Muster Drill

[UPNYGuy]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I can pretty well guarantee you that the ship was in no danger of sinking

oh I knew it wasn’t. It would have been made obvious if that were the case. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by UPNYGuy

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, UPNYGuy said:

oh I knew it wasn’t. It would have been made obvious if that were the case. 

So, what was the emergency?

[UPNYGuy]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

So, what was the emergency?

According to you… being in a tropical storm isn’t one 😉

[UPNYGuy]

But my statement still stands that I find the mustering an irritant and if the e-mustering goes by the wayside, DW and I will likely be cruising much less (if at all)

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, UPNYGuy said:

According to you… being in a tropical storm isn’t one 😉

Nope, just a hazard of going to sea.  Been in more than I can count, and only once did I think we might not make it, but that was a single hull tanker, where when you looked out the bridge windows, the entire ship forward of the house was submerged (not covered in spray, or hit with a wave) and not visible.  But, she popped right back up and carried on.

 

On land, either at home, work, or at your AI resort, in an emergency, you can just leave, and get away from the emergency.  A shipboard emergency, you are fighting for your "planet" since there really isn't much option to remaining with the ship.

Edited February 14, 2023 by chengkp75

[slavigne5577]

To be honest, the old way was not any better at preparing us for an emergency. I would be in a pack of people to which I could not hear anything or see anything that would have been any help at all. 

[sanmarcosman]

Some flight attendants take too long with the FAA required emergency evacuation procedures, too, but I don't hear people growling about it.

 

The you tube videos of the Costa Concordia capsizing are a good indicator of how things can go terribly wrong at boat stations in an emergency. Even the captain jumped on the overhead of a rescue craft to save his life!

Edited February 14, 2023 by sanmarcosman

[UPNYGuy]

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

On land, either at home, work, or at your AI resort, in an emergency, you can just leave, and get away from the emergency.  A shipboard emergency, you are fighting for your "planet" since there really isn't much option to remaining with the ship.

Ok yes.  This part makes sense to me. This is also why I said I do see the value of mustering, but (for me) it is an irritant. 

[UPNYGuy]

2 minutes ago, sanmarcosman said:

Some flight attendants take too long with the FAA required emergency evacuation procedures, too, but I don't hear people growling about it.

 

The you tube videos of the Costa Concordia capsizing are a good indicator of how things can go terribly wrong at boat stations in an emergency. Even the captain jumped on the overhead of a rescue craft to save his life!

IIRC Sea Diamond also had issues. This ship is still in the Santorini Caldera. 

[ProgRockCruiser]

1 minute ago, slavigne5577 said:

To be honest, the old way was not any better at preparing us for an emergency. I would be in a pack of people to which I could not hear anything or see anything that would have been any help at all. 

Well, as @chengkp75 pointed out, half the reason for the Muster Drill is for the crew to experience dealing with a large crowd - and even that isn't a fair simulation, since in a real emergency people don't always behave just "slightly irritated".

 

Unfortunately (and thankfully), since we can't (normally) have real muster drills with real emergencies to train crew and pax, the "real muster drill" simulations and/or e-muster mini-training sessions are what's available.  Some pax will respond better to one vs the other, and almost all will declare they don't need it.

 

I like the e-muster drill because it is indeed more convenient (but also because I feel like am actually paying attention to it, vs getting distracted people watching with a crowd), and I think for my purposes I get as much out of it as the old-fashioned en masse muster drill.  But maybe the effectiveness for me, the passenger, is less important than the effectiveness in training the crew.

 

I would be surprised if there weren't studies being done as to the effectiveness of each approach for all interested parties.

[chengkp75]

Just now, slavigne5577 said:

To be honest, the old way was not any better at preparing us for an emergency. I would be in a pack of people to which I could not hear anything or see anything that would have been any help at all. 

