Alaska pilots have doubts about Royal Princess

[kochleffel]

According to an Associated Press story, Alaska marine pilots have questions about the maneuverability of the Royal Princess, one of four megaships scheduled to call at Alaska ports this season. The others -- Norwegian Bliss and Joy, and Royal Caribbean Ovation of the Seas -- have azipod propulsion, while the Royal Princess has propellers and rudders.

 

“Overall the simulations (for the Royal Princess) produced serious challenges in wind and current conditions common to Southeast Alaska,” the pilots wrote in a report released publicly this month.

The simulations also found that the Royal Princess model didn’t handle well at low speeds.

 

According to the story, the port of Ketchikan presents particular difficulty because of the Tongass Narrows and a low speed limit.

 

(I have no personal knowledge of this matter, I don't own stock in any of the cruise lines, and I'm not booked on any of those ships.)

 

 

 

[rkacruiser]

Thanks for your report.  I question the wisdom of placing such large ships in the Alaskan market.  However, I think this will be the second season for Norwegian Bliss.  I am not aware of any specific difficulty that her presence in the Alaska market had last year.

[jlp20]

The real question, are those Alaska marine pilots capable, or have become dependent on newer technology. Being a ship's pilot is a position of skill, if they lack the skill they should not be attempting the job.

[CruiserBruce]

15 minutes ago, jlp20 said:

The real question, are those Alaska marine pilots capable, or have become dependent on newer technology. Being a ship's pilot is a position of skill, if they lack the skill they should not be attempting the job.

The exact reverse could be just as big an  issue. If the ships are too big, and don't have enough manoeuvring capability,  they don't belong there. You can just keep inserting bigger and bigger into the same sized space. Not having azipods seems to limiting manoeuvring abilities. 

 

Do you have specific relevant knowledge, in order to second guess the pilots? I certainly don't. 

[Coral]

33 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

 

Do you have specific relevant knowledge, in order to second guess the pilots? I certainly don't. 

That is my main question also!

[masterdrago]

We (Radiance) are in Skagway with Ovation and in Juneau with Ovation again and Coral Princess although at slightly staggered times (thank goodness). The Queen Elizabeth proceeds us into Hubbard Glacier by 2 hours but stays 2 hours longer than us (4 vs 2) and then follows us into Vancouver by an hour. Ovation outweighs us by ~80,000 tons. Size matters also. Radiance is 128'wide x 965'long, whereas Ovation is 160' x 1141'. Radiance built 2001, Ovation 2016. I for one feel fairly confident that the captain of those ships know what they are doing. Unless your the captain of the MSC Armonia!

[rkacruiser]

20 hours ago, masterdrago said:

Unless your the captain of the MSC Armonia!

 

Were you on the Nieuw Statendam at Grand Cayman when MSC Armonia appeared to be "wandering around" as she was preparing to sail and getting much too close to Nieuw Statendam in my opinion?

[masterdrago]

I was in Roatan a month after the crashed the dock.

[wolfie11]

22 hours ago, masterdrago said:

We (Radiance) are in Skagway with Ovation and in Juneau with Ovation again and Coral Princess although at slightly staggered times (thank goodness). The Queen Elizabeth proceeds us into Hubbard Glacier by 2 hours but stays 2 hours longer than us (4 vs 2) and then follows us into Vancouver by an hour. Ovation outweighs us by ~80,000 tons. Size matters also. Radiance is 128'wide x 965'long, whereas Ovation is 160' x 1141'. Radiance built 2001, Ovation 2016. I for one feel fairly confident that the captain of those ships know what they are doing. Unless your the captain of the MSC Armonia!

The captain isn’t in charge of navigating in SE Alaska.  The pilot is.  And the pilots are saying that the Royal, which has twin fixed pitch propellers instead of azipods like the other big ships shouldn’t go into Ketchikan when the wind is forecast to be over 15 knots.  She has over 3 acres of surface exposed to the wind when it’s blowing on the side of the ship.  That’s a dang big sail and she crabs sideways.  She also doesn’t steer well at slow speeds.  The problem in Ketchikan is that she can’t get thru the Narrows safely with her wind surface if the wind speed is too high.

