dwgreenlee

The below link states that the Marshal Islands has granted the US "substantially interested state " status to the US and thus the US Coast Guard and NTSB is now investigating the fire and deaths.

http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/147309/uscg-investigating-insignia-fire/

This is the only article I have found with this claim and I have no way to verify it. However, Insignia is now in US waters so if the USCG/NTSB wants to investigate - they can.

There is a post on the world cruise roll call that claims that an Oceania rep stated that Insignia is repaired and the investigation is now the hold up on departure from San Juan. Again, I cannot verify that claim.

No question that the temporary generators, and even their "permanent" replacements are a PR exercise. As the ships of this class are being drydocked, the faults of their original design are being addressed. The cabling from the forward engine room is being routed up from the forward engine room to the deck above, then aft outboard of the aft engine rooms (each engine room, forward and aft, are divided by non completely fire or watertight bulkheads)(above the incinerator room to port and the boiler room to starboard) on the way to the switchgear room. This will go a long way to eliminating the possibility that another Splendor or Triumph fire will completely black out the ship. Is this going to completely meet the Safe Return requirements? Probably not, in that some areas are probably still common (the fuel treatment room is one area that I can think of), but it will go a long way towards eliminating the need for these additional generators. So, Carnival has in my opinion done a good job in dealing with this problem (probably should have been addressed after the Splendor, but that's another story), by applying some window dressing (the temporary generator and announcing that they would have an additional layer of redundancy with the new generator), while designing and installing the actual fix for the problem in what they knew would be a solution that would take a long time to complete.

 

However, even ships dead in the water will survive even the most severe weather. Look up the SS Badger State, which was carrying bombs to Vietnam, when the cargo shifted in a typhoon, and the ship lost the boilers. The crew abandoned ship (though they lost half the crew when a bomb came out through the side of the ship and dropped through a lifeboat as it was clearing from the ship's side). After the crew was rescued, and the storm had past, the ship was found still afloat, and was subsequently sunk by gunfire.

 

And I disagree that this is an industry problem with electric propulsion. I don't know of any other class of ship other than the Destiny class and its derivatives (many of Carnival's and their sister cruise lines ships) that would make such an egregious design flaw as routing the forward generators' cables through the aft engine room. Though the fault for the design is more Fincantieri's than Carnival's.

Thanks for the info. You are a great consultant on cruise ships. I appreciate your efforts. Of note, I would not expect a dead in the water cruise ship to sink even in weather except in case of some sort of collision - rather many injuries from falls by passengers that would not listen and stay put (cargo listens better). Thanks again.

When a major disruption of this type occurs to a cruise ship what happens to the crew?

I should have added that there is another thread entitled "Insignia Fire" that provides some first hand accounts of the fire and the evacuation of passengers. It is now closed and there are no crew posts but still provides some insight into the evacuation of the crew.

Actually, the "Cat in a box" as we call them, are pretty safe, with intrinsic CO2 fire suppression system installed in the box. It is supposed to be a temporary fix until the ship has a routine shipyard period where they will install a permanent installation. I'm not sure how or where they intend to make a permanent installation, and I've seen that some Carnival ships have had shipyards after these generators were installed, and I don't believe that the permanent generator has been installed, as this is a pretty major engineering project.

 

All cruise ships built since 2010 must meet the "Safe Return" standards with 100% separation between halves of the power generation and propulsion systems, so that loss of one half will not completely black out the ship, or result in total loss of propulsion. Many older ships, like the Sky and Sun, have "nearly" total separation, much better than the Carnival Destiny class and it's derivatives which ran cables from the forward engine room through the aft engine room.

What are your comments on my other point - that in the grand scheme of things the generator is of little value?

Carnival had two incidents sufficiently close together to cause a PR disaster. The real fix to provide separation of the engine rooms - something that may be difficult, expensive and impossible to 100% achieve given the forward and aft engine room configurations. The touted emergency generators may keep some toilets flushing and maybe provide some hot food but being dead in the water has real risks if weather is closing in. The addition of the generator seems to be being touted by Carnival as the "fix" while there is still a risk that a single event may leave you dead in the water.

