Crown Headcrount?

[rwl3]

I have read a few places that they didn't do a head count after the incident. This really bothers me. How could they know not to stop and try and get a person who may have gone overboard? Is this really true?

[rebeccalouise]

Yes it is really true. In fact this is one reason I cancelled my 8/7 cruise. I would have been traveling alone with my five year old. what if I had gone overboard? Would my five year old have reported me missing?

[drewatsea]

Yes it is really true. In fact this is one reason I cancelled my 8/7 cruise. I would have been traveling alone with my five year old. what if I had gone overboard? Would my five year old have reported me missing?

 

There is more of a chance of your 5 year old turning up missing after a shore excursion or even going to the shopping mall before going overboard without someone noticing. You jumped the gun on cancelling your cruise unfornately, do you think another line would have done better?

[rebeccalouise]

every day we take a certain amount of risks. But I grew up around boats and we were taught all about safety.

I am not the captain of a ship but I would have immediately accounted for all the passengers- especially those traveling alone.

As to whether another cruise line would have handled it differently- I don't know? Do you?

[bh2359]

Please, let's not make assumptions. It has been reported in several places, on these boards and elsewhere, that not only did they "swipe" your ID card when you disembarked, they kept it as proof you were on the ship. Remember, they were only a few miles out when the event happened. They turned around and went back to the port which is when the head count was done.

[Nliedel]

They kept my id card. I really wanted that too.

 

They had crew members walking the ship after the incident asking if anyone in the party was missing. I suspect, because they have people on the bridge watching for fire 24 hours a day, that they knew no one went in the water. That's just a guess on my part, but it makes some sense.

[serene56]

Just curious but how would a ship do a head count?- would cabin stewards do it?

 

cant imagine it happening at muster drill as some people might not have shown up.

[Got2Cruise]

Please, let's not make assumptions. It has been reported in several places, on these boards and elsewhere, that not only did they "swipe" your ID card when you disembarked, they kept it as proof you were on the ship. Remember, they were only a few miles out when the event happened. They turned around and went back to the port which is when the head count was done.

 

If someone was thrown overboard, by that time it would be too late, don't you think?

[PescadoAmarillo]

I guess the headcount thing is what bothers me most about the Crown incident. Yes, accidents happen, anytime and anywhere, no, not everything on a ship is bolted down, yes, a ship does float, and moves, and rolls and pitches even during normal operation, yes, possibly (possibly) everyone was too busy aiding the wounded to answer the phone call from the Coast Guard for 10 minutes straight (which is what some on CC would want us to believe), but headcount....I have never felt really comfortable with Princess's way of doing muster drills (more convenient and comfortable, true, but give me the warm and fuzzy experience of sweating on deck, life jacket donned, and counting off cabin numbers anytime), and the first thing I thought upon hearing about the Crown was how easy it would have been for someone to fall overboard. If that had happened, they would have had a chance of being recovered had the ship done practiced search and rescue procedures right then (not hours later, or was it the next day, when ship cards were scanned and kept?). No one can logically argue that asking if everyone if your party was accounted for even begins to compare to doing a roll call...if it did, that is what SOLAS would allow. I think this is the one major area where Princess really slipped up.

[Trainman52]

Just curious but how would a ship do a head count?- would cabin stewards do it?

 

cant imagine it happening at muster drill as some people might not have shown up.

 

Theoretically they could have set up various check-in points around the ship. As passengers checked in, they would go against a central database and show you as accounted for. After a certain length of time, they could get a report showing who didn't check in. A cabin search would be done followed by a PA announcement asking them to report in to the nearest crew member.

 

This is the computer age. They have a manifest on the system, massaging it for use in a headcount shouldn't be that difficult.

 

Rich

[Douglase]

Theoretically they could have set up various check-in points around the ship. As passengers checked in, they would go against a central database and show you as accounted for. After a certain length of time, they could get a report showing who didn't check in. A cabin search would be done followed by a PA announcement asking them to report in to the nearest crew member.

 

This is the computer age. They have a manifest on the system, massaging it for use in a headcount shouldn't be that difficult.

 

Rich

You have to get everyone to comply with your idea for a headcount.

In mist of all the things going on I feel it would not work. With all the people hurt, other in a panic,most would not bother to do as they were asked and you would end up with a false report.

[MaryPoppinz]

Yes it is really true. In fact this is one reason I cancelled my 8/7 cruise. I would have been traveling alone with my five year old. what if I had gone overboard? Would my five year old have reported me missing?

 

If you were thrown overboard and the ship had mustered passengers for a headcount, who would have seen her to her muster station? The answer to that question is the same answer as to who would help a lone five year-old look for her grown-ups, if there was no muster for a headcount: Some decent, capable human being would do it. And, there were thousands of them on board.