[Heidi13]

18 hours ago, wolfie11 said:

The captain isn’t in charge of navigating in SE Alaska.  The pilot is.  And the pilots are saying that the Royal, which has twin fixed pitch propellers instead of azipods like the other big ships shouldn’t go into Ketchikan when the wind is forecast to be over 15 knots.  She has over 3 acres of surface exposed to the wind when it’s blowing on the side of the ship.  That’s a dang big sail and she crabs sideways.  She also doesn’t steer well at slow speeds.  The problem in Ketchikan is that she can’t get thru the Narrows safely with her wind surface if the wind speed is too high.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. While SE Alaska waters are compulsory pilotage waters and the pilot normally has conduct (con) of the vessel, the Master remains in command and the Deck Officer in charge of the watch is responsible to the Master for the safe navigation, with advice from the pilot. The correct term we used is courses and speeds to Master's orders & pilot's advice.

 

When the Captain or Deck Officers, agree with the pilot's orders they are followed without question. When they don't agree, the pilot is challenged and if unable to justify their intended action, the Captain and/or Deck Officer may take any action they believe is required to ensure the safe conduct of the vessel. As a Deck Officer in Alaska, I countered a pilot's orders on a couple of occasions. Mostly with respect to the amount of helm they requested.

 

This is consistent with any compulsory pilotage area I have worked, except the Panama Canal, where the pilots assume complete responsibility for the navigation. It is also noted in the Alaska Marine Pilot Statutes & Regulations.

 

Having commanded large vessels with both Azipod type propulsion, conventional props/rudders/thrusters and fast ferries with water jets, each type can provide similar levels of control. However, many factors need to be considered:

 - Azipods or z-drive propulsion - are integrated props/rudders, however their ability depends on the amount of HP installed and response time of both the blades and rotation speed of the pod. Cruise ships normally have 2 or 3 pods aft with fixed pitch blades, however I have commanded vessels with 2 aft & 2 fwd, with controllable pitch props. Excellent manoeuverability, provided they turn quickly and blades respond quickly.

 - Props/Rudders - I have commanded many vessels with this configuration. With lots of HP, high lift rudders, fast response controllable pitch props and large thrusters the ship is as manoeuverable, as a ship with azipods. Note the Royal Princess has Fixed Pitch Props (FPP), which are cheaper to install and maintain, but normally provide less manoeuverability. I have been unable to determine the type of rudders installed on Royal Princess. My ships fitted with Becker Rudders (high lift) could displace the prop wash to 90 degrees, either side, so were basically very powerful thrusters.

 

The biggest variable in ship handling is time lag between operating the bridge control and the action taking place. From zero pitch to full ahead, I have experienced everything from 4 seconds to 15 seconds.

 

When approaching a berth or transitting a narrow channel in a beam wind, the vessel will have a course steered and course made good. The difference is drift. The amount of drift varies by sail area, ship speed and angle of wind. When handling ships in narrow channels, when the difference between course made good and course steered increases, the channel effectively becomes narrower. The drift angle can be reduced by increasing speed, which in many channels is not permitted due to speed restrictions and is not recommended when approaching a berth. Therefore the length of ship and draft are limiting factors navigating in narrow channels. I believe the Royal Princess is the shortest in overall length at 330 m.

 

Prior to scheduling the ship in Alaska, I would be very surprised if Princess has not tested the ship with their Bridge Teams at their simulator complex in Almere, just outside Amsterdam. They should have determined a maximum wind speed that the vessel can be safely manoeuvred. The Captains will be well aware of any limitations and will have performed the navigation/dockings many times in the simulator. The pilots have conducted simulations, but how accurate was their ship modelling and which simulator did they use - was it generic controls or was it a full mission simulator based on that Bridge design.

 

However, if the ship does have handling challenges, it isn't because she doesn't have Azipods, it will because Princess went cheap installing FPP, non-high lift rudders, insufficient HP, insufficient thrusters (normally effective below about 4 kts), etc.

 

Personally, having docked large windage/low draft passenger vessels multiple times a day for almost 30 years, my preference for docking in Ketchikan and similar areas is quick response twin controllable pitch props, twin high-lift rudders that can be controlled individually and multiple bow-thrusters.. With sufficient HP to handle vessel in 35 to 40 kt beam wind at manoeuvering speeds.

[wolfie11]

14 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Sorry, but you are incorrect. While SE Alaska waters are compulsory pilotage waters and the pilot normally has conduct (con) of the vessel, the Master remains in command and the Deck Officer in charge of the watch is responsible to the Master for the safe navigation, with advice from the pilot. The correct term we used is courses and speeds to Master's orders & pilot's advice.

