Opinions on best ship to Antarctica

[annski]

gives her occupation as expedition staff so am concerned that she is promoting incorrect information in her posts. I wonder why???

[donaldsc]

Kelowna NCL,

 

. We chose the "safety" and ambience of the Princess ship which matches more with our "comfort level" of cruising..

 

I am sure that any ship with an true ice hardened hull is a lot safer in icy waters than a cruise ship with a thiner hull that is not designed to deal with ice. Also, can you imagine the expedition ships that sail in Antarctica trying to rescue 2000 people bobbing around in lifeboats in a storm. The people who had to abandon ship in the recent accident were lucky that the Drake Passage was a lake and not rough and also that there were ships near by.

 

The death toll could be tremendous.

 

DON

[CruiseIsGood]

"These cruise ships carry more than 500 passengers, do not have landing craft that can take passengers ashore where there is no docks, so they don't! Passengers enjoy the view from the windows."

Copy from comment above is actually incorrect Cruise ships with more than 500 passengers DO HAVE Landing craft and can take passengers ashore where there are no docking facillities ..... there is a limit to the number of trips made and therefore a limit to the number of times each person may land. Rotational selection for each day etc

 

From everything I've read, 500 is pretty close. Marco Polo may carry about 550 and I've heard of up to 600 on M/V Discovery, but I've also heard that it takes all day to get everyone onto land. From my research, Discovery carries the most passengers while still making landings (2 guaranteed), so she's very close. I don't think there was any intentional misdirection. Discovery and Marco Polo are also not listed with IAATO so they're kind of not following the rules listed. According to IAATO, 500+ is supposed to be cruise only.

[Jade13]

You keep typing Princedom, but do you mean Prinsendam? If so, it wasn't just a normal Antarctic crossing--they were hit by a 70 foot (21 meter) rogue wave, causing a lot more than just a sliding Xray machine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave_%28oceanography%29

 

There were pictures going around a couple of years ago of a Norwegian cruise ship hit by a rogue wave that size that did a lot more damage (and injury). Those are not normal crossing conditions. They're a very rare, very freak occurrence, just like the evacuation of the small ship Endeavor.

 

It's obvious you have an agenda, and whether it's anything other than to make sure people have a good time down there I don't know, but different people have different budgets and enjoy different exploring or cruising experiences. Using a rogue wave to prove a point...kinda doesn't prove it.

 

 

I don't think Tia has an Agenda. I think there is a real safety concern regarding ships in Antarctica that are not rated for ice (Azamara, Celebrity, and Discovery to name a few). People do take them probably because of cost but of course not everyone is interested in landling in Antarctica, especially many older passengers. What would happen if one of these would sink? What small Russian boat could pick up 2,000 passengers? It is definately something to think about. I am planning on a smaller ship to Antarctica and then hope to go back in the future to do an around the horn cruise with Chile, Falklands etc., but not the Pennisula on a ship not rated for ice.

[Jade13]

gives her occupation as expedition staff so am concerned that she is promoting incorrect information in her posts. I wonder why???

 

What is incorrect? There is a safety issue with ships in Antarctica that are not rated for ice. And who would pick up the passengers (500 plus) if Discovery, Azamara Journey, or HAL sunk?

[Tia Serena]

gives her occupation as expedition staff so am concerned that she is promoting incorrect information in her posts. I wonder why???

 

The information I give is correct to the extent of my knowledge - however I am not omniscient. The things that I don't know far exceed the things that I know.

 

My experience is with smaller ships, and I admit to be clearly biased towards smaller ships. I have a number of reasons why I prefer smaller ships than large. I have very strong opinions against larger ships in Antarctica, most of them are in regards safety. Many have already been said on this forum and others.

 

Unlike travel agents who sell tickets to ships, and that get different commissions from different ships/cruiselines, I don't get any money if people choose one ship over the other.

 

I saw questions to which I had some answers and I replied.

I have been moved by the accident with the Explorer - thats the reason I joined the forum - and some of these answers have been emotional, for which I have already apologized.

 

I thank all the support I received from other forum members. I think some important issues about Antartic travels have been discussed, in a very positive way.

[Tia Serena]

From everything I've read, 500 is pretty close. I don't think there was any intentional misdirection. Discovery and Marco Polo are also not listed with IAATO so they're kind of not following the rules listed. According to IAATO, 500+ is supposed to be cruise only.

