Smoking on balcony

[sparks1093]

5 hours ago, pdmlynek said:

I am a Ph.D. scientist, who has done product development for a large polymer ingredient supplier.  My job was to develop better platics.  The people on our team who were studying the effects of flame retardants, have always been frustrated how incredibly difficult it is to get reliable data from methods that tries to predict fire retardancy. Fire science is not like normal, deterministic science that we are used to.  It is much more stochastic, much more irreproducable. Thus, I am not at all surprised that in controlled conditioned the fire could not be replicated. 

 

The discrepency between the fire and the test has been addressed in MAIB Report https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/547c706ae5274a4290000097/Star_Princess.pdf, section 2.3.2: 
"Although the ignition of towelling material from Star Princess by a lighted cigarette end was not reproduced during the BRE tests (Annex E), possibly due to the small scale of the samples used and the difficulty in simulating the ambient conditions experienced on 23 March, other towelling samples did ignite in this manner." 

To me, this makes sense.

 

But if you think that there is a better explanation for the cause of the fire that the investigators have not considered, I am all ears.

 

I haven't an explanation at all, but that is hardly the point. Your contention is that smoking on balconies was banned because of the Star Princess fire and that isn't the case. You are free to think what you think of course, as am I and the world isn't going to end because we're of a different opinion.

[jsn55]

On 2/15/2023 at 3:07 PM, pdmlynek said:

I've read the same report.

 

Do you understand what this report says?  The authors are saying, translated into a layman language: yeah, a tossed cigarette caused the fire.

 

Why do you think that all the trade publications and mass media interpreted this way?

 

Arguing that the report is not clear what caused the fire is like arguing about gravity, because it is merely a "gravitational theory".  

 

Decision makers have to make decision on incomplete data.  The decision makers at Princess and their holders had to make a decision on whether to ban smoking on balconies or not; whether the conclusion about the cause of fire used conditional language or definate language is secondary.

 

But if you have some sort of data that the investigators did not, that puts the cigarette theory in question, and think that it was something else, I am open to be corrected.

How I wish we had a 'frowny face' to use so posters would stop arguing with each other.  

[Pizzasteve]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:29 PM, sparks1093 said:

Why would it take a private company so long to implement something? They don't need any outside permission, they can just implement it themselves. 

Have you ever tried to implement a major policy change for a company with thousands of employees and billions in assets, with booking going out 3-4 years?  Issues with existing booking having a reason to cancel,  existing labor contracts with multi year terms, thousands of employees to train, shareholder and board members to convince, time to assess data and risk/rewards re: revenue are among only a few of the areas to work out, policy manuals to update.

 

Companies like these often have a schedule of when they make major changes, because they combine a bunch of them and implement them as one shift, including new operating manuals and the like.  It is not a 'simple task easily done,' as you imply.  Changes, even minor often take years as all the customer, employee, regulatory, and legal issues are worked through.

[jsn55]

21 minutes ago, Pizzasteve said:

Have you ever tried to implement a major policy change for a company with thousands of employees and billions in assets, with booking going out 3-4 years?  Issues with existing booking having a reason to cancel,  existing labor contracts with multi year terms, thousands of employees to train, shareholder and board members to convince, time to assess data and risk/rewards re: revenue are among only a few of the areas to work out, policy manuals to update.

 

Companies like these often have a schedule of when they make major changes, because they combine a bunch of them and implement them as one shift, including new operating manuals and the like.  It is not a 'simple task easily done,' as you imply.  Changes, even minor often take years as all the customer, employee, regulatory, and legal issues are worked through.

So good to read something written by someone who understands how things work.   

[Aquahound]

32 minutes ago, jsn55 said:

So good to read something written by someone who understands how things work.   

 

....even though it's not what actually happened.  🤷‍♂️

[navybankerteacher]

20 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

....even though it's not what actually happened.  🤷‍♂️

In what fashion is understanding "...how things work" is "...not what actually happened."

 

Do you really believe that? 

 

Sometimes people do actually understand how things work -- and, of course, they sometimes do know why things happen.

[pdmlynek]

2 hours ago, jsn55 said:

How I wish we had a 'frowny face' to use so posters would stop arguing with each other.  

Sorry.  😞 

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

In what fashion is understanding "...how things work" is "...not what actually happened."

 

Do you really believe that? 

 

Sometimes people do actually understand how things work -- and, of course, they sometimes do know why things happen.

You really need to find another hobby. 

[sparks1093]

9 hours ago, Pizzasteve said:

Have you ever tried to implement a major policy change for a company with thousands of employees and billions in assets, with booking going out 3-4 years?  Issues with existing booking having a reason to cancel,  existing labor contracts with multi year terms, thousands of employees to train, shareholder and board members to convince, time to assess data and risk/rewards re: revenue are among only a few of the areas to work out, policy manuals to update.

 

Companies like these often have a schedule of when they make major changes, because they combine a bunch of them and implement them as one shift, including new operating manuals and the like.  It is not a 'simple task easily done,' as you imply.  Changes, even minor often take years as all the customer, employee, regulatory, and legal issues are worked through.

Yes, all of that, but they still move much faster than a government organization does, don't they? They would certainly, if the fire was the reason for the change in policy, be able to implement such a policy change in well under 6 years. This is one thing that I witnessed regarding a major policy change for a cruise line: NCL got a new CEO and while he was touring one of their ships he made an off hand comment about the number of dishes that he saw in the hallways. Upper management reacted to his off hand comment by banning passengers from taking any food from any dining venue. This change was implemented within a couple of months of the CEO's tour. (Yes, it was a very unpopular change which resulted in its reversal in a short time but that is neither here nor there.) As for smoking areas on a ship that has always been 100% under control of the ship's master and the company, there are no regulations to consider, no legal issues. 

