Posted on Another Site...Ruby Princess Hits Dock in SF

[chengkp75]

21 hours ago, brisalta said:

 

Have you actually read the law regarding pilotage in San Francisco Bay?  Have you read the "Pilot-Master Exchange Card" for San Francisco Bay ?

Not sure what you are referring to in his post, but I do know what the exchange card is, and I also know that since the pilot is not an employee of the cruise line, he/she are not allowed to touch any control, switch, or button on the bridge.  They even need to ask permission to change the range reading on a radar.  They certainly don't operate the engine telegraphs or thruster controls, but give commands to either the bridge officers or Captain for them to carry out.

[chengkp75]

11 hours ago, bjackrian said:

In fact, it is a legal requirement for any accident in US territorial waters where anything is hurt, a vessel is lost, or there is $200,000 or more in damage.

 

"Personnel to be tested are those who negligence cannot be discounted as contributing to the accident. This is a determination to be made by the marine employer. A law enforcement person may require additional vessel personnel to be tested."

 

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Office-of-Investigations-Casualty-Analysis/Drug-and-Alcohol-Program/Serious-Marine-Incident-Alcohol-an/

The usual requirement is that anyone involved in the incident is tested for drugs and alcohol.  This will include all personnel on the bridge at the time, and all personnel at the mooring stations, as well as the pilot and all crew on the tugs.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, NavArch64 said:

I would be curious to know if he/she was a graduate of either the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY or the California Maritime Academy at Vallejo, CA

Why only those two schools?  What about Maine Maritime, Mass Maritime, NY Maritime, Texas A&M, or Great Lakes Maritime?  Are they lesser schools than the two you mention?

 

Why did this happen?  Could be act of God, meaning weather or environmental factors that changed during the maneuver, or the sort of incident caused by the "swiss cheese" effect, where a number of small errors that would normally not cause an incident, all happened at the same time to "make the holes line up" to lead to the incident.  Root cause analysis will be used to determine the cause, and then the ISM will be amended to try to prohibit it from happening again.

[lstone19]

Chengkp75, thanks for wading in here. From past posts, I know you have better expert knowledge than any of the others claiming expert knowledge, some of which is in conflict.

[c-boy]

11 hours ago, Bgwest said:

Poof

harmful conjecture can make that happen.

[NavArch64]

Why only those two schools?  What about Maine Maritime, Mass Maritime, NY Maritime, Texas A&M, or Great Lakes Maritime?  Are they lesser schools than the two you mention?

 

To chengkp75 ... I should have named all 7 schools. As usual, you are perfectly correct. I stand corrected.

Edited July 8, 2023 by NavArch64

[SCX22]

2 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

To SCX22 ... thank you for the info ... the Master of Ruby Princess appears to be Capt. Mario Tani from your post. Does anyone know the name of the SF Bar Pilot who was onboard?

 

If ABC7 is reporting the news correctly and the pilot was indeed a member of Pilot Evaluation Committee, then the pilot must be someone listed below.

 

[NavArch64]

To SCX22 ... thank you for the info.

[beg3yrs]

I for one (and I'm certain there are others) very much appreciate both NavArch64's and chengkp75's knowledgeable contributions to this thread and to Cruise Critic in general.

 

How much fun would it be to have the both of them together in a bar? I bet neither would have to pay for their drinks.

[PacnGoNow]

3 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

I for one (and I'm certain there are others) very much appreciate both NavArch64's and chengkp75's knowledgeable contributions to this thread and to Cruise Critic in general.

 

How much fun would it be to have the both of them together in a bar? I bet neither would have to pay for their drinks.

I totally agree!  Thanks to both of them!!

I’ve learned a lot from their expertise.

[Bgwest]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

This does not accurately reflect the Master/Pilot relationship.  The Captain is always responsible for the ship, but he/she may delegate "the conn", or the authority to give commands for maneuvering the ship, to the pilot (generally always done), just as he/she does to the bridge officers when the Captain is not on the bridge.  The Captain may rescind this authority if he/she feels the ship is in danger.  The pilot and tug skippers would only be found responsible if they are found to be grossly negligent, or to not have obeyed orders.

 

With regards to water depth, the cruise line's ISM (International Safety Management) plan requires a given "UKC" (under keel clearance), which specifies the distance between the bottom of the ship and the bottom of the harbor.  Since the depth of the ship can vary by load, and the depth of the water can vary by tides, this UKC is the controlling aspect, and is a constant.

 

As to inspection and repair, both the USCG and the classification society will need to inspect, and if there is no tear in the hull, they will likely be able to proceed, with stipulation that at least temporary repairs be made within a given time frame (typically up to 30 days).  Given the amount of severe deformation of the hull plating I see in the photo, there will be some plating repairs needed, as well as some structural work behind this.  If "dimples" in the hull are not "sharp" but gradual, then the plating is usually left until a scheduled dry docking, and if the framing behind is not severely deformed, then it is frequently just cut out and new framing cut to fit the "new curvature" of the deformed hull.

Thank you Chief for always being here to straighten out all of the “pseudo-experts”. 

[DCThunder]

2 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

Using a nominal estimate of $300 per person per day in expected revenue for the 10 day voyage of Ruby Princess, with a nominal 3000 guests onboard, this incident has already cost Princess Cruises (and therefore Carnival Corporation) at least $300 x 10 x 3000 x (0.75 + 0.75) = $13.5 million in guest compensation alone (refund + FCC). Add in the repair costs, less the fuel costs saved for the shorter voyage, and this incident is no doubt costing over $15 million. If I were in Santa Clarita or Miami, I would be more than curious.

 

(If I have made a mistake in my arithmetic, please let me know)

The TL;DR version would be:  This incident is costing Princess/Carnival several boatloads of money.