Please note, I am not criticizing Carnival - this seems to be an industry standard problem with electric propulsion - for ships built before the safe return to port standard. I also note that Carnival's fire teams were sufficiently robust to mitigate the event without loss of life. Still, it seems this "fix" is really not very valuable.

When a major disruption of this type occurs to a cruise ship what happens to the crew?

Many of the crew (hotel staff) left the ship with the passengers - many flew back to Miami with the passengers. Some crew - guessing mostly engineering and navigation personnel - remained onboard for the tow to San Juan. The current staffing while under repair in San Juan is unknown.

Not sure what tax or labor concessions they gave NCL (other than the NRAC foreign crew, which is still limited to the same percentage of crew that limits green card holders on ships, and those foreigners get paid US wages and are taxed in the US), but the real reason they gave NCL the construction concession was that the POA hull was sitting incomplete in a US shipyard after the owner had gone bankrupt, and the US government was on the hook for the mortgage guarantee.

Bad wording on my part. I was trying to list what sort of concessions would be needed to motivate a cruise line to fly the US Flag - not to imply that NCL got all of those.

Funny you should mention those generators. At the time, I saw quite a lot of photos from folks on the Carnival forum, but none of the units were connected. I started a thread to see if anyone could get photographic evidence of them actually being connected. It has taken some time, but I think they are all finally connected, several people sending in good photos of well installed marine applications. People still have misconceptions about these generators, and emergency generators in general. Even these larger generators (1.8MW) can only supply about half of the "hotel" load, and none of the A/C load. I keep hearing about how they can provide propulsion backup if needed. Rubbish.

I used to term this sort of stuff "Public Affairs Engineering Changes" - when politics determined that you provide a quick fix to a complicated long-term high-cost problem. Never the less, management wanted to announce that the "fix" was being rapidly deployed.

This one worries me. Carnival has introduced fuel and plenty sources of ignition in a new location where fire fighting plans and systems may not be fully mature. The "problem" this generator fixes is keeping some of the hotel systems - namely the toilets - working while the ship is drifting w/o propulsion. Noting that the toilets not flushing is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things while the ship drifting w/o power and a new potential source of fire are very big things.

I do not really ride Carnival so I had not seen this. The Royal Princess from where I took the picture purports to meet the new standards for "safe return to port."

I still have friends at NCL, and I can tell you that the crew on the POA is well trained and proficient in safety issues.

 

As I said, my quest for US flag cruise ships is quixotic, but when cruisers continue to clamor for the protections of US law, and investigation of marine incidents by the USCG and NTSB, they fail to realize the only way to get those things is to have US flag ships.

 

As for retaliations against US ships in foreign ports, I don't follow that. The only people losing money if the ships were to change from flags of convenience to US flag would be the flag of convenience countries: Panama, Bahamas, Liberia, etc. While the Bahamas is a major destination, the tourist dollars would still be coming in, just losing the registry fees, and for Panama and Liberia at least, the cruise ships are a minor part of their merchant fleets, and I'm sure the tourist dollars from cruise ships outweighs the registry fees by several orders of magnitude.

I would have expected POA to get her act in order. On other NCL ships, I am very impressed with the safety management system - many drills and very open about safety - more information than I would expect any cruise line to provide to the self-loading cargo.

POA had a troubled construction history as well as all the staffing issues you note and suffers from the continual competition of the Hawaii tourist industry for staff. I am glad to hear she is doing well - I do have a US flag that she flew.

You are very correct that US Citizens do not understand that cruise ships - POA as an exception - are not US owned/flagged and cruise lines are incorporated or chartered in foreign countries. Once you leave US waters any jurisdiction the US authorities may have is very limited. It is frustrating to me that people do not understand this. A frequent complaint is that foreign shore excursions do not comply with the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) - go figure.

Retaliation is a funny thing - more often based upon politics or emotions rather than common or economic sense. Retaliating against any cruise ship would be economically foolish but still could happen - taxing onboard purchases while in port (or waters) has become more common. Retaliation against other types of US merchant/fishing/pleasure vessels and sovereign ships - USS, USNS, etc. - would be more likely and problematic.