 

That said,I suspect the cruiselines will be looking at this question of how to account for passengers in a large incident that does not require a muster. Nobody with any brains doesn't use a situation like this to learn something about how to do better next time.

[Trainman52]

You have to get everyone to comply with your idea for a headcount.

In mist of all the things going on I feel it would not work. With all the people hurt, other in a panic,most would not bother to do as they were asked and you would end up with a false report.

So, the alternative is to wait for them to debark and then check to see who isn't accounted for?

 

Everyone has to be somewhere, the injured and paniced could be identified by the crew. The ship carries a crew of 1200 people, that is a large resource than can be used to account for the passengers. Better that they be accounting for passengers than cleaning up the ship for the next cruise. I realize that cleaning up broken glass and other hazards is the first order of business, but beyond that, you have to know that everyone is accounted for. It is not implausible to have had someone go overboard from their balcony.

 

This is the computer age, there are sophisticated ways of doing things. The days of Sgt. Bilko yelling "Doberman?" are gone.

 

Rich

[rebeccalouise]

I am not the captain of a ship but isn't this what captains are trained for? When is it urgent enough to muster the passengers?

 

I think this list did constitute an emergency. There could have been people in cabins bleeding and unable to call for help. This is just an example.

 

The only way of knowing this would have been an emergency drill for all passengers- yes, complete with lifevests. At this point the captain had no way of knowing if the ship was seaworthy.

 

The captain could have said it was standard procedure and tried his best to call the masses.

 

the wounded being attended to would be accounted for so they wouldn't have to "muster" but the rest would have to report to their stations and be counted.

 

Why wasn't this done?

 

This isn't the first time that Princess has had an accident this year. So why don't they have these procedures in place?

 

I consider what happened serious and definitely required a head count.

[AWOL]

Do you think that one of the reasons a head count was not made was because the ship did not list enough to throw someone off the boat in the view of the professionals that run it?

 

Regards

Roger

[Trainman52]

If you want some interesting reading, check out the report on the Star Princess grounding:

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/mar9702.pdf

 

In this instance the captain radioed the Coast Guard in the first minute following the grounding. Granted, there were not the kind of injuries as were experienced on the Crown. But could he have known that in the first minute?

 

He was, however, reprimanded for not waking sleeping passengers although he felt that the situation was potentially severe enough to warrant lowering the lifeboats to loading position.

 

Rich

[Trainman52]

Do you think that one of the reasons a head count was not made was because the ship did not list enough to throw someone off the boat in the view of the professionals that run it?

 

Regards

Roger

Touche

[dforeigner]

I am not the captain of a ship but isn't this what captains are trained for? When is it urgent enough to muster the passengers?

 

I think this list did constitute an emergency. There could have been people in cabins bleeding and unable to call for help. This is just an example.

 

The only way of knowing this would have been an emergency drill for all passengers- yes, complete with lifevests. At this point the captain had no way of knowing if the ship was seaworthy.

 

The captain could have said it was standard procedure and tried his best to call the masses.

 

the wounded being attended to would be accounted for so they wouldn't have to "muster" but the rest would have to report to their stations and be counted.

 

Why wasn't this done?

 

This isn't the first time that Princess has had an accident this year. So why don't they have these procedures in place?

 

I consider what happened serious and definitely required a head count.

 

It never seizes to amaze me. People watch CSI or some other program on TV and suddenly they become experts. As a trained investigator, I can attest that the Captain has set protocol guidelines to follow in case of an incident. I am willing to bet that not only he has NTSB and USCG guidelines to follow, but possibly corporate guidelines which probably exceed Federal Guidelines. There is a vast amount of information throughout the WEB; unfortunately, not all is factual or unbiased. As Americans, we tend to react to situations like teenagers (using our emotions) rather than making educated and objective decisions on the findings made by professionals.

 

For the record, I am not associated with the NTSB, USCG, or Princess Cruise Lines.:cool:

[rebeccalouise]

Do you think that one of the reasons a head count was not made was because the ship did not list enough to throw someone off the boat in the view of the professionals that run it?

 

Regards

Roger

 

Think about this. This list was severe- there is no doubt about that. The passengers were terrified and 240 injured etc. No doubt this was serious.

 

Port Canaveral was only 11 1/2 miles away. The fact is the Captain didn't know that cause of the "list" and if he did then the cruise line is lying.

So for argument sake, the captain didn't know the cause of the list.

 

He should have had everyone proceed to the muster stations. Crew could then clean up glass and debris, search cabins, etc.