 

I am sure that any ship with an true ice hardened hull is a lot safer in icy waters than a cruise ship with a thiner hull that is not designed to deal with ice. Also, can you imagine the expedition ships that sail in Antarctica trying to rescue 2000 people bobbing around in lifeboats in a storm.

 

DON

 

I don't think Tia has an Agenda. I think there is a real safety concern regarding ships in Antarctica that are not rated for ice (Azamara, Celebrity, and Discovery to name a few).

 

 

Those are some of the issues that worry me. You expressed them much better than I ever could.

 

Thanks for the support.

[CruiseIsGood]

Planes crash, cars crash, ships sink (most recently Sea Diamond off Greece), people drop dead walking down the street. It's not going to scare me away from cruising. The big ships are multi-million dollar investments, and I don't think they risk them lightly. I've sailed Glacier Bay and College Fjord in Alaska on big ships.

 

I don't know what happened with Explorer (after 37 years there) but I doubt anyone is sending ships there if they don't think it's safe. I tend to trust their assessment of the situation. It will be interesting to see if any lines reassess after this incident.

 

Another thing I'm wondering about is the life boats on large ships vs. life rafts on smaller ships. Yes, you would be insulated from the cold and survive for a much longer time, but would ice be able to sink those? Just curious.

[donaldsc]

Check out this article in the NY Times

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/world/americas/26ship.html

 

DON

[Jade13]

Check out this article in the NY Times

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/world/americas/26ship.html

 

DON

 

Here it is:

 

OTTAWA, Nov. 25 — From its beginning until its demise, the Explorer was an Antarctic pioneer. Launched in 1969 under the name Lindblad Explorer, it was the first ship built specifically to ferry tourists to Antarctica. When it disappeared beneath the polar region’s waters last week, it became the first commercial passenger ship to sink there.

Dot Earth: Splendor, and Danger, at the Ends of the Earth (November 23, 2007)

 

 

The New York Times

The Explorer sank about 600 miles from South America.

 

 

 

But with the rapid rise of ship tourism in Antarctica — perhaps the last major ungoverned territory on earth — the sinking was not unanticipated. Both the United States and Britain warned a conference of Antarctic treaty nations in May that the tourism situation in the region was a potential disaster in the making.

The treaty countries, the United States said in a paper presented at the meeting, “should take a hard look at tourism issues now, especially those related to vessel safety, and not await more serious events to spur them to action.”

More than 35,000 tourists are expected to visit Antarctica this spring and summer, compared with just 6,750 during 1992-93, according to the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat. And rather than just ships like the Explorer that carry 100 passengers, the flotilla has included such behemoths of the cruise ship industry as the Golden Princess, which arrived with 2,500 passengers and 1,200 crew members last season.

Relatively calm seas, the slow pace of the Explorer’s sinking and its proximity to other ships and military rescue forces all helped ensure that the episode was not a disaster, at least in human terms. On Sunday, the last of the passengers and crew members evacuated from the Explorer were airlifted from Antarctica to Punta Arenas, Chile.

No one, according to the ship’s owner, G.A.P. Adventures of Toronto, was injured, although many survivors said their five hours aboard open lifeboats in choppy seas were harrowing.

While the rescue may have been a success, the consequences for the Antarctic’s fragile environment of having a submerged ship that is estimated to be holding 48,000 gallons of marine diesel fuel sitting off its coast are unclear.

And while the frontier nature of Antarctica is a large part of its tourist appeal, it also means that the region is a legal muddle. There are no obvious answers about who is responsible for dealing with any environmental damage the Explorer may cause or how methods can be created to prevent future sinkings.

“There’s been kind of an explosion of tourism in Antarctica,” said Jim Barnes, executive director of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, an association of environmental organizations that participates in Antarctic treaty meetings. “Do we want this to become Disneyland or do we want some controls?”

Mr. Barnes, like many Antarctic experts, was surprised to learn that the Explorer, which was purchased by G.A.P. in 2004, had sunk. While not an icebreaker — a hull design impractical for passenger ships — the Explorer was specially reinforced to withstand blows from ice.

The company says it was certified at the highest rating given by Finland and Sweden for non-icebreakers. If its hull was breached, watertight compartments were supposed to contain the water and allow it to remain afloat.