What would be a win-win situation is if the US would offer some tax, labor and/or construction concessions - like they did for NCL America - so that cruise lines would seek the US Flag of their own accord. I note that US Flagged airlines fly all over the world.

In your first post here you questioned Carnival's claim that they had implemented the investigation recommendation. I thought you would enjoy the attached picture. I took it on 15 Jan 2015 and it clearly shows the installation of the emergency generators they promised. I took the picture from the Royal Princess so I cannot validate that it works or they have the capability to connect it to anything - but it is there.

Riveting though all this stuff is, guys, what I really want to find out from this thread is Insignia's Post Fire Location and Movement, like the title says, because I'm hoping to hop aboard in Singapore :o.

Insignia has not moved - she is still in San Juan. When asked, Oceania responds everything is on time but no details are provided. She will have to leave PR on our about 20 Feb to make Singapore. Her movements will be reported here as soon as there is anything to report.

I worked 4 years on the Pride of Aloha, which entered service about a year and a half before POA, as a US flag cruise ship. So I know a thing or two about the "cargo that talks back". The thing you have to realize about the US crew on the POA (which is the only REMAINING US flag cruise ship), is that every crew member, from the Captain to the dishwasher has to be a credentialed merchant mariner. This required recruiting, training, and certifying a completely new pool of labor. On international ships, only the deck and engine crew are mariners, and the hotel department gets their training onboard, and don't require credentials. This means that not only is there a vast pool of trained, experienced hotel department crew available, but that they are readily available (one call to a PI crewing agency gets a person on the next flight to the ship). With every crewmember requiring a USCG credential, this requires basic firefighting and life saving training, as well as a full FBI background check. Therefore, the crew you saw on the inaugural voyage of POA most likely had about 2 weeks time onboard a ship, any ship. While they received training at US maritime training schools, the equipment varies between ships, and the schools do not have all of the various models of equipment, so there needs to be some time to adjust to the particular ships' equipment and layout. Also, there is no pool of dishwashers with a mariner's credential waiting for a job in the US. This is why the ships out there had so much understaffing. It costs NCL about $8-10k just to get a new crewmember to the gangway for the first time, and then, since it is a US flag ship, in a US port, and a US citizen, they can quit and walk off the ship at any time.

 

To give you an example of the difference between the international crew and the US crew in safety training, the international crew are assigned an emergency duty on the fire teams. On the POA, all of the fire teams are volunteers, since they are restricted to ship while in port 3 days a week (as are the international crew, but they don't have any labor laws against holding them on the ship). We had a running fight between the Aloha's senior officers and the corporate safety director, who wanted deck and engine crew assigned to the fire teams, as is done on the international fleet. We resisted this for two reasons, it would cost the company many thousands of dollars annually, because the unions have a restriction to ship clause that would pay the deck and engine ratings for 24 hours of overtime if kept onboard. The more important reason for us on the ship, was that we had set up fast response teams of trained, skilled crew who would know where to isolate systems to assist the fire teams, and these required engine ratings, and the deck ratings were better used preparing the boats for launch. This was finally resolved when the corporate safety manager visited the ship and witnessed one of our crew fire and boat drills. He came away so impressed with the attitude, professionalism, and dedication of the volunteer fire teams, who really wanted to learn firefighting (not just go through the motions like the international crew), that he told us to keep doing it our way, it was the best performance by a crew that he had seen.

 

While what you say is true, that if people were focused on safety rather than having a good time, the cruise lines would respond, but the cruise lines know their market very well, and know that safety is far, far, from the forefront of most passengers' minds. Witness the attitudes towards the muster drill.

 

Your fight for transparency in safety matters is a noble one, but I fear it is just as doomed as mine to require US flag cruise ships that home port in the US.

Thanks again for your insight. I appreciate you sharing your experience from the Pride of Aloha. I would expect that POA did get better but that is just speculation.

US Flagged cruise ships would be great but US laws dictating things such as construction materials, US taxes, and US labor laws is not going to make that cost effective. The deal with NCL to operate the Hawaiian market even took new public law to make the situation possible - if still difficult as you note.

Requiring US Flagged ships to embark and disembark passengers in the US would just create new turnaround ports in places like Freeport and Barbados - at least under our current tax and labor structure. Also, retaliations against US Flagged ships visiting foreign ports would be likely.