 

Maybe they can just take Ruby over to Mare Island Shipyard and fix her up.  Oh, wait, Mare Island Shipyard doesn't exist anymore.

[Bgwest]

1 hour ago, c-boy said:

harmful conjecture can make that happen.

Beautifully put!

[2 cruises a year]

14 hours ago, DallasGuy75219 said:

PVSA wouldn't apply because Princess didn't transport them anywhere. 

But their passports had been scanned and they boarded a ship for an itinerary that was subject to the PVSA.  As far as Customs knows, they embarked and disembarked at the same port without visiting a foreign or distant port.

ps. Yes this was a loaded question, I submitted it for the sake of the discussion. PSVA and Jones Act discussions go on for ever.

I guess I should have been more direct with my question. 

The PSVA can be excepted under certain conditions, weather, medical etc.  I think the Act came into play here, but I think that an exception was made. @DallasGuy75219 has a good idea also. They never went anywhere, so the Act never came into play.

So, what does everyone else think? 

[DallasGuy75219]

8 minutes ago, 2 cruises a year said:

But their passports had been scanned and they boarded a ship for an itinerary that was subject to the PVSA.  As far as Customs knows, they embarked and disembarked at the same port without visiting a foreign or distant port.

ps. Yes this was a loaded question, I submitted it for the sake of the discussion. PSVA and Jones Act discussions go on for ever.

I guess I should have been more direct with my question. 

The PSVA can be excepted under certain conditions, weather, medical etc.  I think the Act came into play here, but I think that an exception was made. @DallasGuy75219 has a good idea also. They never went anywhere, so the Act never came into play.

So, what does everyone else think? 

The PVSA literally reads, "No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States... ."  It's the black and white letter of the law, and there's nothing more to discuss or argue.

[2 cruises a year]

1 minute ago, DallasGuy75219 said:

The PVSA literally reads, "No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States... ."  It's the black and white letter of the law, and there's nothing more to discuss or argue.

Well put, end of discussion.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, SCX22 said:

 

If ABC7 is reporting the news correctly and the pilot was indeed a member of Pilot Evaluation Committee, then the pilot must be someone listed below.

 

Not sure why everyone is looking for an individual to "blame" for the incident.  The maritime industry has moved on from the "blame" culture of incident investigation, and into the "root cause" culture.  In this system, "blame" is not assigned to individuals, so that the investigators can more reliably get an accurate statement of facts from everyone involved, so that the "root cause" of the incident can be found.  If the Captain followed all of the procedures and policies outlined for docking the vessel as stated in the company's ISM (International Safety Management) system, then he/she will not be held to "blame", but the policies and procedures will be amended to prevent a similar incident from happening again.  This also applies to what the Captain/Pilot interaction was, and what the pilot was doing, with regards to Princess' ISM system.  Similarly, the pilot's association will not blame the pilot if he/she followed all the procedures and policies in the association's ISM.

[Outerdog]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Not sure why everyone is looking for an individual to "blame" for the incident. 

 

After Concordia, people think they have it all figured out.

 

[pilot]

17 hours ago, oskidunker said:

When you say, “Got-off” , do you mean they decided to not take the cruise? I doubt they are issuing refunds.  The water is rough between SF and Alaska. Not worth it for 2 ports. Princess cruises are not port intensive anymore to start with. They could have arranged stop in Astoria, Oregon, if it was available  and they were willing to take a mega ship.. They are already denied Victoria because their ships are too big. I stopped sailing Princess-after 23 cruises due to these things. 

Was in Victoria a couple of weeks ago on Quantum of the Seas. Larger than any Princess ship. Not port intensive anymore? Please explain. 

[Mike45LC]

I don’t care about who was responsible for the “ whoopsie” and where the pilot was educated.  Did the ship sail?

[DCThunder]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not sure why everyone is looking for an individual to "blame" for the incident.  The maritime industry has moved on from the "blame" culture of incident investigation, and into the "root cause" culture.  In this system, "blame" is not assigned to individuals, so that the investigators can more reliably get an accurate statement of facts from everyone involved, so that the "root cause" of the incident can be found.  If the Captain followed all of the procedures and policies outlined for docking the vessel as stated in the company's ISM (International Safety Management) system, then he/she will not be held to "blame", but the policies and procedures will be amended to prevent a similar incident from happening again.  This also applies to what the Captain/Pilot interaction was, and what the pilot was doing, with regards to Princess' ISM system.  Similarly, the pilot's association will not blame the pilot if he/she followed all the procedures and policies in the association's ISM.

So the maritime industry takes a different approach than the Navy does, if I understand you correctly.

[Guest ldtr]

29 minutes ago, 2 cruises a year said:

But their passports had been scanned and they boarded a ship for an itinerary that was subject to the PVSA.  As far as Customs knows, they embarked and disembarked at the same port without visiting a foreign or distant port.

ps. Yes this was a loaded question, I submitted it for the sake of the discussion. PSVA and Jones Act discussions go on for ever.

I guess I should have been more direct with my question. 

The PSVA can be excepted under certain conditions, weather, medical etc.  I think the Act came into play here, but I think that an exception was made. @DallasGuy75219 has a good idea also. They never went anywhere, so the Act never came into play.

So, what does everyone else think? 

I do believe that CBP knows that the ship has not left. Also unlike many other countries you do not clear immigration upon departure from the US, only to upon entry. Until the ship leaves port the passenger manifest can and will be updated and resubmitted. So no issue at all concerning PVSA and those that get off before the ship ever sails.

[NavArch64]

To Mike45LC ... current Ruby Princess position ...

 

[caribill]

5 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

To Mike45LC ... current Ruby Princess position ...

 

[kathy49]

Is there any guarantee that the Ruby will sail on Sunday?