is lowered into the water, preferably with a float attached.

[Haworth]

6 hours ago, OnTheJourney said:

I know several passengers reported the nearly indescribable feeling coming into Molde, as the local people were gathered to watch the Sky come into port. Very emotional time I'm sure. We were probably among the first off the ship. Will never forget the sight of the Sky slipping from our view once our helicopter was loaded and we went on our way to the evacuation center. 

Molde, as we sailed in, cheers from the crowd, ambulances on the shore, I had to go back into the cabin to compose myself, it was incredibly emotional

[DGHOC]

Many thanks Heidi13 for your comprehensive and detailed explanations. Thanks for your time and effort.

 

We weren't a big role call and there aren't many of us on CC who experienced this. The vast majority of us aren't the 'I survived the Viking Sky Incident' hat wearing, flag waving, bleating on about it constantly types. Of course the experience will have been handled differently by all of us. We managed ok, don't get me wrong it was no walk in the park BUT we choose not to dwell and keep harking on about it. When these conversations start up again it does open the wounds a little.

 

Your explanation of the the cranking anchor chains was fascinating. We lived through what seemed like long hours of those  screeching chains/anchors. We'd guessed what the terrible noise must be and indeed we had our laptops on with live news streams pretty much detailing our experience, confirming our worries. Whilst queueing up to beg for a lavatory to be opened, a poor lady beside me was shaking violently with the anchor noise. I hugged her and explained what it was but she felt sure that the ship was dragging across the rocks.Your explanation would have been enormously useful and reassuring then.

 

As Haworth said, we felt confident too that the 'right' decisions had been made to sail through that storm. Indeed we were enjoying the roller coaster ride from the upper deck of the Explorers lounge from early morning until suddenly the ship lost power, started drifting off to an angle allowing the waves to start pounding us from the side. We had been standing with an experienced sailor who was explaining how ships handle storms, his whole demeanour changed when the ship lost power. The situation changed very suddenly.

 

We are not engineers and would therefore not profess to comprehend the technical complexities of what took place that day; we'd certainly not attack Viking here as others choose to do. We still don't know whether there is blame to be apportioned or not. We'd prefer to await more detailed investigation and explanation.

 

As I said on a previous post, we were very surprised to read that one generator had been out of action just two days into our trip, that had never been previously mentioned. Our immediate thought on reading this report was, would you go into a storm with only 3 generators working? We'd known about the low oil levels, that was discussed soon after the event. It had been explained that they were within the limits set but towards the lower end. Is that not the case? 

 

We prefer to work with facts rather than assumptions and let's be honest, in some cases fiction. I've read total drivel on here about what took place that day from folk not even on the ship. I'm a realist, I'm not living in Viking fantasy land, but the condemnation of the Captain and Viking generally made us cross. 

 

I appreciate your balanced factual posts.

 

All good wishes to you.

[OnTheJourney]

DGHOC...well composed and very balanced. Hoping I'm not one of those whom you reference as being somewhat anti-Viking (or at least anti-captain) and continually "harking" on it with a negative bent. If so, my apologies. Nothing I have said is meaning to offend anybody, but having just completed a sailing where the captain just seemed to deal so proactively with 2 storm systems (realizing of course that you probably can't compare them to the situation off Hustadvika), kept the passengers totally informed along the way, etc. certainly gives pause to again reflect on the Sky event and wonder if things could (should?) have been handled differently. Hope that appears reasonable? I agree...wait for the final report before passing any sort of judgment. I think, also, that the perspective  - at least emotionally and therefore subjectively - is somewhat different for those who stayed onboard and for those who dangled 100 feet beneath a helicopter cable. I know it was no 'cake walk' during the time on ship as well. So if I'm one here on CC who has "dwelled" on it to the offense of folks like yourself, for that I'm sorry. But one has to admit that, based on the report, there justifiably are indeed many questions and answers that need further clarification.