Leif Skog, who captained the ship while it was owned by Lindblad Expeditions of Seattle, said, however, that the Explorer was designed to withstand the flooding of just one compartment. Any leakage of water into adjoining compartments, he said, would be sufficient to sink the ship.

“The compartment must be completely watertight,” said Captain Skog, Lindblad’s vice president of marine operations. “If you have a crack between two compartments, you have a problem.”

G.A.P. initially attributed the sinking to a fist-size hole in the hull created by ice. But in an e-mail message on Sunday, Susan Hayes, its vice president of marketing, said that there was also a crack that, like the hole, could not be effectively sealed by the crew. It was not clear if the crack spanned compartments.

Many of the large cruise ships now visiting Antarctica have little or no ice reinforcement in their designs. Such ships generally stay well offshore and only come to the continent at the height of summer..

Avoiding ice near the South Pole, however, may not always be possible. Some areas act as ice bottlenecks and can rapidly swing from being open water to being clogged with heavy concentrations of ice.

Commercial considerations from the tourist rush may also push vessels into dangerous situations. “The increasing number of ships operating in Antarctica — especially in the peninsula region — means that ships are under greater pressures to meet the time slots for visiting key sites,” the British government wrote in a paper at the meeting of treaty nations. The Antarctic Peninsula is the part of the continent that reaches toward South America.

Seven nations, including Argentina and Britain, claim to control portions of Antarctica, although those claims are not recognized under international law. That has left the alliance of treaty nations as the closest thing the region has to a government.

Developing consensus among the treaty nations is a slow-moving process, and the resulting resolutions are not binding, particularly on non-treaty countries like Liberia, where the Explorer was registered. “At the end of the day, there’s no military or coast guard for Antarctica,” Mr. Barnes said. “It’s a difficult enforcement situation.”

 

Nevertheless, Mr. Barnes said he was heartened last month when the treaty group adopted a resolution asking its members to discourage or ban ships under their control with more than 500 passengers from landing on the continent.

 

Mr. Barnes said tourism in Antarctica will only be effectively controlled if nations like Canada are willing to enforce rules on companies based in their territory such as G.A.P., whose ships are registered elsewhere under flags of convenience.

“Governments have the potential to exercise more control,” he said.

[Tia Serena]

According to my information, the Explorer is not the first commecial ship to sink in Antarctica. The Bahia Paraiso claims that record by sinking close to the American station Palmer Station, in 1989.

 

http://photos.orr.noaa.gov/gallery_4/incidents-10.htm

 

While the rescue may have been a success, the consequences for the Antarctic’s fragile environment of having a submerged ship that is estimated to be holding 48,000 gallons of marine diesel fuel sitting off its coast are unclear.

 

This unfortunate accident happened near the American research station, that had the chance to do the follow up about the environmental impacts of such sinking in Antarctic. The wildlife around the area is doing fine.

 

“There’s been kind of an explosion of tourism in Antarctica,” said Jim Barnes, executive director of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, an association of environmental organizations that participates in Antarctic treaty meetings. “Do we want this to become Disneyland or do we want some controls?”

 

It seem unclear to me what does Jim Barnes mean by "Disneyland". I always associated "Disneyland" as an extremely controlled environment, not the opposite! (A couple of famous Brasilian singers were barred from entering Disneyworld because they sported colorful hair; chewing gums are barred; strict dress and behaviour codes; high levels of safety and security, etc, etc.)

 

Iaato regulations are just guidelines, although all signatary members follow their rules as if they were law. A few ships chose to stay out of the group, like the Marco Polo and the Discovery, but most still follow the Iaato guidelines, because they are in general, good, common sense rules. All the companies operating in Antarctica cooperate to uphold these guidelines, with some notable very few exceptions.

 

This has actually been cited often as an example of a self regulatory group that has been working very succesfully.

Their common goal is to promote cooperation towards the preservation of this so called "last wilderness"

 

"Seven nations, including Argentina and Britain, claim to control portions of Antarctica, although those claims are not recognized under international law. That has left the alliance of treaty nations as the closest thing the region has to a government."

 

Actually, these seven nations have given up their territory claim when they signed the Antarctic Treaty in 1956. There are today 46 signataries to the Antarctic Treaty, including all major nations - but admidely the convenience flag countries are not among those.