.

Late to the party here, just returned from a couple months at sea, hadn't heard about this fire before (internet limited to e-mails on cargo ships).

 

As the OP has answered to other posters, the NTSB and USCG will not have anything to do with this incident, unless requested to by the Marshall Island Registry.

 

In post #5, the OP states that he would have assumed that Oceania would have taken all due care to prevent the fire. After 40 years as a merchant ship's engineer, 34 as Chief Engineer, I can say that even following all of the USCG regulations (stricter than the IMO requirements the rest of the world follows), meeting class requirements, and following all manufacturers' recommendations, failures will always happen, so that while Oceania are responsible for the fire, it is to be determined whether they are at fault or not.

 

Others have said that since this is the third fire on ships of this class, there is a problem. This is not necessarily so. The Carnival Splendor and the Triumph are same or similar class, and both suffered complete loss of propulsion and power, yet the causes were totally different: a flexible fuel line on the Triumph, and a hydro-locked engine causing a catastrophic failure of a piston and rod on the Splendor.

 

The OP, in post #15 claims that Carnival implemented all of the recommendations made in the USCG report on the Splendor. While this may be true, there is no concrete evidence to support this. We have Carnival's statements that they reviewed their processes and procedures, and implemented changes, but whether or not all of the USCG recommendations were completely implemented is not proven, especially since these are, as the USCG even states in the report, only recommendations, since it is up to the Panamanian Maritime Authority to decide whether the recommendations are required.

 

I no longer work in the cruise industry, so have no horse in this race, and have been forceful in my defense of Carnival after the Triumph fire, and the charges of negligence, etc. Having been in engine rooms as long as I have, and having done "expert witness" testimony on marine engineering incidents, I withhold my judgments until I have all the facts.

 

To those questioning maintenance, I will say the same thing I said during the Triumph discussion: IMO requires a Safety Management System, generally supervised by the class society (insurance underwriter), that must include a planned, preventative maintenance system, based on manufacturer's recommendations and best industry practices.

 

The fact that contract workers were onboard in no way implies that there was a problem. They were possibly technicians from the engine manufacturer (or for any other equipment in the engine spaces) that were performing routine planned maintenance. We frequently had one of our six engines down for a complete overhaul (about 2-3 weeks), that was overseen by a service engineer from the manufacturer, and performed by a mix of engine crew and contract engine mechanics. There is too much everyday maintenance ongoing for the crew to be able to perform a major overhaul while still keeping the ship in operation. These overhauls were scheduled every 12000 hours.

 

As for statements about the fire, cause, and repairs, that really ain't gonna happen, and probably shouldn't. As others have said, any statement made in advance of the findings of the investigators (and the line will see results before the final report) could change liability. Carnival made few reports about the Triumph (the only real indication of the cause of the fire was from USCG investigators), and RCCL was very closed mouth about the Grandeur fire.

 

What I find interesting is that everyone clamors for "transparency" and "openness" from ships that are not registered in the US, and operated by companies that are not incorporated in the US. If you want the protections and benefits of US laws and corporate practices, you need to lobby for US flag cruise ships. And we all know how many people want to deflate their wallets when that happens. The flags of convenience are there for a reason, and the lack of transparency or thoroughness in incidents like this are some of those reasons.

I agree with your points except US Flag is necessary for transparency. Several flag states do publish their maritime incident reports for all to see. As for the cruise lines, they will respond to customer demands. If customers focused their demands on safety and transparency rather than cosmetic things, (i.e. dining, entertainment, etc.) cruise lines would both be safe and transparent. This may or not happen, but I will continue to raise the issue and hope others do the same.

NCL Holdings did do a very good assessment of the impact to their stock values as a result of the Insignia fire. Their class one directors, including the chairman, are about to stand for re-election. It does seem that the all mighty dollar gets transparency.

As a side note, I took the first revenue cruise on the Pride of America - only major US Flagged cruise ship in the world. Fully certified by the US Coast Guard, the ship had major safety issues that were obvious to the passengers - little stuff like the survival craft fouled when launched. This is the only time onboard any ship - US Navy, US Coast Guard and several foreign navy ships as well as numerous cruise lines and ships - that I did not feel safe.