 

When the Captain or Deck Officers, agree with the pilot's orders they are followed without question. When they don't agree, the pilot is challenged and if unable to justify their intended action, the Captain and/or Deck Officer may take any action they believe is required to ensure the safe conduct of the vessel. As a Deck Officer in Alaska, I countered a pilot's orders on a couple of occasions. Mostly with respect to the amount of helm they requested.

 

This is consistent with any compulsory pilotage area I have worked, except the Panama Canal, where the pilots assume complete responsibility for the navigation. It is also noted in the Alaska Marine Pilot Statutes & Regulations.

 

Having commanded large vessels with both Azipod type propulsion, conventional props/rudders/thrusters and fast ferries with water jets, each type can provide similar levels of control. However, many factors need to be considered:

 - Azipods or z-drive propulsion - are integrated props/rudders, however their ability depends on the amount of HP installed and response time of both the blades and rotation speed of the pod. Cruise ships normally have 2 or 3 pods aft with fixed pitch blades, however I have commanded vessels with 2 aft & 2 fwd, with controllable pitch props. Excellent manoeuverability, provided they turn quickly and blades respond quickly.

 - Props/Rudders - I have commanded many vessels with this configuration. With lots of HP, high lift rudders, fast response controllable pitch props and large thrusters the ship is as manoeuverable, as a ship with azipods. Note the Royal Princess has Fixed Pitch Props (FPP), which are cheaper to install and maintain, but normally provide less manoeuverability. I have been unable to determine the type of rudders installed on Royal Princess. My ships fitted with Becker Rudders (high lift) could displace the prop wash to 90 degrees, either side, so were basically very powerful thrusters.

 

The biggest variable in ship handling is time lag between operating the bridge control and the action taking place. From zero pitch to full ahead, I have experienced everything from 4 seconds to 15 seconds.

 

When approaching a berth or transitting a narrow channel in a beam wind, the vessel will have a course steered and course made good. The difference is drift. The amount of drift varies by sail area, ship speed and angle of wind. When handling ships in narrow channels, when the difference between course made good and course steered increases, the channel effectively becomes narrower. The drift angle can be reduced by increasing speed, which in many channels is not permitted due to speed restrictions and is not recommended when approaching a berth. Therefore the length of ship and draft are limiting factors navigating in narrow channels. I believe the Royal Princess is the shortest in overall length at 330 m.

 

Prior to scheduling the ship in Alaska, I would be very surprised if Princess has not tested the ship with their Bridge Teams at their simulator complex in Almere, just outside Amsterdam. They should have determined a maximum wind speed that the vessel can be safely manoeuvred. The Captains will be well aware of any limitations and will have performed the navigation/dockings many times in the simulator. The pilots have conducted simulations, but how accurate was their ship modelling and which simulator did they use - was it generic controls or was it a full mission simulator based on that Bridge design.

 

However, if the ship does have handling challenges, it isn't because she doesn't have Azipods, it will because Princess went cheap installing FPP, non-high lift rudders, insufficient HP, insufficient thrusters (normally effective below about 4 kts), etc.

 

Personally, having docked large windage/low draft passenger vessels multiple times a day for almost 30 years, my preference for docking in Ketchikan and similar areas is quick response twin controllable pitch props, twin high-lift rudders that can be controlled individually and multiple bow-thrusters.. With sufficient HP to handle vessel in 35 to 40 kt beam wind at manoeuvering speeds.

You’re absolutely right in that the final say about what happens on the ship always lies with the Master.  You should read the report, it’s quite interesting.

 

https://krbd-org.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SEAPA_VLCS-v2.pdf?_ga=2.61333353.495801582.1555855097-69405248.1555855097

[Heidi13]

Thanks for providing the report. Just read the first 30 pages and definitely very interesting. Although the simulations were conducted at a local facility, with HAL participation they obviously had realistic ship modelling, as the simulator drift angle was replicated by a sister ship.

 

Based on the report, the rudders are both undersized and only conventional rudders. Note the comment that the vessel will follow the rudders when going astern. In my experience, vessels with high lift rudders, do not steer when going astern. The comment that the ship handles like a twin screw ship with single rudder, is beyond comprehension in this day and age. With the computer modelling and simulations available today, the handling characteristics should be known before they even cut steel. Sadly this is the classic example where MBA's & accountants run shipping lines.

 

The other interesting fact is the ship can only be held against a beam wind of just over 25 kts, with 25 kts being the design criteria. My last ship, we had sufficient power to hold against 31 kts of beam wind and we thought that was low.