However, the tour company is responsible, and is accountable to the laws of their home country, as long as the country is a signatary of the Antarctic Treaty.

 

http://www.ats.aq

 

Important provisions of the Treaty are:

" Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only." (Art. I)

"Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation toward that end … shall continue" (Art. II)

 

As for the sovereignty issue, the status quo of 1959 with regard to claims or their recognition is maintained. "No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for assenting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica." (Art. IV)

 

To guarantee the peaceful status of Antarctica, "All areas of Antarctica, including all stations, installations and equipment within those areas … shall be open at all times to inspection …" (Art. VII).

 

More than that, independent of their flags, ships are regulated by international ruling bodies, like Marpol, Solas (Safety on seas), ILO (international labor association), among others.

 

 

You know what I read as a subtext?

 

The New York lawyers don't know who to sue...

[freddie]

Tia Serena - I have enjoyed and appreciated your comments of these matters. You appear to know a lot about the wacky cruising environment in this magnificent part of the world.

 

As I have posted earlier in this thread, we chose the Hanseatic after a great deal of research. It is not only a purpose-built expedition ship with an ice-hardened hull; it is also the most luxurious expedition ship in Antarctica, with excellent cuisine and elegant service after our many wonderful zodiac landings. It seems to be the perfect combination of adventure and luxury, in addition to being a modern, safe ship with the highest level of environmental protection.

 

Some of the other ships there, such as Discovery (the old Island Princess) and Corinthian II, are not designed for such cruising and don't have ice-hardened hulls. Further, they do not have the sort of experienced skippers that such ships as the Hanseatic have in those waters.

 

As for the "New York lawyers", they may not know whom to sue at the moment; but they will certainly find someone to sue. As a former (now retired) member of that dubious profession of sharks (although not from New York), I have little doubt that the passengers on Explorer had barely dried out their parkas after their ordeal in the lifeboats before the American and Canadian passengers were being solicited by ambulance chasers (or, in this case, lifeboat chasers...) eager to sue anyone and everyone with any connection to this incident.

 

Keeping good hopes that the fuel tanks on Explorer will remain sealed forever, I remain awed by the incredible beauty of South Georgia and the Antarctic.

 

Cheers, Fred

[Tia Serena]

Hello Freddie

 

Thanks for the compliments!

 

I like the Hanseatic too, but I haven't traveled to Antarctic with them yet.

I only hear good things about David Fletcher, the expedition Leader!

He's got a Zodiac named for him! I want a Zodiac in my name too!

 

But I have to admit that I have a soft spot for the Bremen. She was my first ship, way back in 92, when she was still called the Frontier Spirit. Thats where I met Thilo, who is now Captain to the Hanseatic.

 

I mentioned New York lawyers because the article was posted in New York, but I am sure that "lifeboat chasers" from all over the world (there are passengers from many nationalities) that are pouring over Maritime and related books trying to find who they can sue!!!

 

So sad...

 

Yes South Georgia is a many splendored place...

[freddie]

Tia Serena -

 

David Fletcher is a superb expedition leader. He has spent half of his life or more in the Antarctic and is one of the most honored Antarctica experts. The Hanseatic named one of its zodiacs for him because they could think of no greater way to celebrate his 10th year on board the ship. Even now, several years later, he is unable to discuss that honor without choking up just a bit.

 

Captain Thilo Natke is a prince indeed. He has been on board the Hanseatic since it entered service in 1993 and knows those waters in Antarctica extremely well. Further, he is a very charming and amiable guy, who likes to talk about boats and hiking (his on-land hobby, including in our wonderful Washington mountains).

 

As for the New York sharks, you must bear in mind that in most civilized countries, it is much more difficult to bring frivolous legal actions than in the U.S. Therefore, the passengers who are not U.S. or Canadian citizens/residents are less likely to be approached by the lifeboat chasers.

 

After the intimate luxury of the Hanseatic, we don't think we would find the Bremen up to that standard.

 

Cheers, Fred

[Tia Serena]

David Fletcher is a superb expedition leader. He has spent half of his life or more in the Antarctic and is one of the most honored Antarctica experts. The Hanseatic named one of its zodiacs for him because they could think of no greater way to celebrate his 10th year on board the ship. Even now, several years later, he is unable to discuss that honor without choking up just a bit.