I beg to differ on this.  For the most part, the speaking and demonstrations given during the in person drills are not required to be done, and are done during drill to keep you occupied.  For years prior to the pandemic, when ships were using the in person drill, the IMO allowed that the safety demonstrations did not need to be done during the muster, as long as they were shown on the ship's TV (and several lines had the TVs set to that channel on turnaround day).  What the in person drill does is give you experience in having everyone onboard doing the same thing, and trying to get to their muster stations at the same time as you.  This is realistic training, and it has been shown in any industry, that the more realistic the training, the better the response in an actual emergency.  The other part of the in person drill, is what the passengers don't see the crew doing, which is searching every cabin and public space (since there is no one there, you're all at muster), as they would in an emergency.  It also provides the crew with real life experience in handling a crowd of thousands who may not be amenable to directions (during drills) or frightened (during emergency).  The in person drill trains everyone onboard (passengers and crew)  how to work as a team, to try to save your lives.

 

In an actual emergency, you only need to know 3 things:  show up, shut up, listen up.  These are all taught in the in person drill but not in the e-muster.  

 

Believe me, if I thought for an instant that the e-muster gave better training than the in person muster, I'd be all for it, but if you look at posts by professional mariners on various forums here on CC, over the years since the e-muster came into existence, they all, to a man/woman, feel that the in person drill gave better training.

[UPNYGuy]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

In an actual emergency, you only need to know 3 things:  show up, shut up, listen up.  These are all taught in the in person drill but not in the e-muster.

what (in your opinion) is the largest capacity ship that can be safely evacuated at sea using current technology. I can’t wrap my head around an Oasis class evacuating using its lifeboats if it were sinking. 
 

 

[mz-s]

7 minutes ago, UPNYGuy said:

what (in your opinion) is the largest capacity ship that can be safely evacuated at sea using current technology. I can’t wrap my head around an Oasis class evacuating using its lifeboats if it were sinking. 
 

 

 

I don't think any modern cruise ship has enough capacity to evacuate everyone in a Titanic-level disaster using the davit-mounted lifeboats. they'd all have to resort to inflatables, etc., to get everyone off.

[ProgRockCruiser]

Just now, UPNYGuy said:

what (in your opinion) is the largest capacity ship that can be safely evacuated at sea using current technology. I can’t wrap my head around an Oasis class evacuating using its lifeboats if it were sinking. 
 

 

In short, from what I post further on:

 

Regulation III/21.1.3: All survival craft required to provide for abandonment by the total number of persons on board shall be capable of being launched with their full complement of persons and equipment within a period of 30 min from the time the abandon ship signal is given after all persons have been assembled, with life jackets donned.

 

So, 30 minutes is expected timeline, from the time someone says "abandon ship".

 

I'm no expert - I'll let @chengkp75 wear that hat! - but it therefore really depends on how fast said ship is sinking, or what condition it is in.  The Costa Concordia being an obvious example of a ship that didn't sink quickly or even completely, but rather seemingly poor/slow crew response (senior officers especially, it seems) and a ship that listed heavily and could not deploy lifeboats as easily as "normal".  (What is normal anyway?, one might ask.)

 

Fortunately, evacuations of large cruise ships has happened rarely, but because of that rarity, there isn't what one could call a good database of information.  It seems most ship-sinkings with lots of pax are ferries.

 

I'm sure a ship could sink in a matter of minutes if damaged severely and in the right places, and I'm sure it could take several hours otherwise, if bulkheads are sealed appropriately (or even prevent the sinking altogether).

 

And finally, according to an old BBC article from just after the aforementioned disaster, as I quoted above:

 

Regulation III/21.1.3: All survival craft required to provide for abandonment by the total number of persons on board shall be capable of being launched with their full complement of persons and equipment within a period of 30 min from the time the abandon ship signal is given after all persons have been assembled, with life jackets donned.

 

and

 

Regulations also state that a ship's systems should last for at least three hours because that is how long it is expected to take to completely abandon a large ship.

 

It took a good five hours to get most passengers off the ship.