 

I might add, also, that, as you know, Viking has had several other unfortunate events following ours - the  Idun incident almost immediately after ours, and then, of course, the fatal one involving the Sigyn. There was also the incident with the Tor's wheelhouse being destroyed at Riedenburg. It's just a bit concerning that there have been several mishaps (one involving fatalities) in rather close succession. Going back farther to 2016 we have the 2 crew members killed in another wheelhouse event. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by OnTheJourney

[OnTheJourney]

 When we were awaiting the bus from the hotel in Oslo to go back to the airport, one of our group was among those who were rather vocally decrying the incident from an accusatory standpoint, advocating for all of us to contact the media, lawyers, etc. In retrospect, instead of listening to this rant, I wish now that I would have taken that 20 minutes or so and gone up to the hotel's observation deck, since the view was reported to be fantastic.

 

So, indeed, we came home and relayed the story to many friends, family, and acquaintances. Our way of coping with the considerable emotional impact, post-event, was that we felt the need to talk about it. The local newspaper interviewed us ran our 'tale', on the front page nonetheless (!), but I'd like to think that - while I have my opinions - I'm trying to remain objective, awaiting further facts - but must admit to still feeling that things could have (and probably should have) been handled differently.  Some find it amazing that we've even ventured back onto a ship again! Others are surprised that we want to go with Viking again. I think what happened, especially in terms of social media, is that there were many youtube videos that came out which presented a very slanted viewpoint (some even including fictional and over-dramatized accounts and having spliced in footage from events that did not even involve the Sky). 

Edited November 16, 2019 by OnTheJourney

[OnTheJourney]

Our first ever experience with hearing much about Viking was that, while we were in Tallinn on a Baltic trip in August '15, their first ocean ship - the Star -  was stuck in port for several days with an engine problem (transformers) and was unable to continue the "Viking Homelands" schedule. The Star had only been in service since the previous April. We were on the RCCL Serenade and docked next to her. This thread is a good example of the wide range of emotions and objective / subjective responses to these sorts of events! I don't recall following up on this at the time, but it appears - as with the Sky - that Viking did their utmost to take care of the passengers' needs after it was decided to terminate the cruise. 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by OnTheJourney

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, DGHOC said:

Many thanks Heidi13 for your comprehensive and detailed explanations. Thanks for your time and effort.

 

We weren't a big role call and there aren't many of us on CC who experienced this. The vast majority of us aren't the 'I survived the Viking Sky Incident' hat wearing, flag waving, bleating on about it constantly types. Of course the experience will have been handled differently by all of us. We managed ok, don't get me wrong it was no walk in the park BUT we choose not to dwell and keep harking on about it. When these conversations start up again it does open the wounds a little.

 

Your explanation of the the cranking anchor chains was fascinating. We lived through what seemed like long hours of those  screeching chains/anchors. We'd guessed what the terrible noise must be and indeed we had our laptops on with live news streams pretty much detailing our experience, confirming our worries. Whilst queueing up to beg for a lavatory to be opened, a poor lady beside me was shaking violently with the anchor noise. I hugged her and explained what it was but she felt sure that the ship was dragging across the rocks.Your explanation would have been enormously useful and reassuring then.

 

As Haworth said, we felt confident too that the 'right' decisions had been made to sail through that storm. Indeed we were enjoying the roller coaster ride from the upper deck of the Explorers lounge from early morning until suddenly the ship lost power, started drifting off to an angle allowing the waves to start pounding us from the side. We had been standing with an experienced sailor who was explaining how ships handle storms, his whole demeanour changed when the ship lost power. The situation changed very suddenly.

 

We are not engineers and would therefore not profess to comprehend the technical complexities of what took place that day; we'd certainly not attack Viking here as others choose to do. We still don't know whether there is blame to be apportioned or not. We'd prefer to await more detailed investigation and explanation.

 

As I said on a previous post, we were very surprised to read that one generator had been out of action just two days into our trip, that had never been previously mentioned. Our immediate thought on reading this report was, would you go into a storm with only 3 generators working? We'd known about the low oil levels, that was discussed soon after the event. It had been explained that they were within the limits set but towards the lower end. Is that not the case? 

