Heidi13

Immediately post incident, with the vessel still at sea, the Master's priorities are first and foremost responding to any situation immediately dangerous to life and health, then the safety of the ship and the safety of the crew and pax. Once the master was advised of the damage, I expect she will have altered course to place the damaged section in the lee, which significantly reduces and possibly eliminates further ingress of water. This provides time for the emergency response party to enter the area to evacuate any pax. Based on reports from actual pax on another site, crew responders were on scene in about 30 secs. When all pax from the cabins are accounted for the Master, Staff Captain and Chief Engineer will develop a plan to maintain the safety of the ship, ensuring the safety of the crew completing these tasks. In addition to blanking the windows from the outside, which is no easy task in heavy weather, they also have an option to manage water ingress with courses steered and pumps, if required. As a Master, we learn how to jury rig external covers to blank off a hole in the hull/superstructure. However, in this case, due to the storm conditions and the known facts, I would most likely have opted to manage the ingress of water using courses steered, and if required, set up equipment to remove the water. The risks to the crew in rigging external blanks would be considerable and very time consuming. Blocking the windows from inside would be ineffective, unless the damaged area was in a lee, and could potentially disturb evidence required for the inquiry.

In addition to being at night, the visibility is further reduced by probably rain, sea spray and possibly even other waves, especially when coming out the trough. It is unlikely they would get much, if any warning. The other consideration is even if they did see it coming, it probably would not provide sufficient time to analyse the situation and react. Hopefully the AIBN report will answer these questions.

The Expedition ships were built by Vard, which build a number of specialised vessels. They are owned by Fincantieri, who build the Ocean ships. The hulls are mostly fabrication, so that's done in Romania, then they headed to Norway for the specialised fitting out.

The HAL ship won't be crossing Drake Passage, as i don't believe any of them have the required Polar Classification to operate below 60S. A number of options are available to round the "Horn", with 1 option being going around the very bottom, but sticking close to shore. The other 2 options involve taking channels through the islands. The Master will determine the best route based on the conditions.

Not sure about the Polar Codes, but when we had to replace windows during a major refit, Flag State required a fire rating on every window. Windows iwo the survival craft had to be A-30 and all others A-0. We had to source complete units that came with the required certification. Removing the existing glass and replacing would have been so much easier. Will be nice if Class permits them to replace the glass. BTW - DW showed me an exceptional post on another social media platform in the Viking Expedition private group. Definitely worth checking out and reading.

Not when spelt that way. Clay used the correct spelling of Scottish Whisky.

If I recall correctly Viking posted that to maintain the PC6 classification, the closest shipyard is Punta Arenas. Although the ship's hull and superstructure were built in Romania and then towed to Norway for fitting out, they can source parts worldwide. Unfortunately, it is more than 20 years since I was involved in the procurement of windows and it was only for a single ship refit, so can't remember the manufacturers, or where they came from. Hopefully the Chief might know.

Every cruise includes risks, with cruises to the Polar regions carrying additional risks - weather, remoteness, ice, etc. Many thousands of pax have taken these cruises without incident, so only you can determine if you are comfortable accepting the higher level of risk. As the previous reply noted, if seeing the Northern Lights is your primary objective, then land based excursions are also available. However, those also have risks and compared to cruises will have positives and negatives. Good luck with research and making your decision.

In addition to questioning whether the ship should have sailed, I would also question the actions once the storm hit, since it was probably prudent to "hove to", which is maintaining only sufficient speed for steerage, while riding out the storm.

Since we don't have many facts, it is not my intent to defend Viking, more trying to correct the erroneous information provided by the proverbial armchair experts. BTW - I have questioned the concept of those windows since the first time I read about these ships, but without having seen them, have to accept the design criteria were adequately addressed. Only time will tell, if the design criteria and/or concept were wrong, or if the ship experienced an event that was beyond all reasonable expectations. When considering booking one of these ships, we discounted all of Deck 2, with the lowest cabin considered being Dk 3 close to midships.

Chief - Haven't purchased or used the Zodiac MilPro boats that Viking have, but many of the RHIB's have a double floor, with styrofoam between the layers for additional buoyancy. They are glued together with a small gap. I have never seen fuel carried other than in portable tanks, or fixed tanks built into the seat/console. Looking at the RHIB's on the 360 view of the Hanger, I can't readily identify where the fuel is carried. A few days ago I mentioned that the only potential issues with a RHIB "Exploding" would be the fuel system or the inflatable collar. Therefore, if it wasn't the collar, the only other options I can think of is the fuel system or a pyrotechnic. For the fuel system, if leaking and the floor has a hole/crack, it could potentially leak into the void between the floors (if they have a double floor), but it still requires the fuel/air mixture to be within the explosive range and also an ignition source. I have seen a number of fuel leaks, both from the tanks and lines, but was fortunate to have no issues. However, the fuel system is definitely a potential. Pyrotechnics - I have seen one situation with an RFD Marin Ark deployment when 1 of the pyros activated as it hit the water, burning the canopy. Based on the recent post last night, the boat was moving at the time of the incident, so may have dislodged the pyro container, which I assume is stored in the fwd locker.

