Encore gangway collapse in Panama

[jbcallender]

2 hours ago, d9704011 said:

Don't you think that's after the gangway collapsed?

Of course it is after the gangway collapse.  I am projecting the angle prior to the collapse, I am looking for my trigonometric tables at the moment.

[jbcallender]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

That is not plausible at all.  The bridge has books, tables, and electronics that will predict the state of tide every hour of every day for every port in the world.

Plus, when you are licensed and you've been at sea for "X" number of years, you just kind of think about those things......

[d9704011]

32 minutes ago, jbcallender said:

Of course it is after the gangway collapse.  I am projecting the angle prior to the collapse, I am looking for my trigonometric tables at the moment.

That's going to be an iffy calculation even if you can determine the original length of the gangway.  You probably don't know how long after the collapse the photo was taken so estimating how much the tide has risen or fallen is going to be difficult to ascertain ie... where the entry port on the side of the ship was located with respect to the dockside.

[genian_travels]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

The pier and its docking facilities have been in use for some time. Some ships docked there last year. It's the other facilities, particularly the cruise terminal building that haven't been completed.

I meant it was the first time the Encore had ever docked at this port - which could have led crew to be unfamiliar with it and the low tide issue. 

[njhorseman]

15 minutes ago, genian_travels said:

I meant it was the first time the Encore had ever docked at this port - which could have led crew to be unfamiliar with it and the low tide issue. 

If the master of the ship is unfamiliar with how to determine the effects of the rising and falling tides they shouldn't be the master of a ship. The tides aren't a mystery.

[The Traveling Man]

On 11/13/2022 at 5:41 PM, broberts said:

https://magicseaweed.com/Panama-La-Vieja-Panama-City-Surf-Report/472/Tide/?start=1667926800&end=1668790800

 

 

Thank you for posting this.  It looks like the maximum change in sea level was about 16 feet that day.  Based on the times that most passengers would exit in the morning and then return in the afternoon, the shift was about ten or 12 feet at those times, or roughly the height of one deck level.  It may have been more inconvenient for the crew to set up the gangway on one deck for the morning exit, then move the gangway and the security equipment to a different deck for the afternoon returns, but hindsight obviously indicates that it would have been a good idea to do so in this case.  If they had set up on different decks, they likely would have been able to maintain a more reasonable height differential between the deck and the pier.  That would have allowed them to use a shorter, and possibly sturdier, gangway while avoiding such a steep angle.

[anewmac]

We were on this sailing and it was a sh!t show from the moment we docked there. Crew didn’t know where to set up the normal dock stuff (towels, pop ups etc). They had buses that needed to take you on and off the pier as the port center is still being built and a full on construction site. 

 

we left day one around 9am and they as others have said only allowed 2 people at a time. It was steep and bouncy. Let alone it was raining so also slippery. All I thought when I got off was we’re in our 40s and this was unsafe. How will it be for those in their 60s and up. This ship was majority age 60 and older. Many in scooters and wheelchairs

 

day 2 we knew we needed to leave asap to catch our excursion since it took so long to get off the day before. Again it was a bouncy ride off the gangplank and I’ve never held on to it so tight. At 730am there weren’t many others getting off so we were the only ones on it. 
 

when we got back around 4pm we didn’t put the 2 and 2 together that the bouncy gangplank was down. Just figured since we were leaving soon they were getting ready. But we did notice 3 ambulances. Again with an older cruise clientele we thought nothing of it as someone was taken off in Guatemala.

 

wasn’t until I got in the elevator did a couple asked if we saw it fall. We were puzzled and she said the gangplank. I said no the bouncy one. Yup. We ran to our balcony room on 14 and then noticed the gangplanks condition along with people being loaded into the ambulances 

 

one gal from our cruise roll call on that site that can’t be mentioned here. States they were involved on it and thought sore and bruise they denied going to the hospital because NCL couldn’t give them an answer on what the care plan was. And if they were ok where they would be taken to meet up with the ship… so they stayed on and NCL gave them a fruit basket… 🙄

 

overall this port should not be utilized. Or at least not in this way. The huge tour busses on this pier gave me anxiety over the 5 pt turns they needed to make and any wrong turn or step of the gas would have sent us all overboard. The 20mins it took to get out of the cruise site was horrible as it was all dirt/mud to drive thru. Honestly 1 day here was bad but 2 days was ridiculous in the condition this port was in. 

[genian_travels]

Update: I’ve been emailing NCL’s PR department for an updated statement since Saturday, asking for a follow-up to confirm the numbers of injured, the nature of injuries and their current conditions. 
 