 

We prefer to work with facts rather than assumptions and let's be honest, in some cases fiction. I've read total drivel on here about what took place that day from folk not even on the ship. I'm a realist, I'm not living in Viking fantasy land, but the condemnation of the Captain and Viking generally made us cross. 

 

I appreciate your balanced factual posts.

 

All good wishes to you.

An exceptionally well written post, especially considering the trauma you and your fellow pax experienced, regardless of whether remaining aboard or evacuating by helo. I stopped posting on this thread post incident due to some of the diatribe posted by armchair experts that weren't aboard and some who had never sailed with Viking. Your post is most refreshing.

 

Relating the story of the experienced sailor is so factual. Fully operational, even with only 3 DG's the ship had no unusual risk factors, but once it blacked out with onshore winds & a rocky lee shore, it quickly transitioned into a Captain's worst nightmare.

 

When ships suffer a complete loss of power they naturally lie perpendicular to the seas (beam to the seas), which results in excessive rolling. By releasing the anchor(s), in addition to reducing the drift rate, the Captain hopes they will also bring the ship's head at least a little into the seas. A bottom with better holding power is more effective, as on rocks the anchor & cable drag along the bottom with minimal resistance.

 

I should also have mentioned that with the anchors down, the windlass carries a significant load. In addition to the windlass brake they may also have used additional securing devices to hold the cable. This will have created significant noise while dragging the anchor(s), as it places a significant load on the structure.

 

Unfortunately, Interim Reports often raise more questions than they answer and this one is no different. The final report, which could still be up to almost a year away, will provide significantly more detail. However, it will not apportion blame, as the Investigative Authorities (AIBN, MAIB, TSB, etc) are only tasked with identifying the causes and making recommendations to prevent re-occurrences. Testimony provided to these organisations is not normally shared with Regulators or Police.

 

When it comes to discussing the specifics of the sump tank oil levels, the report provided 2 facts, but no supporting documentation. I also have no knowledge of the OEM recommendation for MAN Engines that I have sailed with. The Chief Engineer was responsible for compliance with these criteria and reporting any deficiency to the Master. The Interim Report doesn't state why the levels were low, nor does it provide information on what documentation was provided to the crew (these are critical facts for those wanting to play the blame game). The only person on these Boards, that I am aware of, that can provide an informed opinion regarding the oil level with the information provided to date is Cheng, who is a serving Chief Engineer.

 

 

[OnTheJourney]

19 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Fully operational, even with only 3 DG's the ship had no unusual risk factors

 

It'd be interesting to know, though, how often is such a thing done, whereby a ship continues a voyage - especially one that is scheduled to go through potentially difficult areas - with the loss of whatever percentage of total available power might be the case as a result of an inoperative DG? What is the general procedure in such cases (if there even is one) - to come into the nearest port to effect repairs, or continue on? Does the (even though it may be very unlikely) risk of then also losing additional engine power for some unbeknownst reason enter into the decision? Obviously the intention was to fix the problem, but, as you say, the report has gaps with regards to some specifics. It'd be interesting to know - but of course moot at this point and perhaps even nearly impossible to even speculate - as to how things would have turned out (had the oil levels been up to recommended specs or at least high enough to prevent shutdown) and having continued through the storm without DG3 . You indicated previously that the ship would have routinely reduced engine power either way. More questions than answers at this point, as you said. The more technical info you provide is truly appreciated by many here I'm sure. 

 

I might ask....out of curiosity (well, more like being nosey :)...what was your experience / position within the marine industry?  As to the "chief" chiming in here, perhaps he'd rather not become further involved!! Just kidding..I'm sure something might be said yet. 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by OnTheJourney

[Pratique]

40 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Fully operational, even with only 3 DG's the ship had no unusual risk factors....

Running with oil levels below the manufacturer's recommendation is contrary to the recommendation issued in the report.

[OnTheJourney]

1 hour ago, Pratique said:

Running with oil levels below the manufacturer's recommendation is contrary to the recommendation issued in the report.

 

We're not engineers, and so don't have all the facts and knowledge at our disposal; however, from a total novice 'common sense' viewpoint, I agree. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by OnTheJourney

[just_dont]

 
It'd be interesting to know, though, how often is such a thing done...