 

Based on the criteria, they may have a significant number of missed port calls.

[LessWorkMoreTravel]

So what happens if they have to skip Ketchikan?  My itinerary has Juneau, then Ketchikan, then a sea day on the way to Vancouver.  Would they just head out to sea and cruise around for an extra day?

[CruiserBruce]

3 minutes ago, LessWorkMoreTravel said:

So what happens if they have to skip Ketchikan?  My itinerary has Juneau, then Ketchikan, then a sea day on the way to Vancouver.  Would they just head out to sea and cruise around for an extra day?

Most likely yes, a sea day. Alaska ports are typically very busy...it would be very hard to just show up at another port and dock.

[Northern Aurora]

5 hours ago, LessWorkMoreTravel said:

So what happens if they have to skip Ketchikan?  My itinerary has Juneau, then Ketchikan, then a sea day on the way to Vancouver.  Would they just head out to sea and cruise around for an extra day?

 

 

The report on the potential issues with the Royal Princess is receiving a great amount of press coverage in our state -- even here in Fairbanks which is in the Interior.

 

But in response to LessWorkMoreTravel -- several years ago we were on a ship (not Princess) which had to skip Ketchikan due to high winds.  The ship did indeed head out to sea and cruise for an additional day.  

[cruisenews411]

On 4/23/2019 at 11:41 AM, Heidi13 said:

 

Based on the criteria, they may have a significant number of missed port calls.

Does the report make it sound like other ports beside Ketchikan may also be in jeopardy of being missed? I read about wind condition limits for Juneau and Skagway. They are higher than 15 but not by much. Also-could Glacier Bay be a possible miss? 

 

I don't want to miss Ketchikan but if we could potentially miss more than one port-I may try to alter my plans. 

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, cruisenews411 said:

Does the report make it sound like other ports beside Ketchikan may also be in jeopardy of being missed? I read about wind condition limits for Juneau and Skagway. They are higher than 15 but not by much. Also-could Glacier Bay be a possible miss? 

 

I don't want to miss Ketchikan but if we could potentially miss more than one port-I may try to alter my plans. 

They are quoting max winds of 20 - 25 kts in Juneau & Skagway. Been in Skagway many times with winds of 30 - 40 kts. They also have the option of hiring a couple of huge tractor tugs, but they are only available in Vancouver and probably Seattle/Bellingham.

 

With Glacier Bay, they have not set a limit, instead leaving the abort point to the Master, with advice from the pilot.

[Heidi13]

On 4/23/2019 at 10:31 AM, LessWorkMoreTravel said:

So what happens if they have to skip Ketchikan?  My itinerary has Juneau, then Ketchikan, then a sea day on the way to Vancouver.  Would they just head out to sea and cruise around for an extra day?

The only commercial port between Ketchikan and Vancouver that could possibly handle the ship is Prince Rupert and if they have concerns going into Ketchikan, Prince Rupert inner harbour is a similar narrow channel approach.

 

Highly doubt Prince Rupert is an option, so most likely you will get some scenic cruising for an extra day. 

 

 

[BarbinMich]

Heidi, thanks so much contributing your professional experience and knowledge to this thread!  I thought the tidal changes in Alaska would also be a challenge, but you don't mention them.  So can we assume they pose no problem?  And that wind is the biggest concern?

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, BarbinMich said:

Heidi, thanks so much contributing your professional experience and knowledge to this thread!  I thought the tidal changes in Alaska would also be a challenge, but you don't mention them.  So can we assume they pose no problem?  And that wind is the biggest concern?

The tidal range, the difference in height of high & low tides is considerable on the BC & Alaska Coasts, routinely > 20 feet. This is an issue alongside, as it requires frequent changes in gangway locations and also tending of mooring lines. Tidal heights come into play when crossing a shallow bar to enter/exit a port. Falmouth in south of UK is a classic example of this situation.

 

When at sea, the extreme tides do cause extreme currents in narrow channels. It has been many years since I worked north of the BC Coast, so I don't remember any metrics we used for the narrow channels. I also note the ships are way bigger than I worked in Alaska. The Masters & pilots will also factor any currents into determining abort points. Adding current into the equation normally reduces the limiting wind speed.

 

However, I can give you an example from the BC Coast that the cruise ships navigate. Seymour Narrows is about 100 miles from Vancouver and is rather narrow, with a 90 degree turn and an old rock they blew up years ago. The maximum current can be as high as 16 kts. When running ferries up and down the coast, we went through Seymour at whatever the tide was running, so I have been through many times at maximum. I felt very confident in the ship and the officer's abilities.