 

So the Costa Concordia was not a "normal" disaster.  Very hard to judge, since each disaster will bring its own "abnormalities".

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, UPNYGuy said:

what (in your opinion) is the largest capacity ship that can be safely evacuated at sea using current technology. I can’t wrap my head around an Oasis class evacuating using its lifeboats if it were sinking. 
 

 

All of them.  Barring a complete failure of command, as what happened on the Concordia (and was the sole reason for the chaotic evacuation and loss of life), any ship, following proper procedures can evacuate before sinking.

 

Take the Concordia as an example, since it was mentioned previously in the thread.  This is considered by marine accident investigators to be the "worst case" scenario for a ship sinking.  Cruise ships are divided into many watertight compartments below the waterline, the Concordia had 11.  Cruise ships are designed as "two compartment" ships, meaning that if any two adjacent compartments fully flooded, the ship would stay afloat.  The Concordia breached 4 compartments, and therefore there was nothing on God's earth that was going to keep that ship from sinking.  Now, while the breach was on the port side, the compartments that were flooding (engine rooms) ran all the way across the ship, so flooding would essentially be equal between port and starboard, and this is what the Concordia exhibited during the first hour after striking the rock, it was sinking down by the stern, but with a list of no more than 10-12* to port or starboard (it changed as the ship swung around in the wind).  Computer studies of the Concordia show that had she not grounded a second time on Giglio, the ship would have stayed afloat longer, and would have remained upright (the fact that where she grounded the second time had deeper water towards shore, allowed the ship to pivot on this rock and roll over).

 

The first striking of the rock was at 21:45 hours, and the ship did not ground on Giglio until after 22:33 hours, and even at 23:10 hours, the list was only 10* (and lifeboats are designed to launch at 20* list).  Schettino was notified about the extent of the flooding (at least 3 compartments) at 21:55, and should have signaled for passenger muster (the "fire and general emergency signal") at this time.  If he had, the passengers would have been mustered, and the boats prepared long before the ship grounded on Giglio, and therefore, they could have had an orderly evacuation with only an acceptable list.  As it was, 23 of 26 lifeboats were launched, and 71% of all souls onboard were evacuated using the ship's boats.

 

All of that is to say that ships don't sink in minutes.  Even the Titanic, with it's design flaws, took nearly 3 hours to sink.

 

So, given that a catastrophic breach like the Concordia's is extremely rare, and without a command failure, a ship like the Oasis would take a couple of hours or much longer to sink, I am completely confident that given the training the crew received using the in person muster training, that every passenger could be evacuated safely, and the crew also (remember, when the passengers get into the boats, only the 3 assigned to each boat as crew (up to 16 for Oasis type boats) would be evacuating with the passengers).  The crew waits until the passengers have all been evacuated, and then, if the Captain feels that the ship is not able to be saved, he/she will sound the "abandon ship" signal, and the crew will take to the life rafts.

 

So, if 

[lazydayz]

I love how these threads always turn into the predictable few trying to educate us on the value of the old muster drills.  Doesn't matter that those were extremely crowded, uncomfortable, and often hard to hear or see.  Instead we should volunteer to give up our vacation time to stand around for 30 minutes to an hour, often times in full sun, waiting for the late comers and putting up with the intoxicated.  Then avoid being trampled when thousands of people are dismissed at the same time.  Sounds like a great way to start off a vacation.

 

It is not my job to train the crew.  My responsibility is to put on my life jacket and make it to my muster station.  Carnival and its crew can take it from there.  

[hapytobehr]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I find it amazing how spending less than 0.5% of your week's vacation (less if you're on a longer cruise) in perhaps uncomfortable conditions learning how to save your life in an unfamiliar environment (and trust me, a ship in an emergency is unfamiliar territory to 99.5% of the passengers, regardless of how many cruises they may have been on), can affect their decision on whether to cruise or not.

This!!

