New rules for wheelchair users

[Reanna]

I was refused a booking with Saga 18 months ago because I asked for assistance on the stairs should there be an emergency.  Evacuation chair not required.  Saga agent said only 40 bookings could be taken if assistance was required, and that quota had been used.  Quota had also been used for an alternative booking I suggested.   I no longer consider a cruise with Saga.

[S1971]

2 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

I still have the sneaky belief it's an insurance requirement following the Britannia near disasterand the QM2 line break.  It's too coincidently close to those two events, particularly being almost a tear to the date.  First it was walking sticks being declared, then the mobility scooters in adapted cabins only, then reclassification of the cabins.  I'm not conspiracy theorist but these coincidences are very much like ones I've seen in other industries over insurance and certification issues.

 

I certainly wouldn't disagree.

 

They've had ample opportunity to be open and honest, the fact that they've had two TV appearances and were still unwilling to give answers says it all.

 

 

 

[cruising.mark.uk]

1 hour ago, S1971 said:

I'm of the opinion that this has nothing to do with SOLAS requirements, full stop, I'm still yet to see anything that has changed in the SOLAS requirements recently that justifies the policy change.

 

So, you can't understand how adhering to international regulations about safety at sea, including safe evacuation, might have some bearing on the number of people who are not fully mobile without assistance that can be accommodated on a cruise ship?

 

I've just re-read the summary of the programme.  Nowhere is there a suggestion that enforcement of the policy is a result of a change in the SOLAS requirements.  What it says is that the number of passengers requiring mobility assistance has increased, meaning that they are having to enforce limits on the number of these passengers that they can carry in order to ensure that they can comply with the requirement. 

 

That reads like quite an open and transparent explanation to me.

Edited 15 hours ago by cruising.mark.uk

[S1971]

3 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

So, you can't understand how adhering to international regulations about safety at sea, including safe evacuation, might have some bearing on the number of people who are not fully mobile without assistance that can be accommodated on a cruise ship?

 

Oh, I can fully understand it, what I don't understand is why only these two have suddenly implemented it now, why not 5yrs ago?

 

To the best of my knowledge nothing has changed within the SOLAS regulations, unless of course you know better.

[cruising.mark.uk]

1 minute ago, S1971 said:

 

Oh, I can fully understand it, what I don't understand is why only these two have suddenly implemented it now, why not 5yrs ago?

 

To the best of my knowledge nothing has changed within the SOLAS regulations, unless of course you know better.

See my edit to my previous post.

[S1971]

3 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

See my edit to my previous post.

 

Well we obviously don't agree, never mind.

[Winifred 22]

5 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Oh, I can fully understand it, what I don't understand is why only these two have suddenly implemented it now, why not 5yrs ago?

 

To the best of my knowledge nothing has changed within the SOLAS regulations, unless of course you know better.

As Moley said other lines are not subject to the same regs as Carnival U K who have to comply with MCA requirements 

[Winifred 22]

10 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Oh, I can fully understand it, what I don't understand is why only these two have suddenly implemented it now, why not 5yrs ago?

 

To the best of my knowledge nothing has changed within the SOLAS regulations, unless of course you know better.

They said in the release that Megabear kindly linked to.The number of guests requiring help has increased. It  can’t be open ended sadly. There has to be a finite number of guests who may require help.

Edited 15 hours ago by Winifred 22

[S1971]

2 minutes ago, Winifred 22 said:

They said in the release that Megabear kindly linked to.The number of guests requiring help has increased. It  can’t be open ended sadly. There has to be a finite number of guests who may require help.

 

Best explain that to all those who've had their sailings cancelled, I'm sure they'll understand!!

 

Like I said previously, shocking way to treat loyal customers.

[terrierjohn]

Whilst P&O have, as usual, made a pigs breakfast of these new rules, I can understand why it is important that the ship knows how many, and who, need extra assistance in case of an emergency.