My recollection from back in March/April - and this may have come from@chengkp75 - was it happens much more often than you might think. It has to do with the fact that the engines require a periodic overhaul every so many hours of operation, and the cruise lines schedule cruises continuously back-to-back. So the systems are designed to operate on 3 out of 4 engines while the fourth is undergoing maintenance, and likely still have plenty of margin even if they were to lose one of those three (but maybe not in a severe storm).

I also recall the fact that one of the four engines was down for repair having come out soon after the incident.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[OnTheJourney]

Interesting...did not recall that - about an engine being out early in the cruise. It seemed to be 'news' to others here as well. 

 

Just_dont......where in Colorado, if I might ask?  Last year we did a fly/drive trip to visit the National Parks in Utah - started and ended in Grand Junction. I love all the western states. So many amazing sites to visit. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by OnTheJourney

[just_dont]

Interesting...did not recall that - about an engine being out early in the cruise. It seemed to be 'news' to others here as well. 
 
Just_dont......where in Colorado, if I might ask?  Last year we did a fly/drive trip to visit the National Parks in Utah - started and ended in Grand Junction. I love all the western states. So many amazing sites to visit. 

Yeah, the original thread had over 4000 posts, probably all in the first couple days. It was somewhere in there. I was consumed with learning everything about the incident as it was happening and over the ensuing couple weeks, as it was shortly before our cruise.

We live near Boulder, Colorado.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[OnTheJourney]

What cruise did you do with Viking? 

[just_dont]

What cruise did you do with Viking? 

Midnight Sun this June. It was wonderful - and uneventful.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[OnTheJourney]

LOL   uneventful is good 🙂  Was hoping for that on our recent Canada / NE cruise but then ran into 2 storm systems - not quite what I had hoped for with it being our first cruise after the Sky incident. 

[Heidi13]

8 hours ago, OnTheJourney said:

 

It'd be interesting to know, though, how often is such a thing done, whereby a ship continues a voyage - especially one that is scheduled to go through potentially difficult areas - with the loss of whatever percentage of total available power might be the case as a result of an inoperative DG? What is the general procedure in such cases (if there even is one) - to come into the nearest port to effect repairs, or continue on? Does the (even though it may be very unlikely) risk of then also losing additional engine power for some unbeknownst reason enter into the decision? Obviously the intention was to fix the problem, but, as you say, the report has gaps with regards to some specifics. It'd be interesting to know - but of course moot at this point and perhaps even nearly impossible to even speculate - as to how things would have turned out (had the oil levels been up to recommended specs or at least high enough to prevent shutdown) and having continued through the storm without DG3 . You indicated previously that the ship would have routinely reduced engine power either way. More questions than answers at this point, as you said. The more technical info you provide is truly appreciated by many here I'm sure. 

 

I might ask....out of curiosity (well, more like being nosey :)...what was your experience / position within the marine industry?  As to the "chief" chiming in here, perhaps he'd rather not become further involved!! Just kidding..I'm sure something might be said yet. 

 

 

I spent almost 40 years at sea, starting as a cadet & then Junior Officer with a UK cruise line. On moving to Canada, I worked Ro/Pax with almost 30 years in Command. Have also managed a shipyard and worked ashore developing a Safety Management System.

 

The percentage of time that cruise ships use all engines, depends on the schedule and on time performance. However, it is most likely very low, as the top 1 - 2 kts of speed costs tons of fuel. To provide an example from my cruise ship days:

 - 4 Engines:  20 kts

 - 3 Engines:  18.5 kts

 - 2 Engines:   16 kts

 

Although I don't know the Viking speeds, since they have 2 large & 2 smaller engines, the numbers will be fairly close. Therefore few voyages will be scheduled at > 18 kts, as fuel consumption increases by 25%.

 

Had the ship not blacked, it would have been a bumpy, but uneventful ride, as described by your fellow passenger  DGHOC.

 

[gatour]

The cheng has pointed out on threads about other incidents (and may even said on this this thread).  That there is fair chance one generator will be out of service for any particular cruise.  They have to be rebuilt every couple of years, and this not an overnight process.