I do appreciate your input and prospective. Cargo ships do not have the same customer pressure for safety as cruise ships - the cargo rarely complains. I also note that cruise ships have an extremely good safety record when compared to other passenger vessels - most notably ferries.

Again, thanks for your input. Stay safe. R/Don

Ok, for more fun reading you can get both the Carnival Triumph and Grandeur of the Seas fire reports at:

http://www.bahamasmaritime.com/index.php?page=97

For even more fun reading the Star Princess fire report is located at:

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/star%20princess.pdf

A sample of a report produced by the Insignia flag state Marshal Islands Maritime Authority - on the Major Marine Casualty Deepwater Horizon Oil Platform - can be found at:

http://www.register-iri.com/forms/upload/Republic_of_the_Marshall_Islands_DEEPWATER_HORIZON_Marine_Casualty_Investigation_Report-Low_Resolution.pdf

or

http://www.tradewindsnews.com/incoming/article268023.ece5/binary/Marshall%20Island%20Deepwater%20Horizon%20findings

I know that an oil platform is not a cruise ship but the report - compared to the others - should give some indications of what to expect from the Marshal Islands in terms of investigation.

Interesting read. Very interesting to see how much human error and the amount of destruction will occur/amount of repair needed.

 

One item that would concern me is that the R ships are equipped with low pressure water extinguishers instead of Hi Fog high pressure system that are more effective.

You might also enjoy reading the USCG report on the Carnival Spendor fire. It was equipped with the Hi-fog system but I will let you read about that. It can be found at http://www.cruisejunkie.com/Splendor.pdf

Like most accidents that incident, and the consequences, were a combination of mechanical failures and human error. There are two things noteworthy here, in my opinion anyway. First, despite cascading failures and errors, the consequence management system onboard was sufficiently robust to mitigate the incident without the loss of life or serious injury. Second, the USCG lead investigator made five categories of recommendations including two that were directed at the USCG. It is a brave employee that reports his own employer can do more to prevent this sort of thing.

Your background is most impressive and it apparent why you would be interested in the details of the investigation and "fix". In your opinion, how long would you expect this type of investigation to take? I would think that part of moving forward would include learning if this incident was related to the incidents that occurred on both Princess and Azamara "R class" ships. One would want to know if the cause was the same in all three cases. Won't all of this take a bit of time?

 

I'm curious why you feel that Oceania should do "their own determination as to what extra things to be done." IMO, this should be done by the investigators and outlined in the final report. I would assume that they would have been doing whatever they needed to do to avoid this tragedy if they knew that was a problem.

 

In any case, the type of detail you are looking for will no doubt be in the final report. I can't see Oceania or its parent company (PCH) or PCH's parent company making a statement with technical details. I do expect everyone to learn what caused the accident and what steps are being taken to insure that it does not happen again.

 

I hope they continue to take their time to do a thorough investigation as rushing can cause important details to be missed.

The data collection part of the investigation is likely over unless there was some parts or materials removed for laboratory analysis. The writing, review and approval of the report is a bureaucratic thing within the Marshal Islands and St Lucia authorities - with some input from the US Coast Guard and NTSB. That process will take from several months to never. Generally reports are released in about a year.

In my opinion, coordination with other R class ship is not necessary and likely would only cause confusion and delays. Timely release of the "lessons learned" to other R class operators is extremely important so those operators can assess the impact to their configurations.

With regard to the comment that Oceania should do "their own determination as to

what extra things to be done"; I was quoting another author but I would note in the Carnival fires, Carnival had already implemented - or was in the process of implementing - the recommendations made by the time the report was published. Problems identified should be corrected as soon as possible and not wait for a final report - waiting can cost lives.

I also do not expect Oceania or NCL Holdings to provide a statement with technical details. I would expect a simple summary of what happen, some information on the expected repair process, and when the next update is expected. Not really any more that the airline agent would release while you are waiting for your plane to be fixed. This would help the folks on the truncated world cruise make a more informed decision about canceling or continuing.