However their interpretation of just who needs an adapted cabin and an evac chair, has certainly reduced the availability of adapted cabins to passengers who could not sail without these facilities. Not everyone who brings a manual wheelchair on board needs help on stairs, never mind requiring an evac chair, but that is the result of P&Os new rules. Surely P&O should be prepared to accept the word of their passengers, that they would be able to manage stairs in an emergency.  Similarly they should be prepared to accept the word of passengers like @TigerB when he states that the now so called partially adapted inside cabins are perfectly acceptable for his wife's motorised chair.

I accept that scooters and larger motorised chairs do probably need a larger cabin if they are to be safely stored in the cabin.  However if they were prepared to provide a small storage space on each passenger deck for powered wheelchairs, they could kill 2 birds by limiting the number of power chairs as well as freeing up accessible cabins for passengers who genuinely need them.

[david63]

1 hour ago, terrierjohn said:

Not everyone who brings a manual wheelchair on board needs help on stairs

And I would hazard a guess that there are many non wheelchair users who would not be able to manage stairs - especially going up several decks (I accept that in an emergency situation it is more likely that passengers will be going down but who knows)

[Selbourne]

38 minutes ago, david63 said:

And I would hazard a guess that there are many non wheelchair users who would not be able to manage stairs - especially going up several decks (I accept that in an emergency situation it is more likely that passengers will be going down but who knows)

There are an awful lot of non wheelchair users who use lifts to go down just one or two decks as well, so presumably those folk would struggle in an emergency situation as well. We’ve done plenty of cruises on Aurora and the average age of passengers has been around 75. As that’s an average, for every passenger under 75 there is one who is over 75. Trying to get all those passengers off the ship safely in a real emergency would be a nightmare. 

[molecrochip]

It appears that a review following the Iona incident has led to the motorised chair/scooter issue.

 

It really is about firefighting as safe as possible and the risk of explosion requiring firefighters to be a set distance away - you can’t fight the fire stood directly next to it.

[SoosieSoo]

17 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

It appears that a review following the Iona incident has led to the motorised chair/scooter issue.

 

It really is about firefighting as safe as possible and the risk of explosion requiring firefighters to be a set distance away - you can’t fight the fire stood directly next to it.

What was the Iona incident?

[indiana123]

I think it was when a scooter battery caught fire whilst charging but  I'm sure someone will confirm or elaborate.

[molecrochip]

7 hours ago, indiana123 said:

I think it was when a scooter battery caught fire whilst charging but  I'm sure someone will confirm or elaborate.

Yes, the person picked up the battery, carried it down two flights of stairs and dumped it on the atrium where the crew quickly extinguished.

[crompton21]

Large Lithium battery fires are intense and difficult to extinguish when the fire has caught.  In the example quoted, it was obviously good work to extinguish the fire, but probably also somewhat fortunate that it was able to be extinguished so quickly.  The idea of parking a whole number of battery powered devices together on each deck would increase risk substantially (unless some very strong individual fire proof compartments were constructed).  Not really a practical option.

 

 

[terrierjohn]

49 minutes ago, crompton21 said:

Large Lithium battery fires are intense and difficult to extinguish when the fire has caught.  In the example quoted, it was obviously good work to extinguish the fire, but probably also somewhat fortunate that it was able to be extinguished so quickly.  The idea of parking a whole number of battery powered devices together on each deck would increase risk substantially (unless some very strong individual fire proof compartments were constructed).  Not really a practical option.

 

 

So I guess parking a number of scooters in the MDR foyer during dinner might not be a good idea either?

Whereas parking 2 or 3 in a secure area, which could be equipped with a CO2 system, should be very safe.

Edited 1 hour ago by terrierjohn

[SoosieSoo]

The vast majority are sealed lead acid batteries (like car batteries) and do not catch fire.

Lithium ones have been known to, one brand of mobile phones had an issue a few years ago. I guess it only takes one to scare people though.

