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

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, LouChamp said:

Aloha. Has the Captain been relieved or is he still in command?

Unless he violated or ignored a procedure or policy for maneuvering the ship as outlined in the Princess ISM code, he would not be relieved of command.  It is not the person who failed, it is the system that failed the person, by not providing the proper guidance and instruction.  The system needs to be fixed, not the person.

[NavArch64]

As usual, you are perfectly correct. 

 

(I did choose my words very, very carefully, however. Therefore, I would ask that no one add any words to my post that I did not use.)

Edited July 10, 2023 by NavArch64

[minniegidget]

Where is it posted how many people stayed and how many decided to not sail?

 

[chengkp75]

58 minutes ago, trbarton said:

Question….Does anyone know for a fact who was at the controls or is it just speculation or assumption?i Until we hear a formal report isn’t it too early to speculate?

 

Tom🤔

If your question is who was physically touching the propulsion and thruster controls, it would have been either the Captain, or a bridge officer.  Who was giving the commands to operate the controls would have been either the Pilot or the Captain, with the Captain having overriding authority to countermand the Pilot if he felt it necessary.

[Outerdog]

24 minutes ago, stobe1 said:

Im fine with conversation. Yes that is ok. Its the finger pointing that bothers me. Im not advocating ending conversation. Just the armchair quarterbacking looking for a name 

 

 Im just dumbfounded by all the "experts" that stayed at a Holiday Inn Express with a few cruises under their belts and all of a sudden they think they are maritime nautical experts.  

 

 

You and I are on the same page.

[skiingj]

The time lapse video is great.  I do not see any rear propulsion until after the hit.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, CalLuvsCrusingToo said:

Just curious..... WHO tells the Tugs what to do?  And where/how to maneuver?

Is direction coming from the Captain?  Pilot?  Somebody else?

And will the Tugs have any 'splainin to do??

Typically, the Pilot is giving orders to the tugs.  Again, as I've stated, the Pilot will be talking with the ship's Captain and explaining what he intends to do, and if the Captain is not happy with that, they can either discuss it further and come to an agreement, or the Captain can relieve the Pilot, or he can decide to abort the docking.  Unless the tug didn't follow an order, there is no "explaining" to do.  Remember, that the tug Captain also has a responsibility for his vessel, and that outranks his responsibility to the ship.

[Outerdog]

8 minutes ago, minniegidget said:

Where is it posted how many people stayed and how many decided to not sail?

 

 

Numbers reported by ABC 7 News on their air 5 minutes ago stated "579 passengers who got off... began with 'about' 3,300 onboard..."

[minniegidget]

3 minutes ago, Outerdog said:

 

Numbers reported by ABC 7 News on their air 5 minutes ago stated "579 passengers who got off... began with 'about' 3,300 onboard..."

Thank you

[caribill]

15 minutes ago, minniegidget said:

Where is it posted how many people stayed and how many decided to not sail?

 

 

45 minutes ago, caribill said:

1 hour ago, jascritz said:

It left an hour ago with 2,677 passengers. We’re part of the 651 who decided to disembark. 

 

[PacnGoNow]

5 minutes ago, Outerdog said:

 

Numbers reported by ABC 7 News on their air 5 minutes ago stated "579 passengers who got off... began with 'about' 3,300 onboard..."

That is pretty close to the poster in #316:

 

caribill

Posted 43 minutes ago

• #316   

   59 minutes ago,  jascritz said: 

It left an hour ago with 2,677 passengers. We’re part of the 651 who decided to disembark. 

[brisalta]

1 hour ago, Outerdog said:

 

It's called a conversation.

 

NavArch is being lauded as an expert in this thread and then goes on to make statements saying that we have enough information to come to a preliminary conclusion (we don't). I'm simply trying to determine what his preliminary conclusion is, since it was not at all clear from his post.

 

Is that okay with you?

 

I suspect that the investigation will look at the current at the time of the incident and the direction of the wind and wind gusts at the time of the incident. I took a look at the current at that location and the NOAA report of the wind and wind gusts at their nearest weather station at the time  frame of the incident. The combination of current and direction of wind and wind gusts were not favorable. I suspect one of the recommendations of any investigation will be to have instrumentation placed at the terminal to detect wind conditions and provide alerts to shipping in a similar fashion to what is at the airport. On the other hand NOAA may put instrumentation closer to the terminal but that would depend on if they have the budget to fund that.

Edited July 10, 2023 by brisalta

[2 cruises a year]

2 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

El Capitano.