We will all have to wait for any formal reports, but I think many posters are being a bit unfair here. There was a fire. Fires are the most common casualty and the biggest danger on any ship. Oceania might be found "at fault," but that might not mean that the ship was being operated in any sort of unsafe manner. If there were a fire in your home, and the fire marshal found that some wiring had started the fire, you would be at fault for having that wiring, but if it were not really unsafe but had deteriorated over the years, that would be far less "fault" than intentionally installing underrated wire, etc.

 

It is indeed unfortunate that several men, whether they were employees or contractors, lost their lives. And that will lead to a more in depth investigation of what happened. At this point, however, there is no inkling that there were the serious failures, poor planning or serious mistakes similar to the Carnival Splendor fire. It is also way too early to expect any details, as it takes time to figure out what exactly happened.

 

Whatever reports and investigations are filed by the USCG will be available in due time. Would I expect Oceania or NCL to take the time to detail what exactly happened and what exactly they are doing? Absolutely not. I would expect some statement generally telling customers what happened and that appropriate steps are being taken as called for as a result of the investigation and their own determination as to what extra things should be done. Details would only confuse 99.999% of the people who would get it if they sent it to everyone. USCG and NTSB reports are certainly transparent, and there is no hint that anything is being covered up.

 

As to whether this was a "surprise," I am only reminded of a call on "Car Talk." The caller said her car broke down with no warning, and Click and Clack asked if she had expected a postcard! Airplanes have maintenance issues, and hopefully they are not serious or midair! Ships have equipment failures, fires, etc., just like everything and everyone else. If you don't like surprises, you need to lock yourself in your home, and you still might have a surprise!

 

I come to this discussion having been an Officer-of-the-Deck (Underway) on an aircraft carrier and having been the assistant legal officer and investigated incidents from the boiler rooms all of the way to the uppermost deck that had personnel on it. While on the bridge, I was responsible for everything that went on (and happened) while on watch from one end of the ship to the other. Like others on CC, I bring a trained, critical eye to ships' operations, and I can say that to date, I have not had any concerns with the way Oceania operates. And from what I have read so far of the details of the fire on Insignia, I have not seen any major deficiencies that I should be worried about. That being said, I will read the final reports to make sure that I have the facts.

I think your summary is petty accurate, I especially agree with your expectation that there should be some sort of some "statement generally telling customers what happened and that appropriate steps are being taken as called for as a result of the investigation and their own determination as to what extra things should be done."

To data that has not happened. Besides cruise cancellation statements, Oceania has issued one public statement - just after the incident - expressing their "deep sadness". NCL Holdings - the new owners of Oceania - only public communications is an assessment of the incident on their stock value.

I am hopeful for a transparent investigation but I am not as optimistic as you. Insignia is flagged in the Marshal Islands - under the flags of convenience procedures - and was not in US waters nor had it just departed from or was immediately destined to a US port. Thus, the authority of the US Coast Guard and National Transportation Safety Board is limited. The US Coast Guard will do a port state inspection prior to the vessel leaving San Juan but since that is just a ferry operation that inspection will be limited in scope. The actual re-certification of the vessel to carry passengers will be done in Singapore by the Flag State, the Recognized Organization (i.e. registry) and the Singapore authorities.

The Marshal Islands Maritime authority is not noted for comprehensive investigations. For example, the Deepwater Horizon oil-drilling platform was flagged in the Marshal Islands and the report they released was only a few pages long and contained few details.

In current world events we have a ferry on fire - last reports all were evacuated with just one casualty - and an airplane missing presumed down in the ocean with all onboard lost. I really do not think it is asking too much for carriers following an accident to do more than express sadness and assess impact to stock values.

I spent 31 years engineer, project engineer, project manager and program manager for the Naval Sea Systems Command. I have investigated incidents - including JAGMAN investigations - where poor designs, poor maintenance, bad training, and simple human error cost lives. It is fair to say that I have a very low tolerance for accidents and have strong conviction that the lessons learned be applied to save lives. It is also fair to say that I would understand any technical details released by Oceania/NCLH.