[OnTheJourney]

Makes sense, and is something I had no idea about. Most interesting, as was that entire report. 

[JDincalif]

Will be trying another cruise since the Viking Sky incident. Leaving tomorrow for Miami and a trip through the Caribbean and Panama Canal. Our first major trip since the Viking sky cruise last March. This time the only way I want to get wet this time is to swim in the pool.

Edited January 5, 2020 by JDincalif

[OnTheJourney]

Our cruise 'experiment' post-Sky incident was back in October. We did have 2 storm systems to contend with, but nothing anywhere near like the bomb cyclone. We felt good about it all with the exception of one time in the stairwells when an alarm-type signal went off that sounded exactly like what we heard on the Sky right before Mayday was declared. We sort of both froze in our tracks and it took us right back to March, but other than a bit of apprehension during the storms, all went well. Looking forward to another cruise in March. All the best to you JD and wishing you smooth seas! 

Edited January 8, 2020 by OnTheJourney

[bbwex]

As I understand the interim report and its implications, there was a serious issue running the ship with lower than required levels of oil in the generators.  Of course, one engine might be off-line at any given time for maintenance, etc., and that was the case here, but it will be a good question whether it was actual negligence to be running with oil levels around 28% when 60% is recommended by the manufacturer.  That might not end up being a severe problem in calm seas, but when the ship is in heavy seas and rolling and pitching, the low oil levels seem to have been the proximate cause of the incident.  As the ship rolled and pitched, the oil pickup was left out of the pool of oil, causing, eventually, the shedding of loads by the generators, and their ultimate shut down.  The alarms started early in the morning, and could likely have led to corrective measures, but they chose to continue as they were, with abnormally low oil levels. 

 

I look forward to the final report to see what they have to say about whether this was an unusual oil level -- unlikely since all three of the operational generators were equally low -- or whether the low oil levels were intentionally maintained that way to conserve oil (money) or simply a sloppy crew.  Maintaining low oil levels obviously is not worth the cost of damage to a generator or the ship, but somehow and for some reason they were doing it. 

[DaveSJ711]

1 hour ago, bbwex said:

As I understand the interim report and its implications, there was a serious issue running the ship with lower than required levels of oil in the generators.  Of course, one engine might be off-line at any given time for maintenance, etc., and that was the case here, but it will be a good question whether it was actual negligence to be running with oil levels around 28% when 60% is recommended by the manufacturer.  That might not end up being a severe problem in calm seas, but when the ship is in heavy seas and rolling and pitching, the low oil levels seem to have been the proximate cause of the incident.  As the ship rolled and pitched, the oil pickup was left out of the pool of oil, causing, eventually, the shedding of loads by the generators, and their ultimate shut down.  The alarms started early in the morning, and could likely have led to corrective measures, but they chose to continue as they were, with abnormally low oil levels. 

 

I look forward to the final report to see what they have to say about whether this was an unusual oil level -- unlikely since all three of the operational generators were equally low -- or whether the low oil levels were intentionally maintained that way to conserve oil (money) or simply a sloppy crew.  Maintaining low oil levels obviously is not worth the cost of damage to a generator or the ship, but somehow and for some reason they were doing it. 

 

Are you a lawyer, too?  I've been one for almost 40 years -- and only lawyers use the term "proximate cause."

[Tom47]

1 hour ago, DaveSJ711 said:

 

Are you a lawyer, too?  I've been one for almost 40 years -- and only lawyers use the term "proximate cause."

I'm not a lawyer.  I'm also not cruising on Viking.

[neutrino78x]

They should have two more propulsion systems as backup. On submarines the nuclear reactor is the main propulsion system, and we have a diesel engine as backup which can also drive the boat at high speed (our max speed is classified) and then there's the outboard, a small electric propeller that can drive the boat off battery power, at a very low speed.

Sounds like they have backup power but not backup propulsion (or at least not sufficient backup propulsion). Oh well, Norway has a decent Navy (one reason why they are not a FoC), they'll get everybody to safety. 🙂