 

If you want to believe that it took a private company 6 years to implement this change in response to the fire you are free to do so. It seems to me if the fire was the reason for the policy change they would have done that right away in order to give themselves more time to spend all of that money retrofitting their balconies, which is the one thing they did do immediately, having to take ships out of service in order to do so.

[Sea42]

On 2/16/2023 at 7:52 PM, pdmlynek said:

But if you think that there is a better explanation for the cause of the fire that the investigators have not considered, I am all ears.

We were on the first cruise after the fire. Crew members openly talked about passengers that had been doing flaming shots (lit alcohol) on the balcony. True or not? I have no idea but it was talked about at the time.

[pdmlynek]

4 hours ago, Sea42 said:

We were on the first cruise after the fire. Crew members openly talked about passengers that had been doing flaming shots (lit alcohol) on the balcony. True or not? I have no idea but it was talked about at the time.

Wow! Thanks!  😯

 

[Aquahound]

5 hours ago, Sea42 said:

We were on the first cruise after the fire. Crew members openly talked about passengers that had been doing flaming shots (lit alcohol) on the balcony. True or not? I have no idea but it was talked about at the time.

 

Yeah....I don't know about that one.  If the crew had information on passengers lighting alcohol on the balconies, they would have passed that to the CG during their investigation.  That sounds like a case of crew messing with you.  

Edited February 19, 2023 by Aquahound

[Sea42]

26 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

Yeah....I don't know about that one.  If the crew had information on passengers lighting alcohol on the balconies, they would have passed that to the CG during their investigation.  That sounds like a case of crew messing with you.  

That could very well be. It would be an odd thing for more than one person to make comments about though.

[MBP&O2/O]

I would have thought that they should have reported it on board as a matter of course? Such dangerous (imho) habits need dealing with immediately.

[sparks1093]

14 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

Yeah....I don't know about that one.  If the crew had information on passengers lighting alcohol on the balconies, they would have passed that to the CG during their investigation.  That sounds like a case of crew messing with you.  

Would this be mentioned in the report if it were only hearsay and not substantiated? This scenario makes a lot more sense to me than anything else. (Back in my Navy days I did manage to set myself on fire with one of those burning drinks, served in a bar, when it poured down my bare arm. No damage as I was very lucky and I haven't messed with burning drinks since then, but I can only imagine what would have happened had I spilled it on my clothes.) 

[Aquahound]

7 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

Would this be mentioned in the report if it were only hearsay and not substantiated? 

 

Oh yeah, it would have been mentioned because the CG would have seen it as a lead. They would have narrowed down the passengers, checked bar bills, interviewed neighbors, etc.  With the time and effort spent following a lead like that, it wouldn't have gone unreported. 

[navybankerteacher]

On 2/18/2023 at 11:48 PM, Aquahound said:

You really need to find another hobby. 

Don't post things if you get upset if people happen to read, understand, and respond to them.

Edited February 20, 2023 by navybankerteacher

[Aquahound]

4 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Don't post things if you get upset if people happen to read, understand, and respond to them.

 

Well then, since you see it as fact and you understand it so well, please post any official reference that states balcony smoking on Princess was banned due to the Star Princess fire 6 years prior.  Something official that contradicts Princess' Executive Vice President's (Jan Swartz) statements that said it was banned due to passengers wishes.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.  

[CPT Trips]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

Well then, since you see it as fact and you understand it so well, please post any official reference that states balcony smoking on Princess was banned due to the Star Princess fire 6 years prior.  Something official that contradicts Princess' Executive Vice President's (Jan Swartz) statements that said it was banned due to passengers wishes.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.  

You’ve been on point with recent comments. But unfortunately the dialogue reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a chicken. “No matter how good you are, the chicken will kick over the pieces and $#!+ all over the board.”

[Aquahound]

10 minutes ago, CPT Trips said:

You’ve been on point with recent comments. But unfortunately the dialogue reminds me of the adage about playing chess with a chicken. “No matter how good you are, the chicken will kick over the pieces and $#!+ all over the board.”

 

Very true statement.  Thank you for the gut check.  🙂

[wcook]

On 2/17/2023 at 2:19 AM, sparks1093 said:

the world isn't going to end because we're of a different opinion

You better hope not. Because if it does, I’m going to be pissed and blame you guys. 

[Pizzasteve]

Way too many people on CC with excess time on their hands who like to argue.  Dont smoke on that balcony.

[gerryuk]

I need a fag.

[John Bull]

7 hours ago, gerryuk said:

I need a fag.

 

A translation for our American friends.

That word doesn't mean the same in the UK as it does in the US.

In the UK altho it's an old-fashioned word for what you think it means, for the last 100 years or more it's slang for "cigarette" 😏   

 

JB 🙂

[SteveH2508]

5 hours ago, John Bull said:

 

A translation for our American friends.

That word doesn't mean the same in the UK as it does in the US.

In the UK altho it's an old-fashioned word for what you think it means, for the last 100 years or more it's slang for "cigarette" 😏   

 

JB 🙂

Spoilsport! I had the popcorn ready for the ensuing confused meltdown (maybe this whole woke thing has put comments about that off limits?)