Heidi13

Been to both ports a number of times and Sydney is a vastly superior arrival/departure. Weather - probably a better chance of better weather on the Sydney to Vancouver than Vancouver to Tokyo. Cruise Line - Princess would be the lesser of the 2 evils, compared to NCL.

The debt to equity ratio is still extremely high at just under 4.5, making Carnival stock about the equivalent of junk bonds.

I wouldn't concur that the P&O tonnage is old. All ships were built this century and only 2 of them are over 15 yrs old. If you routinely stay in 4.5 star hotels, no mass market cruise line will provide a similar experience. That level of service requires a premium or luxury line, which tend to have smaller ships, with more space per pax, more crew per pax and higher quality meals. The luxury/premium ships are also more inclusive, so have a much higher base fare.

Similar to the PVSA it only considers the embarkation and disembarkation ports on the same ship. I doesn't consider whether it is a single or multiple cruises.

Spent 2 seasons cruising Alaska out of Vancouver, spending 8+ hrs per day looking out the Bridge windows. It doesn't matter which side of the ship you are on, as once you are clear of the Inside Passage, you are so far offshore you don't see much anyway.

The fine for US PVSA infractions do not just apply to mass market tonnage, they apply to every foreign flagged ship. It has nothing to do with ship size, all to do with the ship's Flag State.

Cruised these waters extensively, including 4 continuous months one year. While I haven't cruised with HAL, I have sailed these waters with P&O, Princess and Viking. 1). If you like sea days, I can't imagine you will get tired, especially as we consider 50 days a short cruise. Only issue for me is the multiple 23 hr days, not sufficient time to fit everything into the day. 2). I survived 4-months with exactly the same weekly menu, so i can't imagine getting tired after only 50 days with many more menu choices. 3). Depends on the ports 4). Can't comment 5). Since it is still TRS season in the South Pacific, from experience, you can encounter any type of weather. However, generally it is fairly hot. Once across the Equator and through the doldrums, you can experience the NE Trades, which create a good wind over the decks, since it is fwd of the beam. 6). Not sure of your age, but in my 20's, flights to/from Australia in Economy were easy. Now a little older, I wouldn't fly unless it was First or Business.

Mariners tend to have a more colourful description, and I believe the Chief already let it out the bad.

I expect Bahamas had inspectors onboard to commence the inspection and upon completion, they will have cleared the vessel to sail. If the equipment that failed is required for the operation of the vessel they will have acquired sufficient evidence, otherwise that equipment will not be used. Modern ships retain all the history in the Automated Information Systems, etc. so lots of information is available for the subsequent investigation. They will also review the maintenance records, which are again on a database. The ship's Flag State, which in this case is The Netherlands has a Marine Accident Investigation Branch, who is advised of reportable incidents. With fatalities, an investigation is automatic. Additional countries can request to assist, with the US NTSB often involved. The Bahamas will probably be involved, as could the deceased crew members countries. Depending on the number of British pax, the MAIB may also request to be involved. Regardless of the number of countries assisting, the lead investigators are the ship's Flag State. In addition, the ship's Classification Society and the Bahamas will also conduct investigations. The company, in accordance with their ISM, will conduct an in-house investigation to determine the root cause and all contributing factors, so the ships SMS can be updated to reduce the potential for another similar incident. The Dutch investigation is not to lay blame, but to determine the facts, root cause and contributing factors. They will also make recommendations. Here is a link to a recent investigation completed by Norway. This took just under 5 years to complete, so provides some insight into how thorough the investigations are completed after the fact. In this case, all deficiencies were corrected and the engines returned to normal operation before Inspectors even boarded the vessel https://www.nsia.no/Marine/Published-reports/2024-05

First question should be was it a crew alarm or the General Emergency Signal. Pax only need to listen for 1 signal on the alarms.

This is the type of post that is most counter-productive post incident. Assuming the Rolling Stones Lounge is many decks above the tank top, why would you assume the incidents are connected, especially with many hours in between. Do entertainment lounges have steam pipes in the deckhead? Fact 1 - The had an incident in an engineering space around 09:00, which is initially reported to involve steam. I have some thoughts regarding the cause, since I experienced a similar incident many years ago, but since it is not based on fact, will keep it to myself until the facts are posted. Fact 2 - Many hours later, a lounge is closed and water is dripping from the deckhead. This is actually a fairly common occurrence on cruise ships. While it is highly unlikely they are connected, only when the final investigation report is published will we know for certain. In the interim, this type of post does nothing but start potential rumours. You could have tagged the resident Chief Engineer, advising of the lounge incident and requesting his professional opinion on the potential cause.