 

The BC Coast pilots only want to transit Seymour at slack water, or about 1 hour before/after slack water. Bucking or running with the tide have different challenges. With the Royal Princess, I would be most concerned going northbound at Seymour, running with an ebb tide.  When navigating in narrow channels, I am always more concerned with following currents, as you have less steerage and it isn't fun if the current grabs the stern.

 

Without having experienced the simulations, it is difficult to predict the worst wind direction, but it will from the beam +/- 45 degrees.

[BarbinMich]

Thanks, Heidi.  Sounds like we've been thru some very challenging areas on our way to Alaska from Vancouver.  Our last cruise to Alaska was from San Francisco and we sailed west of Vancouver Island, far out to sea (i.e. we couldn't see the island) so that was a whole different (and placid) experience.

[Heidi13]

On 4/26/2019 at 9:30 AM, BarbinMich said:

Thanks, Heidi.  Sounds like we've been thru some very challenging areas on our way to Alaska from Vancouver.  Our last cruise to Alaska was from San Francisco and we sailed west of Vancouver Island, far out to sea (i.e. we couldn't see the island) so that was a whole different (and placid) experience.

Yes, both San Francisco & Seattle departures head up the Pacific Ocean, west of Vancouver Island, so it can be rough. Back in my day, departing Vancouver, we took the entire Inside Passage, so only had a couple of hours of open passage.

 

Most ships based in Vancouver now use Hecate Strait between Port Hardy & Dixon Entrance. Hecate Strait can get a little lumpy. However some of the premium lines still use the entire Inside Passage for smoother sailing and much more scenic transit. Viking Ocean are new to Alaska this year and advertise they will use the entire Inside Passage.

[Pushka]

I see that Orion and Royal Princess are in Yakutat Bay together (Hubbard) on my cruise. Hopefully not at the same time but I can’t see any reference to timing on our schedule. I wonder if this too will be an issue for the ship. I was pleased we had avoided the other mega ships like Ovation and didn’t even know about the NCL ships. 

 

29 Days to go which is actually 28 for me in Australia as it’s already Sunday. So I’m happier with saying “4 weeks today” we board. I’m really hoping we do cruise the true inside passage. I can sit and watch for hours. I did this on our recent Baltic cruise that passed close to land in multiple areas. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Pushka

[rkacruiser]

21 minutes ago, Pushka said:

I see that Orion and Royal Princess are in Yakutat Bay together (Hubbard) on my cruise. Hopefully not at the same time but I can’t see any reference to timing on our schedule. I wonder if this too will be an issue for the ship. I was pleased we had avoided the other mega ships like Ovation and didn’t even know about the NCL ships. 

 

Based upon my most recent experience aboard Amsterdam when we visited Hubbard Glacier, I believe that the timing for the ships to visit the face of the Glacier is planned and staggered.  As we were approaching the Glacier, another cruise ship (don't recall which one, but it was one of the small expedition type vessels) was leaving.  Amsterdam spent considerable time in the vicinity of the Glacier with our Captain spinning the vessel 360 degrees so that all on both sides of the ship had a view.  As we left, a Princess vessel, either Coral Princess or Island Princess--not sure which--too our place for scenic viewing.  I expect your experience on Royal Princess will be the same.  Just be somewhere on an outside deck when you are near the face of the Glacier.   During my last visit, the Glacier was putting on quite a show with frequent calving.  It starts with what sounds like a shotgun blast.  Then, the sight of the calving appears.  Memorable!

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, Pushka said:

I see that Orion and Royal Princess are in Yakutat Bay together (Hubbard) on my cruise. Hopefully not at the same time but I can’t see any reference to timing on our schedule. I wonder if this too will be an issue for the ship. I was pleased we had avoided the other mega ships like Ovation and didn’t even know about the NCL ships. 

 

29 Days to go which is actually 28 for me in Australia as it’s already Sunday. So I’m happier with saying “4 weeks today” we board. I’m really hoping we do cruise the true inside passage. I can sit and watch for hours. I did this on our recent Baltic cruise that passed close to land in multiple areas. 

Our experience in Hubbard is similar to rkacruiser. Only seen another ship once during our visits to Hubbard and we passed in the channel, so only 1 ship at the glacier at any time.

 

Looking forward to reading your reports of the inaugural Alaska cruise.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Heidi13