 

Armed with life vests the captain could radio ahead that he was returning to Port Canaveral.

 

What's the problem here? It was an emergency situation. There were casualties. Frightened passengers, etc.

 

And if one more person tries to equate this with their Navy days, I am going to scream.

 

The military gets paid and expects to be in harms way. That is not the case with cruisers!

[Nliedel]

I do not believe we should have been called to muster stations. That would have significantly delayed medical help for those who needed it.

[rebeccalouise]

I do not believe we should have been called to muster stations. That would have significantly delayed medical help for those who needed it.

 

How would it have significantly delayed help for those that needed it?

The crew and the medical staff are responsible for injured passengers. If they wanted those with medical skills and emergency responders to assist with passengers- those passengers would be accounted for by the crew.

 

In other words, the cruise line should have a procedure in place. We only know now that the ship wasn't sinking or that the ship would experience another list or worse to Port Canaveral. So I am shocked that the line did not take this seriously.

[Nliedel]

How would it have significantly delayed help for those that needed it?

The crew and the medical staff are responsible for injured passengers. If they wanted those with medical skills and emergency responders to assist with passengers- those passengers would be accounted for by the crew.

 

In other words, the cruise line should have a procedure in place. We only know now that the ship wasn't sinking or that the ship would experience another list or worse to Port Canaveral. So I am shocked that the line did not take this seriously.

 

The injured should be sent to muster stations? How many are there? To send them all over the ship for a head count, instead of one central place where there were trained medical personnel? I'm sorry, but in this case that would not have been feasible.

[Jacqueline]

The ship did not have to be evacuated. This is the purpose of a muster drill.

By the time a total headcount was made, the ship would be back in the harbor.

The majority of man overboards, are passengers in balcony cabins that have had too much to drink. Usually they are allegedy grown men, I did hear of a crew member going over and she was located. During the daylight hours it is very unlikely that a man overboard would go by unnoticed, given the thousands of pax and crew on the Crown.

I am not aware of any child having gone overboard on any cruiseship.

Myself and every other mother onboard would have taken any child alone to safety . reassured them ,and made a report to the ships officers.

The fact is that there is always a possiblity of things going wrong anywhre at any time, if that is one's focus. Children get run over in their own driveways. Men have heart attacks playing golf, etc.

[rebeccalouise]

The injured should be sent to muster stations? How many are there? To send them all over the ship for a head count, instead of one central place where there were trained medical personnel? I'm sorry, but in this case that would not have been feasible.

 

I think you are missing the point. If people are badly injured, surely they would be exempt from the muster drill.

 

What is the purpose of the muster station in the first place? Isn't this why there are lifeboat drills in the first place?

 

If for example, using another scenerio, the ship was indeed sinking (it hit bottom- shallow water) - there would probably be casualties in this instance too. But does that not mean the remaining passengers shoudn't be ready to hit to evacuate.

Can you imagine if the ship had sunk on the 18th and the Captain hadn't readied 3000+ passengers and crew.

 

It wasn't the captain place to say that the trouble was over. He couldn't have known that.

 

And if he did know that- what's with the "investigation is not complete" nonsense?

 

No, the captain didn't know and he should have taken this seriously.

 

Those that didn't make it to the muster stations would have then been accounted for by room to room checks.

 

P.S. As a parent I would have gone for my child at the Fun Factory but the kids wear bracelets and they are taken by staff to the muster stations. In case you wanted to throw that out there.

[ForEternity]

First of all....what casualties??? People were injured, they didn't die.

 

No one knows what the Captain knew at the time. Never did he tell us that he had no idea. When if first happened I'm sure he didn't, but within a short amount of time he either had a good idea, or at minimum knew it wasn't something that would happen again. If it was human error, def. wouldn't happen again. If it was a computer problem on auto-pilot (which is what he made it sound to be after the initial announcement), well they took it off auto pilot and therefore we would be safe. As for continuing investigation, of course. Even if they know the exact cause, they will always look as far into it as possible.

 

A couple problems with requiring a head count at muster statiosn. One, the non-injured helping those that were injured. There were people all over the ship. It would take forever to do a head count, find out who wasn't there, then try to track them down around the ship. Two, it would have caused major panic in many. Even if they told us it was just for a head count. Even an hour after it happened people were running around with life jackets panicking. People associate muster stations with major emergency and many would think we were going to have to evacuate. Trust me, from being there, it would have been bad.

 

Now, should there have been something more done? Perhaps. I can assure you there were crew members looking in the water after the list. It was sunny with very calm water, so if someone did fall, they would have been seen. Also, cabin stewards did check the cabins. They knocked and if no one answered, many anyway, looked inside to be sure no one was hurt.