They may focus on claims against shipping companies in the USA, but I highly doubt he is a specialised Admiralty or Maritime Lawyer.

Once you realise the L/A Management clowns speak with forked tongue, all their actions are easy to understand. Hence the reason, I am done with them.

You are so correct, as the true facts will only be known once the Dutch Marine Investigation Branch releases an interim report and upon completion of the investigation, the final report. Everything until then is purely speculation, frequently from armchair experts, other than the information released by the Captain onboard the vessel

The following cruise could be expected to be delayed, but since steam is not a critical component on cruise ships, it is highly unlikely the next cruise would be cancelled. Delayed departure will most likely result in waiting for the arrival of the investigating authorities.

Sad news today. Based on my time at sea, I only experienced something similar once and that was on SS Oriana. During topping up the boiler feed water, they over-filled, getting water into the super heated steam lines. We had numerous failures with fortunately no injuries, but the lower 2 decks were filled with steam. It was dense fog below decks until we got it vented. Searching those areas for crew members is something I'll never forget. Sad to read the "Ambulance Chasers" are already making accusations. We will all know the facts once the Dutch Accident Investigation Board complete and release the preliminary and final investigation reports.

It is most unfortunate that others are now experiencing similar issues with the incompetent management running the L/A Office. Hope you do get it resolved. If it was a systems issue, why did the refundable and non-refundable credits work perfectly for us back in 2020. Sadly, it wouldn't be the first time the incompetent L/A managers speak with forked tongue.

In addition to being very walkable, you can also walk across the airport runway, as walkers and vehicles must cross the runway to reach the Spanish border.

Sorry, missed this one yesterday. Affirmative, you will cross the IDL. When crossing the IDL steaming West you skip a day. Steaming East from HK to Vancouver, upon crossing the IDL, the Cloxs are put back 24 hrs, so you will experience the same date again.

When we visited UK every couple of years, we bought kids clothes, shoes, etc. No major purchases, but with VAT at 17.5% and now 20%, we got a reasonable refund every visit. Money is better in my pocket than the Governments.

I recall the Chief addressed this in an earlier post. It is highly unlikely that sump tanks on the existing tonnage can be redesigned to meet SOLAS and OEM requirements. However, they can mitigate the additional risk by developing revised operational procedures, that are incorporated into the SMS.

Having worked mostly with LR & ABS, I found LR to be a little more diligent than ABS, so I figured it would need a Condition of Class, just wasn't 100% certain.

One of the key changes in the Marine industry has been eliminating the "Blame" culture, especially with the national accident/incident investigation organisations. By eliminating the "Blame" culture, it improves the chance of thoroughly investigating incidents to determine the facts, root cause and the often multitude of contributing factors. When I started sailing as Master back in the 1980's, the saying that you were only as good as you last docking was very relevant. Note - my first command included 16 dockings per day. The blame culture was very much in force those days and it didn't matter how many perfect dockings you made, a single bad one could impact your career. With the elimination of the "Blame" culture, provided you perform in accordance with the company policies and procedures, as outlined in the SMS, your job is generally safe. By reporting incidents and participating in fact finding, we improve the quality of incident investigations, so changes can be made to procedures to reduces the probability of it happening again. With respect to the investigation, it also does not focus on assigning blame. The primary function is to determine the facts and consequently the root cause and contributing factors. Once this is known, commercial litigation may result over the next many years. From a customer perspective, the passenger purchased the cruise from Viking Cruises, who must take all reasonable measures to protect the brand and reputation. I'll suggest Viking were very generous in initially caring for the pax and repatriating them home, then went well above the contractual requirements with the compensation provided. Yes, this was a huge financial cost to Viking Cruises, some of which may have been covered by insurance, but I suspect a significant portion was an operational cost. The report highlights errors by the shipyard, Class Society and the Ship Managers, so Viking may have legal recourse against any/all of those parties to mitigate their financial loses. However, the contacts hiring each party will be scrutinised, as will the oversight of each contractor by Viking Cruises. Another possible curve ball is a shipyard trick to mitigate liability during a design/build contract - once a drawing is complete, it is sent to the owner for review and approval. If the shipyard sent the non-SOLAS compliant tank drawings to Viking, or the Ship Manager and the drawings were signed off as approved, the shipyard may have transferred the liability. If Viking Cruises initiate proceedings against other parties it could potentially drag on for many years, as there are no doubt many legal avenues that I don't know.