You have to make a lot of assumptions to get to your conclusion.

[Steelers36]

26 minutes ago, 2 cruises a year said:

You have to make a lot of assumptions to get to your conclusion.

I didn't make a conclusion.

[Boatdrill]

3 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

 I am interested in any comments.

I watched the time lapse video several times. Everything seemed to be going well ...speed, swing, tugs. The speed was slow and consistent, and the maneuvering was under control.  UNTIL the ship's stern (port quarter) suddenly accelerated towards the dock, as if pushed by a strong current from the starboard side. For just two or three seconds, the ship appeared to move on its own towards the dock. Even the port side tug quickly reversed and got out of the way. 

My initial thought was "Oops. It (ship) got away from them".

I don't think the thrusters did it. Nor the tugs. Nor the person driving.   

 

   

Edited July 10, 2023 by Boatdrill

[2 cruises a year]

1 hour ago, Steelers36 said:

I didn't make a conclusion.

Post #306?

[trbarton]

 

[jwattle]

16 hours ago, Bronston said:

Update from last night……captain says work progressing nicely. Expects coast guard approval and departure at 4:00. (Unless….)

 

several passengers already departed/cancelled. Still no numbers given.

 

remaining passengers seem to be in a good mood considering. 
 

princess does need to provide some more flexibility to remaining passengers (no up charges, OBC, cover some of the crew gratuities)

The problem they have now is public image and current passengers are the only ones that can salvage lemonade from lemons. 
 

with insurance, rate hikes, cruise boom etc the losses of Princess will be absorbed easier than most think.

 

Princess is also missing an opportunity…..the northern lights are supposed to be visible on the 13th from Alaska/Canada. Princess should build upon that.

 

as a current passenger who is continuing on this abbreviated cruise, I am reminded of an old saying: “Never cry over spilt milk…….It could have been Bourbon!”

 

7 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

 

So I'm curious... You are of the opinion that Princess owes you more than 75% refund, 75% future cruise credit and 75% of your cruise? I feel like they've gone a long way to making you whole...🤗

Edited July 10, 2023 by jwattle

[JG&Lcruisingnewbies]

10 hours ago, PacnGoNow said:

I apologize for my quick, short response.

Normally, I don’t do that. I think my brain is fried too.😳

Hey, thank you for the apology, it’s v refreshing to get one on here but honestly, don’t worry about it. we all have days like that! 

 

Also If I got offended that easily I probably shouldn’t be on any social media 😊

[Roberto256]

15 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

It can't be correct since the news report posted above featured interviews of guests departing and of guests staying.  ETA:  One woman interviewed was all smiles as they had the "drink package", so must be on the Plus or Premier.  It was a good marketing clip for PCL.

Maybe...

What's the tag line ... "when a disaster occurs, it's good to have the drink package!" ?

 

[NavArch64]

All good comments. I am particularly impressed by those of brisalta and Boatdrill ... excellent.

In conclusion, I enjoyed the discussion.

[JG&Lcruisingnewbies]

11 hours ago, Outerdog said:

 

Numbers reported by ABC 7 News on their air 5 minutes ago stated "579 passengers who got off... began with 'about' 3,300 onboard..."

I can understand why some opt to get off, give the massive changes to itinerary. Coming from UK & not able to afford to just hop across the pond when we feel like it, that wouldn’t be a sensible option for us if we were on the Ruby now.

 

for me 75% FCC, 75% refund, extra time to explore SF is great. That’s funded most if not all of a 2nd Alaska cruise, including flights.
To also sail with a noticeably quieter ship? Some may not care about that but for me that’s a huge bonus. Fantastic

 

 

[Outerdog]

33 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

All good comments. I am particularly impressed by those of brisalta and Boatdrill ... excellent.

In conclusion, I enjoyed the discussion.

 

So glad you approve.

 

🤣

[broberts]

All the speculation about current, wind, human issues yet no mention of possible mechanical or software contributions.

[Yehootu]

13 hours ago, stobe1 said:

Im just dumbfounded by all the "experts" that stayed at a Holiday Inn Express with a few cruises under their belts and all of a sudden they think they are maritime nautical experts.  

 

I'm an airline pilot with over two decades of experience and often have to bite my tongue when passengers think they know more than I  do about decisions that have to be made about a particular flight or weather diversions or other issues that come up. No you are not being lied to...you are being given the best information at the time.  

Hope your hotel committee doesn't put you in Holiday Inns. Just retired after 4 decades of airline flying😀.