I'm a bit late in the game here due to other distractions, but Greenlee, my first interpretation of your comment was that you were indeed blaming Oceania for the fire and we don't know yet that they were at fault, and so I agree with Lyn's comments (not unusual). And if you don't like "surprises", then I'd tentatively suggest that maybe you shouldn't travel at all ... because surprises do happen, as do accidents. (In case you think I'm attacking you, I'm really trying NOT to.)

 

We were booked for a trip to the Gapalagos Islands through Inca Floats in August 1989. At the time Inca Floats chartered various vessels, although these days they have their own. We had opted for a three cabin sailboat which had extra large cabins. Just before we were due to leave for the cruise (quite last minute but not the day before) the sailboat sank! It had been docked (or anchored) but apparently not properly Fortunately they were in port so no one was hurt, but we had to change to another boat at the last minute. It worked out for us but yes, we'd have preferred that sailboat with the king size beds!

 

That problem turned out indeed to be due to some negligence in the way the boat had been "parked", but I don't think we know yet that the Insignia fire was due to negligence. Maybe it was! If that turns out to be the case, I will apologize to you. I'm just waiting to see.

 

I admit that I also have some apprehensions about whether Insignia will be able to get to Singapore in time for a March 22nd departure. (I'm not personally involved on the cruise so this is an intellectual curiosity and nothing more.)

 

We won't know until we have more info ... And I also understand that Oceania/NCL may want to wait until THEY have more definitive information to say anything to us.

 

Mura

Hi Mura,

I appreciate your comments. Language is imprecise and I could have worded better. As clarification, I would not ever use the word "blame" but I do hold any carrier that I travel on accountable for my safety - with my full cooperation as assistance as necessary. Oceania and/or NCL holdings, or whoever is in charge, is accountable for the fire and loss of life - regardless of cause - just as I assume responsibility for folks on my property or in my car.

I understand travel has surprises - it goes with the adventure of doing new things and seeing new places. I would rephrase to "avoidable surprises" if I wrote that again. People are reporting in the roll calls that they are canceling - I do not want to do that but I started this thread in hopes of gaining additional information about what is happening with Insignia in hopes of making a more informed decision.

I am a planner; I read incident reports from aircraft and ship incidents. I review the State Department travel notices for each country I visit. I include safety in my booking considerations and I am frustrated when companies are not transparent and forthcoming about incidents.

I have some fun stories about travel but none as good as your boat sinking - at least you were not onboard.

Anyway, thanks for your comments. R/Don

Hi Don,

 

Actually it's my opinion that this new structure will be a significant improvement in the home office support of the on board excellent experience. Only time will tell.

 

And, yes, IMO lack of communications seems to be a common issue among most cruise lines that needs improvement.

You may be right. The NCLH Company will have much greater "clout" in the port and procurement areas and much greater depth in the customer service area. I really do like the NCL brand - have about 150 days with them - but NCL is not as service intensive as Oceania. As you note time will tell on that. My comment about not being good for the brand was focused upon independent operations by current Prestige officers - not sure that will continue but we will see.

While no U.S. authority has released a report, The Bahamas Maritime Authority did publish a report, which can be downloaded from its web site.

Thanks for the link and correction, I missed that one. r/Don

Still in denial??? While the "parent company" of Oceania and Regent may still technically be PCH, the Shared Services Division of NCLH is responsible for all shipboard operations of Oceania, Regent and NCL. Your "Leader" does not have any responsibility for the refurbishment of Insignia. Checkout http://www.nclhltd.com/leadership-team.cfm to see who is responsible for what. Expect NCLH will be the company saying anything about the tragedy thru their Shared Services Division under

Michael Flesch

Executive Vice President, Shipboard Operations

Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises

 

which is responsible for all aspects of shipboard operations.

Hi Dave,

I started with open mind about how NCL Holdings will work to preserve the "brand identity" of Oceania. I was a frequent traveler on Princess when Carnival acquired P&O and Princess. I am pleased to say that I think Princess actually improved particularly in the area of port access and I like the NCL brand - but I digress.

I agree the creation of the "shared services" at the NCL Holdings Executive and Senior vice-president levels is not a good sign for the Oceania brand. I am also concerned that the only statement made by NCL Holdings about Insignia was about the impact to stock values. Then we come to the lack of information. I could begin to worry.