 

It was a great way to recognize his achievements and to honor him. I don't begrudge him this privilege:D! I just hope that someday I will be in the position to receive a similar honor :rolleyes:

 

As for the New York sharks, you must bear in mind that in most civilized countries, it is much more difficult to bring frivolous legal actions than in the U.S. Therefore, the passengers who are not U.S. or Canadian citizens/residents are less likely to be approached by the lifeboat chasers.

 

Well, I think that this not so trivial, besides, lawyers all over the world look up to their American colleagues as examples. They might not be able to win trivial matters as often as they do in North America, but I believe they will try.

 

After the intimate luxury of the Hanseatic, we don't think we would find the Bremen up to that standard.

I can certainly understand that. But as I said, my bias is emotional. For me the Bremen feels a little bit like home away from home. It might not be luxurious as the Hanseatic, but it is certainly very comfortable, and the crew and officers are all very nice and friendly. I also like the fact that her cabins have a large sized table where I can work.:D

[Kirbyspal]

We are booked to go on the MS Andrea this January. I must admit I have many reservations about this trip, but I'm sure it will be very rewarding. While searching for information, I came across this website and have been enjoying all the posts. I still haven't seen anything about this ship, which makes me wonder if we made a good choice. Any input?

[Jade13]

We are booked to go on the MS Andrea this January. I must admit I have many reservations about this trip, but I'm sure it will be very rewarding. While searching for information, I came across this website and have been enjoying all the posts. I still haven't seen anything about this ship, which makes me wonder if we made a good choice. Any input?

 

Why did you pick the MS Andrea?

 

I see Overseas Adventure Travel uses this ship.

 

What are your reservations?

[Kirbyspal]

My husband is an avid birder and found this ship while looking on various websites. I have really gotten into nature and wildlife photography in the past couple of years. The timing and itinerary of the trip fit our interests and schedule, but it seems like a long time at sea for a land-locked Midwesterner like me. We also liked the smaller ship for landings.

 

I've gotten more packing suggestions from this board than from Nature Expeditions. I'm still not sure about protecting my camera equipment from water, especially during Zodiac maneuvers.

[donaldsc]

I've gotten more packing suggestions from this board than from Nature Expeditions. I'm still not sure about protecting my camera equipment from water, especially during Zodiac maneuvers.

 

You obviously can't take pictures through them but you can buy small kayak dry bags at outdoor stores that will hold your camera. They are made of light waterproof nylon so you can fold them and put them into your pocket when you get on land.

 

Another thought would be to pick up one of those waterproof Olympus camera for Zodiac use only. They cost about 200 - 300 dollars which would be a small part of your total trip cost.

 

DON

[Dick_F]

I'll address two questions raised in the last couple of posts.

 

First, no one should have any reservations whatsoever about traveling on the the Andrea. We were aboard her for OAT's Antarctica's White Wilderness trip in late November-early December 2007 and had a great trip. She has an ice-strengthened hull and carries about a 100 pax (we had 55 travelers during our trip) so the Zodiac landings are more manageable than for larger vessels. The ship is in excellent condition with a friendly, efficient crew and the food was excellent. Our well-travelled OAT tour director said that it was her favorite ship for Antarctic travel. The expedition team was very competent and extremely friendly. (As an aside, most of the expedition team on the Explorer this year were on the Andrea last year -- they move around.) I've barely begun to process my photos but you can see a few pix of the Andrea at the end of this album:

 

Second, about camera equipment on landings. I took ashore two DSLRs that I carried in a lightweight water-resistant backpack. I put a ship's hand towel in the bottom of the bag, put my cameras in large ziplock freezer bags, and then put the cameras lens-up in the bag where they stayed until I was ashore. The backpack stayed on my back during the entire Zodiac landing, travel, and unloading sequence. The Zodiacs are too crowded for big camera use (and for large backpacks & camera bags) and it's not worth the risk to the equipment to try to use nice cameras. For Zodiac travel, I used a small Canon SD P&S that's about the size of a deck of cards. I kept it out while waiting my turn to board a Zodiac for candid shots of fellow passengers, etc. When my turn came to board, I put the camera in a zippered pocket of my waterproof pants (you do have waterproof pants, don't you?). Once I was safely in the Zodiac, I took out the camera for pictures during the Zodiac trip. The camera was small enough to protect from water spray by tucking under my arm when I wasn't using it. As we neared shore, I often had a chance for shots of scenery, wildlife, and people that I would not have had otherwise. Depending on your equipment, you might opt for another technique but this worked for me. Because both my DSLRs had stabilized lenses, I found that carrying a monopod was not necessary for me. One of our fellow travelers did use an Olympus water-resistant P&S camera that he was happy with.