Finally got a response now saying they “do not have any additional information to share at this time”.

 

I’m sure a week on they have all the information - they’re just not willing to share it for fear of further negative press…

[Laszlo]

18 minutes ago, genian_travels said:

Update: I’ve been emailing NCL’s PR department for an updated statement since Saturday, asking for a follow-up to confirm the numbers of injured, the nature of injuries and their current conditions. 
 

Finally got a response now saying they “do not have any additional information to share at this time”.

 

I’m sure a week on they have all the information - they’re just not willing to share it for fear of further negative press…

Your not going to hear a peep, with the exception of a press release prepared by their lawyers 

[skeeter195]

On 11/13/2022 at 9:33 PM, njhorseman said:

If the master of the ship is unfamiliar with how to determine the effects of the rising and falling tides they shouldn't be the master of a ship. The tides aren't a mystery.

 

I keep hearing this tide issue.  Of course the captain and crew knew exactly how high and low the tides were going to be.  I think the problem here was that there was inaccurate information as to what the height of the pavement actually was from the water at the different tides.  The Encore pulls in for the first time and the crew realizes there is going to be a problem but the higher ups made the call to use the bad gangway.  

 

Will this fall on the shoulders of the Captain?, probably.  He may have been put into a bad situation by the NCL higher ups to use the bad gangway.  Tough spot, do what your told or lose your job.  The Captain does not make all of the decisions for the ship like most people think.  In emergencies with time constraint, yes.  Unfortunately though if a situation is going to cost a cruiseline money then that call most certainly comes from headquarters.  

[Turtles06]

15 minutes ago, skeeter195 said:

I think the problem here was that there was inaccurate information as to what the height of the pavement actually was from the water at the different tides.  The Encore pulls in for the first time and the crew realizes there is going to be a problem but the higher ups made the call to use the bad gangway.  Will this fall on the shoulders of the Captain?, probably.  He may have been put into a bad situation by the NCL higher ups to use the bad gangway.  Tough spot, do what your told or lose your job. 

 

Wow, this thread is really going off the rails with unfounded speculation.  🙄

[broberts]

1 minute ago, Turtles06 said:

 

Wow, this thread is really going off the rails with unfounded speculation.  🙄

 

Tends to happen in a vacuum.

 

[skeeter195]

9 minutes ago, Turtles06 said:

 

Wow, this thread is really going off the rails with unfounded speculation.  🙄

Speculation?, no.  I am 99.99% positive that the Captain and crew knew what the tides would have been.  

[Turtles06]

6 minutes ago, skeeter195 said:

Speculation?, no.  I am 99.99% positive that the Captain and crew knew what the tides would have been.  

 

So am  I

[d9704011]

6 minutes ago, skeeter195 said:

Speculation?, no.  I am 99.99% positive that the Captain and crew knew what the tides would have been.  

I'd go 100% on the tides; the business of the 'hogher ups' dictating the use of a 'bad gangway' is a little speculative on the part of skeeter195 though.

Edited November 16, 2022 by d9704011

[njhorseman]

4 minutes ago, skeeter195 said:

Speculation?, no.  I am 99.99% positive that the Captain and crew knew what the tides would have been.  

I'm reasonably certain that the speculation reference is about your statements:

"the higher ups made the call to use the bad gangway", and

" He may have been put into a bad situation by the NCL higher ups to use the bad gangway.  Tough spot, do what your told or lose your job.  The Captain does not make all of the decisions for the ship like most people think.  In emergencies with time constraint, yes.  Unfortunately though if a situation is going to cost a cruiseline money then that call most certainly comes from headquarters. "

 

What evidence  do you have that the decision was made by the higher ups? Were you a party to the conversation? 

[fshagan]

..

Edited November 20, 2022 by fshagan
Oops.

[chengkp75]

On 11/16/2022 at 4:21 PM, skeeter195 said:

He may have been put into a bad situation by the NCL higher ups to use the bad gangway.  Tough spot, do what your told or lose your job.  The Captain does not make all of the decisions for the ship like most people think.  In emergencies with time constraint, yes.  Unfortunately though if a situation is going to cost a cruiseline money then that call most certainly comes from headquarters

Actually, this is incorrect.  Under the ISM (International Safety Management) Code, and SOLAS, which all shipping companies must adhere to, and which is part of law under the flag state, the Captain is granted overriding authority as the person on the scene, when making any decision (emergency or otherwise), regarding the safety of the passengers, crew, ship, or environment.  This means that no person in the corporate structure can override his/her decision.  And, only if that decision is found later to have violated the existing ISM policies and procedures, could any action be taken against the Captain.  ISM does not take into account the profitability or cost of any procedure or policy within the company, and these codes have been in place for decades, and have to cover virtually every aspect of company and ship operation, and deal with strictly safety concerns.  The ISM is the overriding document on how a shipping company does its business, and fault can be found both at the ship/crew level as well as the corporate level by statutory third party audits of the plan as a whole and any incidents.