[zap99]

14 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

So, you can't understand how adhering to international regulations about safety at sea, including safe evacuation, might have some bearing on the number of people who are not fully mobile without assistance that can be accommodated on a cruise ship?

 

I've just re-read the summary of the programme.  Nowhere is there a suggestion that enforcement of the policy is a result of a change in the SOLAS requirements.  What it says is that the number of passengers requiring mobility assistance has increased, meaning that they are having to enforce limits on the number of these passengers that they can carry in order to ensure that they can comply with the requirement. 

 

That reads like quite an open and transparent explanation to me.

I seem to recall the implementation date was by some time next year. Perhaps a few more will put restrictions in place soon.

[AchileLauro]

1 hour ago, molecrochip said:

Yes, the person picked up the battery, carried it down two flights of stairs and dumped it on the atrium where the crew quickly extinguished.

Rather silly taking the battery pack to the atrium which is on a main escape route and an assembly point. The person who discovered the problem should have left the battery in situ and raised the alarm allowing the crew to deal with it where it was.

 

26 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

So I guess parking a number of scooters in the MDR foyer during dinner might not be a good idea either?

Whereas parking 2 or 3 in a secure area, which could be equipped with a CO2 system, should be very safe.

In the case of lithium batteries a fixed installation CO2 system would have limited effect a drencher system would be better followed by extended submersion. 

If up on deck although technically illegal the best way to attack such a fire would be to dump it overboard into the oggin.

[paularmstrong]

Traditionally boot scooters have used AGM batteries which do not have fire hazards however lithium batteries are becoming more mainstream as they are much lighter to lift and can go further on a charge . Problem now being the more established respected companies are now using them safely but this comes with a cost . More and more cheap Chinese scooters are coming on the market with untested lithium batteries on , some containing magnesium (remember that at chemistry in school ) so if they do catch fire they are difficult to be  extinguished

[molecrochip]

2 minutes ago, AchileLauro said:

Rather silly taking the battery pack to the atrium which is on a main escape route and an assembly point. The person who discovered the problem should have left the battery in situ and raised the alarm allowing the crew to deal with it where it was.

There logic was that there was crew to assist quickly in the atrium and it was a wide open space. Also this was embarkation day so likely they initially anticipated getting the battery off the ship.

 

In their cabin, I believe the chap was concerned that it would take too long to get assistance. Additionally as it was a power chair battery, they had no way to move the other occupant from cabin.

 

The person did acknowledge that they briefly considered using the lift but changed their mind!

[molecrochip]

Just now, molecrochip said:

There logic was that there was crew to assist quickly in the atrium and it was a wide open space. Also this was embarkation day so likely they initially anticipated getting the battery off the ship.

 

In their cabin, I believe the chap was concerned that it would take too long to get assistance. Additionally as it was a power chair battery, they had no way to move the other occupant from cabin.

 

The person did acknowledge that they briefly considered using the lift but changed their mind!

Moral of the story, in emergencies people don't always react in a text book fashion. This chap was trying to help.

 

The Keel & Cow staff were fantastic and had extinguishers on it in seconds.

 

Ships now carry fire boxes for smaller battery fires. Pick the device up with tongs, drop it in, seal it shut to remove oxygen.

[AchileLauro]

5 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

Moral of the story, in emergencies people don't always react in a text book fashion. This chap was trying to help.

 

The Keel & Cow staff were fantastic and had extinguishers on it in seconds.

 

Ships now carry fire boxes for smaller battery fires. Pick the device up with tongs, drop it in, seal it shut to remove oxygen.

Yes I know that people don't always act rationally in an emergency, I've seen the result a couple of times where someone has tried to carry a burning chip pan outside. On another occasion a chap discovered an unexploded incendiary device and decided to carry it to his local police station.

 

It's very reassuring and good to know that the company has obviously carried out a post incident investigation and decided to be pro active and provide "fire boxes".