R/Don

Your statement implied Oceania did not take due care to prevent the fire

..do you have proof of such ?

Yes sounds inflammatory to me

 

It is a wait and see situation

 

It could be just an improper use of the term "dry Dock" usually they take the ship into wet dock .. as in still in the water while work is done

or they may just repair her as she sits

 

In time all will be revealed

You are correct - it is my expectation that any cruise line I travel on takes all due care to prevent fires - anything more than 0 fires is unaccceptable and requires preventive and corrective action. The point I was taking exception to was the "intentional" statement - there is no reason to think that.

I agree they may have used the term drydock in error.

Eh! again.....How can you state as fact that the repair time is generous? You don't know What they have to repair...it has not been stated. I agree that there is little information from 'O'....but let's stop making things up.

 

Another issue.....let's stop implying/suggesting that the Insignia's fire is the same as other R ship fires. It may be and it could be for a totally different reason.

You are right about the generous statement. Most cruise ship drydocks last only 3-4 weeks but there are unknowns here. Oceania, NCL Holdings, or whoever is running the show, could just clear things up by telling what is going on - not required but it would help the confidence of the booked folks.

If you have ever had any repairs or major construction done you know the first time predication can really change as the work goes on so I would expect the next change to plan, if there is any, would be the time frame.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my XT1032 using Forums mobile app

I would agree that the repair time is generous - but some updates would be nice and something of a confidence builder.

Sounds like you are saying this was a planned event :eek:

 

If you are really concerned I would cancel the cruise while you can just incase there are other "surprises" or planned catastrophic events

 

Sometimes accidents just happen

First of all I did not say - or sound like - it was a planned event. That is a false and inflammatory statement. Second, accidents do happen but it is critical that they are investigated in an open, transparent and truthful way. That way, lessons can be learned and lives saved in the future.

The lessons learned in the US Coast Guard investigation of the Carnival Splendor fire lead to recommendations that were fully adopted by Carnival and to a lesser extent by the cruise industry as a whole - as well as changes to how the US Coast Guard conducts Port State inspections of foreign flag cruise ships. These changes make Carnival, the cruise industry as a whole, and all ships embarking passengers in US Ports much safer.

Similar reports on the Star Princess fire by the UK Department of Transport, Marine Investigative Branch and the Bahamas Maritime Authority, Grandeur of the Seas fire investigation have also made the seas safer for all.

The public information shared by Oceania has been limited and is the source of frustration of many booked passengers. The only public information shared by Oceania's new owners - NCL Holdings - is a detailed assessment of the impact of the Insignia fire on the stock value of NCL Holdings.

I do not plan to cancel my Insignia cruise but I would like to act on facts and information - not faith or surprises. Additionally, safety is the responsibility of everyone who sets foot on a ship, airplane, etc.

I really started this thread just to see if there was more information on the repair process. I find it surprising that I have to defend that simple request for information.

They might not have to dry dock the ship to fix it, depends on what happened. I was on NCL Spirit when it blew a diesel engine on one gen set. Ship stayed in service for a time on remaining three. They had to change the whole engine which took around six months to be built and come from Germany. The ship was drydocked and a whole was cut in the bottom to make the switch. I bet they are just waiting for parts to be made and when all is ready will move the ship. The Spirit was done in in the US. After Carvinal had the problem of a dead ship at sea I think the fitted their ships with large emergency gen sets that can power the ship and move it very slowly. I guess Oceania did not due the same or some major control systems were disabled

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my XT1032 using Forums mobile app

Oceania reported in the cancellation letter that they were putting the ship in dry-dock - that does not mean it is true - there is a shortage of accurate information here

The NTSB will at some point have a report that will be available to the public.

They may also have a preliminary report available now or shortly. But it may take a FOI request to get it.

Maybe. Marshall Islands is the flag state and generally will have the lead in the investigation - the US does not have any automatic investigative authority. However, sometimes the flag state does cede the lead investigation authority to the US Coast Guard as Panama did in the Carnival Spendor fire. The Coast Guard did make the final report public but it took about a year. I contrast, there was never any public report released about the Carnival Triumph fire.