The cruise line cannot legally prevent you from disembarking, or "Jumping Ship". However, as others explained, the Coasting Trade Act is Canada's cabotage laws, which prevents foreign flag tonnage transporting pax or cargo from 1 Canadian port to another. If you wish to "Jump Ship" in Victoria, you will be in contravention of the Act. If the cruise line is fined for your actions, they will pass on the costs of the fine and possibly additional administrative costs. The Act does not consider your Nationality, the contravention is due to your passage on foreign flagged tonnage. For contraventions of the Act, the ship can be fined up to $50,000. If you were sea sick and were medically disembarked by the ship's doctor, they may consider extenuating circumstances. However, in 40 yrs at sea, I have never seen a pax or crew member medically disembarked due to sea sickness. Are you willing to receive a $50K + bill to disembark early?

How I read the report is that the Master, on reviewing the weather reports and condition of the vessel, did not consider that delaying departure was necessary. Since SRtP requirements were not known, the decision to sail, is at the Master's discretion. This is based on experience, feedback from Officers and Pilots, any relevant policies in the SMS and any weather forecasts or pertinent reports. The SMS made no reference to SRtP requirements. I'll suggest the Master and Senior Officers did not have a sufficient working knowledge of the SRtP requirements, so this regulatory requirement was not included in the pre-sailing review. This may surprise a number of pax, as many see the Master and Senior Officers as the resident experts that know everything. Unfortunately, with the complexity and ever changing plethora of International, National & Local Acts & Regulations, this is just not possible. To provide an example, I last studied Shipmaster's Business and Ship Construction back in 1984, when I completed my Masters. Sailing as an operational Master, I was updated on any new/updated relevant regulations by the company. In addition, I maintained a membership in the Nautical Institute, a professional organisation that assisted in promulgating changes. I gained my additional regulatory knowledge from some projects I was assigned. Spent a number of years working for the VP Ops, with regulatory liaison being part of my role and then 2-yrs developing a new Level 2 Fleet Operations SMS. When I started the SMS Project in 2010, I recall reading of SOLAS changes regarding SRtP, but since our ships were all existing prior to it coming into force, I didn't need to research the requirements and include SRtP factors in the sailing decision matrix. The sailing matrix was a comprehensive document with 3 levels - Do not sail, Master's discretion to sail and no issue with sailing. Had even a single vessel in the fleet been subject to SRtP I would have had to research the regulation and include every potential scenario, in accordance with the regulations, where the vessel couldn't legally sail. Since SRtP came out about 2010, I am surprised the Ship Managers missed including it in the SMS, which would have been developed for Viking Star, prior to 2014. Each of the operational Masters and Chief Engineers cannot possibly be expected to have a detailed working knowledge of every regulation, which is why it is critical that the SMS is comprehensive and continuously updated, to provide the operating crews the correct information required to make informed decisions. Viking Cruises employ the Ship Manager (Wilhelmsen Ship Management) to provide the Masters and Deck/Engineering Officers, and provide the required technical services to manage the vessel. This includes providing a comprehensive SMS and the ISM required Designated Person Ashore (DPA). The DPA apparently did not have sufficient working knowledge of SRtP Regulations and also was lacking in not identifying the Master's failure to report the loss of a DG to Class, who would then report to Flag. It has been many years since I was involved in these details, but in addition to the reporting requirements of the defective engine, the vessel may possibly have required a Class issued, "Condition of Class" prior to sailing. Hopefully the Chief can confirm @chengkp75 Discounting the failure to comply with SRtP Regulations, the decision to sail is highly subjective, and is based on risk assessment, ship's handling characteristics and the experience of the Master and Senior Officers. I believe the Master was an experienced mariner on the Norwegian Coast and he was supported by 2 coast pilots. In a similar situation, as an operational Master with a similar ship in the local Canadian waters I know well, I would have no hesitation with sailing. I have sailed in similar conditions on the coast many, many times without incident. However, the final decision to sail would be based on any SMS restrictions and conducting a risk mitigations to lower the increased risk. The report confirms that the vessel handled the seas well and the conditions were well within the design parameters. Since the root cause of this incident is faulty tank design and low oil levels, had all 4 engines been running, the ship would most likely still have blacked out. With 4 engines, the additional alarms may have increased the troubleshooting time, delaying the time to get 1 DG re-started and synchronised to the main board. Note - even before I retired, more weight was given to pax comfort, as while the ship can easily handle the seas, many pax could not. I don't see any significance in the Master not having considered the option of remaining in port. As a Master, my job was to complete the scheduled sailings, safely and in accordance with the SMS. When I considered options, they were sailing options - depart as scheduled, delay departure, seek safe refuge in deep water, alternative routing, etc. Only when none of those options were safe, would I default to the stay in port. To summarise, personally, I never considered staying in port as 1 of the potential options options, as it was the default, if no option was deemed acceptable.