Chief - When I read the Polar Code I recall a minimum 2 months seatime in polar waters. The Basic Training Course has no pre-requisite seatime in Polar Regions, but they still require a minimum of Bridge Watchman CoC, which has seatime requirements. However, with a Basic Certificate, they will only get a JOOW position on a cruise ship, so never left alone on the Bridge. To apply for the Advanced Training, they require the Basic Training plus at least 2 months of watchkeeping seatime in polar regions. Once they pass the Advanced Course, they are eligible for a SOOW position, but this promotion is only possible when they have sufficient additional seatime to take and pass the Chief Mate. Even with the Advanced Polar Training, they won't be eligible for promotion to SOOW until they have the Chief Mate. I've avoided sailing in ice, as I prefer the tropics, but when the ship is in active ice, I expect the Master is on the Bridge and they will most likely be condition "Red". Therefore, all officers are being continuously mentored when in ice. The other consideration is the Polaris incident was not in ice, but heavy weather, and all seatime from our first day at sea starts preparing us for dealing with these situations. Yes, Drake Passage can be rough, but as we have experienced, many other parts of the Southern Ocean in the "Roaring Forties" are also rough, and in addition, many other oceans and seas can be just as bad - in addition to the obvious ones, I can think of a few I have experienced - North Sea, Hecate Strait, Cook Strait, Tasman Sea and Bass Straight.

Transverse stability is a rather complex subject that we learned over many years, but you are reasonably accurate. I'll try to provide a Coles Notes summary of transverse stability. Basically, weight low in the ship is good, which is why the heavy stuff is low in the ship - machinery, bunkers, ballast, etc. Weight high in the ship is not so good, for example pools. To provide an example, after a long ocean passage at high speed, when getting low on bunkers, we occasionally had to dump 1 or more of the pools to maintain acceptable stability, a day prior to arrival. The ship's Centre of Gravity is determined at lightship and then all subsequent weights are added/subtracted to determine the CoG at any time. Adding bunkers below the CoG lowers the CoG, whereas filling pools above the CoG, raises the height of the CoG. The height of the CoG is measured as the vertical distance above the keel, and is called KG. We used to do these calculations manually, but now everything is entered into a computer. The Centre of Buoyancy is in a vertical line with the CoG when the ship is upright. When the ship lists, the CoB moves off the ship's centre line. A vertical line drawn through the CoB intersects the ship's centre line at a location called the metacentre, designated as M. Hopefully the metacentre is above the CoG, with the distance between them known as metacentric height, or GM. The size of GM determines how much righting level is generated to bring the ship back upright. A bigger GM provides a larger righting lever. When the GM is large, the large righting lever brings the ship back upright rapidly, often referred as snaps back. This is not prefered on cruise ships, as while the ship may not roll as much, it is very uncomfortable as it snaps back upright. I experienced this once on a cargo ship in the North Sea after loading steel in the lower hold. Our GM was huge and the ride to the next loading port was extremely uncomfortable. A smaller GM results in a lower righting lever, which returns the ship upright more smoothly. While the ship may roll more it is a much gentler roll, which can be minimised by the fins. When the metacentre is above the CoG the ship has positive stability, with the righting lever returning the ship upright. When the CoG and M are the same position, the ship has no righting lever, so if it lists, it remains at an angle of loll. If the M is below the CoG that is rather bad. Lots of other factors are involved, including draft, beam, etc. but the adding and specifically the placement of weights on a ship plays a huge roll in stability and how the ship rides.

Thanks Chief - Should have thought that was possible these days😁

Sorry, but have to set you straight yet again. At no time did I state the training is onsite, that is mentoring of Junior Officers by Senior Officers and also mentoring of Senior Officers by the Master. Training is Govt regulated, in accordance with STCW, and takes place in shoreside marine training institutes, which have the latest full ship simulator technology. As with all certification in the marine industry, it requires a combination of training and experience in the relevant waters. Everyone has to start somewhere, so to serve as a watchkeeping officer in polar waters they must first have a Certificate of Competency, which can take 2 - 3 yrs, and then attend a basic polar training course, which comprises classroom and simulator training. This basic level of certification would enable the officer to serve as a Junior Watchkeeping Officer in a pax v/l, who is continuously monitored and mentored by the Senior OOW. Once they attain the required seatime, they can attend the advanced polar training, which again is a combination of classroom and simulator training. Only after completing this course can they sail as a Senior Watchkeeping Officer, and by then they should have at least 5 to 6 yrs at sea. It can take a further 10 yrs experience to reach Master. The Polaris Master, who I won't name, is new to Viking, but has commanded small expedition vessels for almost 10 years, and has extensive experience in the Arctic and Antarctica. Although I haven't seen her bio, I recall reading that she also has experience as a pilot in ice. Hardly lacking in experience.