 

Dick

[Jade13]

I'll address two questions raised in the last couple of posts.

 

First, no one should have any reservations whatsoever about traveling on the the Andrea. We were aboard her for OAT's Antarctica's White Wilderness trip in late November-early December 2007 and had a great trip. She has an ice-strengthened hull and carries about a 100 pax (we had 55 travelers during our trip) so the Zodiac landings are more manageable than for larger vessels. The ship is in excellent condition with a friendly, efficient crew and the food was excellent. Our well-travelled OAT tour director said that it was her favorite ship for Antarctic travel. The expedition team was very competent and extremely friendly. (As an aside, most of the expedition team on the Explorer this year were on the Andrea last year -- they move around.) I've barely begun to process my photos but you can see a few pix of the Andrea at the end of this album:

 

Second, about camera equipment on landings. I took ashore two DSLRs that I carried in a lightweight water-resistant backpack. I put a ship's hand towel in the bottom of the bag, put my cameras in large ziplock freezer bags, and then put the cameras lens-up in the bag where they stayed until I was ashore. The backpack stayed on my back during the entire Zodiac landing, travel, and unloading sequence. The Zodiacs are too crowded for big camera use (and for large backpacks & camera bags) and it's not worth the risk to the equipment to try to use nice cameras. For Zodiac travel, I used a small Canon SD P&S that's about the size of a deck of cards. I kept it out while waiting my turn to board a Zodiac for candid shots of fellow passengers, etc. When my turn came to board, I put the camera in a zippered pocket of my waterproof pants (you do have waterproof pants, don't you?). Once I was safely in the Zodiac, I took out the camera for pictures during the Zodiac trip. The camera was small enough to protect from water spray by tucking under my arm when I wasn't using it. As we neared shore, I often had a chance for shots of scenery, wildlife, and people that I would not have had otherwise. Depending on your equipment, you might opt for another technique but this worked for me. Because both my DSLRs had stabilized lenses, I found that carrying a monopod was not necessary for me. One of our fellow travelers did use an Olympus water-resistant P&S camera that he was happy with.

 

Dick

 

 

Dick, the Ms Andrea looks like a nice ship. The decor looks very Swedish. I know someone who travels with OAT at least twice per year so it must be a great price. This person was on another ship and the photos I saw just did not looK appealing (especially based on the trip cost). I believe it was a Russian ship.

[Kirbyspal]

Dick, your post was like an early Christmas gift to me. I feel much more comfortable. As you may have guessed, I do all the worrying for the entire family.

 

We enjoyed viewing your photos and appreciate your equipment suggestions.

 

And, yes, we do have waterproof pants.

 

Thanks.

[OCTravelerGene]

Good Morning, Everyone:

 

A high school classmate took this same ship to Antarctica last November, 2007 and so highly recommended it that we got the Vantage brochure yesterday and made our reservations, on-line, last night.

 

If anyone else signs up for this cruise, please see rollcall thread I just started for this specific cruise.

 

The MS Nordnorge is one of the Hurtigruten group of ships, formerly Norwegian Coastal Voyages.

 

If all goes as planned, we will be setting foot (more than once) on our 7th and last continent.

 

Madam Xiomara and Gene, Sacramento, CA

[diebroke]

You might want to check your itinerary. It's not clear to me that all ships land on the continent. While our ship (National Geographic Endeavour) made many landings, only one was on the continent.

But if I already had 6 continents logged, I'd probably count an off-shore island as a continent landing.

[OCTravelerGene]

Good point --- the brochure mentions the following possible places for landings: Half Moon Island; Whalers Bay on Deception Island; Almirante Brown in Paradise Harbor; Port Lockroy; Ukrainian Vernadsky Base; Neko Harbor and Petermann Island.

I'll do some more research to see which, if any, of the above are actually on the continent -- unless someone out there already has an answer??

I'll keep my fingers crossed. Gene