[RenoNanaOz]

7 minutes ago, lazydayz said:

I love how these threads always turn into the predictable few trying to educate us on the value of the old muster drills.  Doesn't matter that those were extremely crowded, uncomfortable, and often hard to hear or see.  Instead we should volunteer to give up our vacation time to stand around for 30 minutes to an hour, often times in full sun, waiting for the late comers and putting up with the intoxicated.  Then avoid being trampled when thousands of people are dismissed at the same time.  Sounds like a great way to start off a vacation.

 

It is not my job to train the crew.  My responsibility is to put on my life jacket and make it to my muster station.  Carnival and its crew can take it from there.  

THIS 100%

[cruiseny4life]

9 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The USCG does not have the final say in this, the IMO does.  And, the USCG is fine with this as long as there is a covid health emergency.  When that expires in a couple of months, we'll see whether the e-muster retains its conditional approval from the IMO.

I'm not arguing with you. Lord knows, it doesn't really matter to me how the muster drill is conducted. I've already stated (elsewhere) that I would love the promenade deck, militant, "you shut up" drill! Seeing the crew really tell passengers off would be fun!

 

Alas...a question. Since the IMO is a part of the UN, would they really care about what the Biden administration does/doesn't do? I suspect they'd care more about the World Health Organization's declaration...which to be fair, could end the pandemic designation sometime in 2023 (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/30/who-says-covid-remains-a-global-emergency-but-pandemic-could-near-its-end-in-2023.html). But, I'm far from an expert. 

[chengkp75]

35 minutes ago, mz-s said:

 

I don't think any modern cruise ship has enough capacity to evacuate everyone in a Titanic-level disaster using the davit-mounted lifeboats. they'd all have to resort to inflatables, etc., to get everyone off.

They never have.  SOLAS requires that 75% of "all souls" be accommodated in fixed lifeboats, but the ship has to have 125% of "all souls" capacity of boats and rafts.  The crew have always been assigned to rafts.  The only crew that get into the lifeboats are the 3 assigned as crew of the boat (up to 16 for boats like the Oasis has).

 

14 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

So, 30 minutes is expected timeline, from the time someone says "abandon ship".

 

This is a common misconception that cruise passengers have.  It actually reads, from your quote:  "30 min from the time the abandon ship signal is given after all persons have been assembled, with life jackets donned."  (bolding and underlining, mine).  Now, first off, the "passenger muster" signal is not the "abandon ship" signal.  It is the "fire and general emergency" signal, after which the passengers are directed to go to their muster stations.  Now, the muster is taken, waiting for everyone to show up, and put their lifejacket on, then everyone waits.  Only if the emergency gets out of control, and the Captain decides that the passengers should evacuate, will a PA announcement to "board the boats" be given.  This is when the clock starts ticking, for your 30 minutes, but be aware that not all boats are loaded at the same time, nor lowered and released at the same time, so the 30 minutes is for each boat.  In other words, if you are in the third boat called from your indoor muster station to get into the boat, only when they call you does your 30 minutes start.

 

See my post regarding the Concordia, and what caused it to roll over, and that the boats were launched, as designed, at up to 20* listing.

22 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

I'm sure a ship could sink in a matter of minutes if damaged severely and in the right places,

See the comments about the studies of the Concordia sinking, and how that is the worst case scenario, and it still took over an hour.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I wonder how it would go if the crew just decided that drills are "uncomfortable", and decided not to participate, since the passengers don't seem to care.

And I'm sure it is much more uncomfortable for much of the crew than it is for the passengers.

[chengkp75]

12 minutes ago, lazydayz said:

uncomfortable,

 

13 minutes ago, lazydayz said:

give up our vacation time

This is the crux of the e-muster argument.  Not whether it gives the passengers real training in what would happen in an actual emergency or not.  Safety be damned.

 

14 minutes ago, lazydayz said:

It is not my job to train the crew.

It is, however, your job to work with the crew as a team to try to save the life you don't care enough about to spend 0.5% of your cruise (about the same percentage of time it takes to do the airline safety briefing) to do.