In addition to visiting the Viking Medical Centre, we also enjoyed a couple of dinners with the extremely well qualified and experienced Emergency Physician, who has been the head of Trauma in a number of major Trauma Centres in UK, Italy and USA. DW was also a Trauma RN at our local Regional Trauma Centre and was impressed by the facilities and the doctors experience. During the 70's and 80's, when I worked on cruise ships, our Medical Centre, which didn't have the modern equipment available today, has managed to revive and stabalise a number of pax, at times for up to 4 or 5 days. So yes, I have experience where shipboard medical care is effective. Rather than making comments such as the, "Magical ICU on the Viking ship" please provide us some of your personal experiences to justify your statement. Have you actually sailed on a Viking ship and witnessed the Medical Centre. With respect to Rogue Waves, since I assume you have researched the term, you should have learned that while they aren't too rare, they are short lived, so are still considered to NOT be a common experience for vessels. They can also develop quickly and dissipate just as quick. Therefore, 2 ships sailing close to each other may not experience the same wave. As the Chief noted, the only scientific method to compare different ships ability to handle a rogue wave is to place them in exactly the same spot at the same time, which isn't possible. The Hanseatic, now Heritage Adventurer was Classed by GL with Ice Class E4, which is the equivalent of the Finland/Sweden Baltic Class 1A Super. Since the inception of the IMO Polar Code and the standardised ice classification, Class 1A Super is now PC6, which is consistent with the Viking Octantis and Polaris. Therefore, your preferred vessel does have the same ice class as the Viking ships. Similar to the Chief, I have about 40 yrs at sea and while I have experience some horrendous seas and storms, I was fortunate to never have experienced a rogue wave. I don't believe the Chief experienced a rogue wave either, so with a combined 90 years at sea we haven't experienced rogue waves, which is further proof of the frequency of them interacting with ships. Personally, I only know of 1 mariner that has experienced one and that was a black hulled cruise ship in 1995.

Yes, that is common knowledge, being posted in the cabin category descriptions on the Viking website. Similar to the days of "Deadlights", the ship will have an SoP requiring cabin stewards to ensure they are closed and secured, as required by the Master.

Yes, with everything else equal, a vessel with a deeper draught will be constrained before a shallower draught vessel. However, as I posted previously, any minimum under-keel clearance included in the Safety Management System is another key factor, especially if some companies provide guidance to the Masters and others don't. I knew the waters I sailed in extremely well, but I was still limited by the guidelines issued by the company. In these days of risk management and human factors, ship safety is much more involved than local knowledge.

The Hanseatic in now the Heritage Adventurer and since it predates the Polar Ice Code, had a classification society rating. Compared to modern ships built under the new Polar Ice Code, it is the equivalent of PC6, which is the same as Viking Polaris. Ships with this type of rating are not true "Ice breakers" as they are limited to operation in moderate 1st year ice and only during the summer and autumn months. True ice-breakers are normally PC 2 or 3. Making parts in the Engine Room, this is common on every ship I have worked on. The E/R have most tools available to make parts. This is the mark of a good seaman. Intensive Care - When we were on Viking Sun with only 8 pax, we received tours of every part of the ship. In the Medical Centre, the doctor proudly showed us the ICU room. So yes, they are available at sea, accepting for limited periods.

If the Viking River ships have a lower draught than the competition, why do they stop sailing first. Ships with a deeper draught are constrained by shallow water before lower draught vessels. The Master must also comply with any mandated minimum under keel clearance standards included in the SMS, which can have more impact than draught, when navigating in shallow waters.

1979 Pacific Ocean a few days after passing Hawaii, encountered a storm where we had to "Hove to" (head to wind at minimum speed to maintain steerage) for a couple of days. We were pushed back 30 miles.

We normally book World Cruises that have 50+ ports, all of which I research thoroughly, including private tours in most of the ports. Rather than a nightmare, I look upon it as a challenge. All part of getting the most out of a cruise. Please don't just focus on Shore-ex, as better options are readily available. Small group, private tours are definitely worth the effort. In the Meddy, in the unlikely event you miss the ship, it is easy getting to the next port.

All depends on the severity of the rupture, as I have seen many small holes that take hours to deflate to collar. Do you know the working pressure of the collars?

I believe you posted previously that you are a Travel Agent, who if selling cruises should have a reasonable knowledge of the marine environment. Do you consider it acceptable to put quotation marks around information that is potentially erroneous.

The local authorities have different requirements and employee availability in every port. I suggest checking with tellus to see what answer they provide.