[www3traveler]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Actually, this is incorrect.  Under the ISM (International Safety Management) Code, and SOLAS, which all shipping companies must adhere to, and which is part of law under the flag state, the Captain is granted overriding authority as the person on the scene, when making any decision (emergency or otherwise), regarding the safety of the passengers, crew, ship, or environment.  This means that no person in the corporate structure can override his/her decision.  And, only if that decision is found later to have violated the existing ISM policies and procedures, could any action be taken against the Captain.  ISM does not take into account the profitability or cost of any procedure or policy within the company, and these codes have been in place for decades, and have to cover virtually every aspect of company and ship operation, and deal with strictly safety concerns.  The ISM is the overriding document on how a shipping company does its business, and fault can be found both at the ship/crew level as well as the corporate level by statutory third party audits of the plan as a whole and any incidents.

Thank You Sir, as always-- a voice of authority and reason.

[New2cruise2022]

@chengkp75and @skeeter195are both making valid points. The reality is that no one knows. And FWIW, like no one will ever know the full picture of what transpired. From a strictly legal standpoint, @skeeter195’s hypothesis will be scrutinized by the authority and protocols that @chengkp75laid out in response. The events that unfolded and the decisions made leading up to those events will be aligned to understand the individual or entities responsible. Resolution to this gangway collapse will likely take years to come about and will likely never be published unless there are laws that require timeliness and disclosure. 
 

Already this is likely buried in layers of discovery and no one involved is going to speak publicly (including those injured) while the legal matters are pending. @chengkp75has laid out who SHOULD have been making decisions. @skeeter195 is questioning whether this line of authority functioned as it should. 

[phillygwm]

On 11/13/2022 at 9:33 PM, njhorseman said:

If the master of the ship is unfamiliar with how to determine the effects of the rising and falling tides they shouldn't be the master of a ship. The tides aren't a mystery.

The only explanation I can think of in defense of the Captain was that, if this was their first time in this port, he might not have known about the gangway logistics.  Sure, he'd know the tides and he probably deals with the same issue elsewhere.  But there may have been an assumption that the gangway was worthy of the load since that would (I'd think) be the port's responsibility.

Edited November 20, 2022 by phillygwm

[New2cruise2022]

1 minute ago, phillygwm said:

The only explanation I can think of, in defense of the Captain was that, if this was their first time in the port, he might not have known about the gangway logistics since that's the port's responsibility.

The captain and corporate will no doubt have a defense, and this defense you propose may be the case.

In assigning duty and evaluating negligence, lawyers will create a timeline of what was or should have been known, who knew or reasonably should have known, and when someone knew or should have known. 

 

Duties are not always absolute and can shift from one entity to another. If the captain has the ultimate duty to care for ship, crew, and passengers, does that responsibility ever shift to local pilot or port? The answer usually is “it depends.” Hence the legal process that is happening right now. 

[phillygwm]

17 minutes ago, New2cruise2022 said:

The captain and corporate will no doubt have a defense, and this defense you propose may be the case.

I can't speak to the legal ramifications, especially those that apply in other countries.  Even my post above was not based on my overwhelming maritime knowledge (which is entirely limited to being a cruise passenger) 🤣

 

Taking the other side of the argument, if we assume that NCL crew wasn't responsible for the gangway, I'd think there still should have been a "WT__ Moment" where they'd shut it down.  If not when people were bouncing down the gangway, at least when the angle got extreme.

Edited November 20, 2022 by phillygwm

[tony s]

No matter what this is in litigation. Thus NCL will not pet their lawyers make any further statements 

[broberts]

Ultimately the legal outcome is not material except to those immediately affected.

 

People were injured, possibly in a permanent life altering way. Pier administration and operations contributed, ship crew and officers contributed. Apparently none of the people involved, (including the passengers), was willing to place the safety of passengers ahead of all other concerns. There really is no reasonable excuse. 

 

Sure there will eventually be an explanation and accounting of all the factors that contributed to the injury of several passengers. But I believe that every one of the contributing factors was likely foreseeable and the failure points to a weakness in ship doctrine.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by broberts