 

16 minutes ago, lazydayz said:

My responsibility is to put on my life jacket and make it to my muster station.

And, to follow the instructions of the Captain and crew.  How does the e-muster do this?

 

I find the attitude that "my vacation time" is worth more than the crew's time (who are drilling to save the passengers' lives) incredible (though not unbelievable in today's entitled society).

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, slavigne5577 said:

To be honest, the old way was not any better at preparing us for an emergency. I would be in a pack of people to which I could not hear anything or see anything that would have been any help at all. 

It is the crew who will be responsible in a real emergency to save you. As has been pointed out, the traditional muster provides much more realistic training for them.

[UPNYGuy]

21 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

All of them.  Barring a complete failure of command, as what happened on the Concordia (and was the sole reason for the chaotic evacuation and loss of life), any ship, following proper procedures can evacuate before sinking.

 

Take the Concordia as an example, since it was mentioned previously in the thread.  This is considered by marine accident investigators to be the "worst case" scenario for a ship sinking.  Cruise ships are divided into many watertight compartments below the waterline, the Concordia had 11.  Cruise ships are designed as "two compartment" ships, meaning that if any two adjacent compartments fully flooded, the ship would stay afloat.  The Concordia breached 4 compartments, and therefore there was nothing on God's earth that was going to keep that ship from sinking.  Now, while the breach was on the port side, the compartments that were flooding (engine rooms) ran all the way across the ship, so flooding would essentially be equal between port and starboard, and this is what the Concordia exhibited during the first hour after striking the rock, it was sinking down by the stern, but with a list of no more than 10-12* to port or starboard (it changed as the ship swung around in the wind).  Computer studies of the Concordia show that had she not grounded a second time on Giglio, the ship would have stayed afloat longer, and would have remained upright (the fact that where she grounded the second time had deeper water towards shore, allowed the ship to pivot on this rock and roll over).

 

The first striking of the rock was at 21:45 hours, and the ship did not ground on Giglio until after 22:33 hours, and even at 23:10 hours, the list was only 10* (and lifeboats are designed to launch at 20* list).  Schettino was notified about the extent of the flooding (at least 3 compartments) at 21:55, and should have signaled for passenger muster (the "fire and general emergency signal") at this time.  If he had, the passengers would have been mustered, and the boats prepared long before the ship grounded on Giglio, and therefore, they could have had an orderly evacuation with only an acceptable list.  As it was, 23 of 26 lifeboats were launched, and 71% of all souls onboard were evacuated using the ship's boats.

 

All of that is to say that ships don't sink in minutes.  Even the Titanic, with it's design flaws, took nearly 3 hours to sink.

 

So, given that a catastrophic breach like the Concordia's is extremely rare, and without a command failure, a ship like the Oasis would take a couple of hours or much longer to sink, I am completely confident that given the training the crew received using the in person muster training, that every passenger could be evacuated safely, and the crew also (remember, when the passengers get into the boats, only the 3 assigned to each boat as crew (up to 16 for Oasis type boats) would be evacuating with the passengers).  The crew waits until the passengers have all been evacuated, and then, if the Captain feels that the ship is not able to be saved, he/she will sound the "abandon ship" signal, and the crew will take to the life rafts.

 

So, if 

this also goes into the “ship as its own lifeboat” as well. Yes, I know it won’t sink in minutes. 

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

Alas...a question. Since the IMO is a part of the UN, would they really care about what the Biden administration does/doesn't do? I suspect they'd care more about the World Health Organization's declaration...which to be fair, could end the pandemic designation sometime in 2023 (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/30/who-says-covid-remains-a-global-emergency-but-pandemic-could-near-its-end-in-2023.html). But, I'm far from an expert. 

Quite right. And the WHO may keep the emergency longer than the US, or less time than the US.  I was saying that the USCG won't undo the e-muster if the IMO does, until the US government does as well.