chengkp75

Probably done to minimize the passengers out there with their cameras and flashes distracting the pilot.

And, none of these float around in salt water. What exactly is it you don't get? And, guess what, the prohibition on surge protectors on ships is not even that they will trip the breaker. Tripping the breaker is caused by excessive current, while surge protectors are "tripped" by excessive voltage. And, if you knew anything about the semi-conductors used in surge protectors, you would know that the MOV is rated for a nominal voltage, i.e. 120v for a US consumer power strip, and at that voltage, it is rated to "last forever". However, each time the voltage spikes even a little bit above nominal, that stresses the semi-conductor just a little bit, just like a large voltage spike will cause the MOV to fail immediately. The repetition of these small voltage spikes eventually causes the MOV to fail, in this case not causing excessive current to flow, but to fail in "thermal runaway" where a high resistance path to ground is created (instead of the proper zero resistance path that dumps voltage to ground), and this high resistance limits the current below the circuit breaker rating, but creates enough heat to melt the power strip, and cause a fire. But, as bored as I am today, I'm done trying to lecture on electrical theory and systems, just because you don't want to spend $6 on a Walmart non-surge protected power strip. And, I'm sure that all those cruisers who have all this disposable income to cruise can't afford this cheap option either.

Each classification society sets their own rules for shipbuilding, and that includes electrical systems, but most class rules abide by the IEC code for ships and offshore installations. Do you know how many circuits there are on a cruise ship? I don't, and I've worked on them as Chief Engineer. But, I would guess that there would be a minimum of 4-5000 circuits, of various voltages from 120 to 10k, and you want to equip every one of these with a GFCI for a hundred grand? Looking to get my hands on what you're smoking.

And that helicopter does have aerial refueling capability, see the probe extending out of picture lower right.

The USCG helicopters don't have aerial refueling probes like some Army helicopters do, but USCG helicopters do practice an "aerial refueling" of a sort, where the helicopter hovers over the deck of a cutter if the helicopter is too large, or the cutter motion is too great for the helicopter to land on the cutter. Otherwise, the helicopter will land on the cutter and refuel. That doesn't look like a USCG helicopter, maybe Army, so maybe less range, hence the cutter to refuel.

Good luck with your crusade to convince the cruise lines that rewiring the ships to allow passengers to have surge protectors, outweighs the cost of repairing the welds on the hull plates that have corroded away each dry docking. I think you should write to the USCG CSNCOE (Cruise Ship National Center of Excellence) where regulators and industry insiders meet to formulate industry best practices for cruise ships. I'm sure they would value your unique perspective on this.

I don't think you will be charged tax while in the Inside Passage, either.

You will be charged tax while in Vancouver. Alaska does not have a state sales tax, though some municipalities do, including some cruise ports, but I have not heard that they require that it be charged on the ship.

So, let's see. Okay, your ground wires are all connected to the single neutral point (actually several due to there being more than one generator), and that is connected to the hull, yes? So, when lightning strikes the hull, it flows into the ground wires via the neutral point connection and into any chassis grounds in equipment with 3-prong plugs, and also presents a high voltage on the "back side" of the surge protectors (which are now all over the ship) MOV, which are not designed to see voltage in that direction, and fail in thermal runaway, causing a fire. Now, your point that a high voltage placed into the hull of a ship, will not vary across the hull, I understand and agree, due to the low resistance of the steel. What's your point? That just means that if the ship's equipment were connected to the hull, that very high voltage, that didn't get dissipated in the hull, would flow through the ground wires and back to the electrical equipment. My house has had a near miss from lightning. It struck the yard, and the voltage flowed up through the ground wire, to the copper pipes in the house (causing them to glow green), and fried some electronics. Now, would I rather have the high resistance of the earth between that lightning and my electronics, or the zero resistance of the steel hull? But, I'm going to let this go, as I see it is only some kind of desire to use surge protectors on ships, which is a non-starter.

Please clarify for this old brain, but what will work the same way with a single ground fault, the existing floating ground system, or your earthed to hull system? Not following your logic at all, and still wondering why you are fixated on being able to use a surge protected power strip when they are not needed. Do you make or sell them?

The decision as to whether to use a helicopter for evacuation or divert the ship is made by committee. That committee consists of the ship's doctor (what condition is the patient in), the ship's Captain (what is the risk to the ship, crew, and passengers, the helicopter flight crew (are weather conditions or distance okay to make it safe), and the USCG flight surgeon (is there more risk in winching the patient off the ship and spending an hour or two with sub-optimal life support (this is a helicopter, not an ER), or is the patient stable enough with the life support systems on the ship to make the diversion). All of these decisions put together are what determine whether a helicopter evac is warranted. If the distances that the helicopter has to cover are great, USCG will deploy a fixed wing aircraft to supervise the scene, in case things go sideways, they can deploy lifesaving equipment. The helipads on cruise ships are almost never used for landing, and being on the bow, they are difficult to use for winching operations. The ship must continue to move, in order to remain as stable as possible, and so the helicopter is forced to make a "moving hover" (staying stationary over a moving spot) with the front of the ship in his face while backing away. For this reason, most winching is done from an upper deck, around midships. This presents problems as well, as the thermal updrafts from the ship's exhausts are near, and can cause problems with hovering. No commercial helicopter (certainly not a MediAir type) company trains for hovering over a moving ship, nor winching exercises, nor even landing on a moving ship (ship would still need to be moving to maintain a stable helipad), and no Captain would think of allowing a commercial helicopter anywhere near his ship. Some countries do outsource their SAR responsibilities to private companies (Holland for one, I think), but these are typically ex-military pilots who do train for these operations.

No more than you would with bringing a six pack of root beer. Go for the Dark and Stormy.

Why would a cruise line pay more for something than they needed to, particularly if the customer is "price insensitive", since that would mean the cruise line could charge a fare to cover a non-existent electrical filtering system, when they didn't pay for it in the first place?

But, if you ground the wiring to the hull, to allow the use of passenger surge protectors, then you place all of the ship's electronics in danger of power surges from say lightning strikes, and I don't mean portable surge protectors, but permanent ones for built in equipment, which are not needed now. Not sure what your investment in allowing surge protectors on ships is about.

Not sure what you mean by "designed to function properly with one ground fault"? What is designed this way? And, why replace one ground fault meter with thousands of GFCI devices?