NMTraveller

28 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This based on your vast years of experience as a ship's Captain, navigation officer, or even helmsman?  I don't believe for a moment that the ship or passengers were in any danger from this maneuver.  I am bothered that it happened in a protected zone, and that that zone was not recognized when planning the passage, but because I was not there, I would never question the judgement of a Captain, on scene, when no difficulties arise from his actions.

 

Provide CURRENT depth contours (if they exist) and the ship's position over time and we can laugh about this later...

We can talk about how close they came to beaching it...  They are close.  How close is the question...  From passenger video it looks like they were very close ...  Dang videos ...  The passenger reports of sand in the wash also mean that they were rather shallow...

My escapades are on a much smaller boat.  There is no way that I would go this shallow with this large of a draft and unknown dept contours with this big of a ship.  You can roll the dice, but eventually you lose.

14 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Nothing happened to the Captain, RCI did amend their SMS to improve the decision making chain regarding operating in heavy weather.  And, he didn't burn out an azipod, he wore out the clutches on the azimuthing gear, so the azipod was harder to keep on track.  And, frankly, 30 foot seas are not all that dangerous.

The captain was not the captain on the next cruise (our cruise).  Please provide documentation and news stories ...  This was widely talked about amongst the crew and cruisers...

24 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

Eventually requests using U.S. federal and state freedom of information laws may net info from the relevant government agencies since it would seem the ship was well within U.S. waters. 

Eventually is the key word here.  The uproar will have died down by then.  I never did figure out what happened when the RCL ship went out into 30 footers and burned out the azipod...

24 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

Common sense and eyes would have suggested they were too close. 

I agree 110%.  Were they both blind and deaf?

Time for Captain Obvious to be hired...

5 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

 The lack of public response speaks volumes.  

They will not admit liability ...

We will likely not know what caused this mess up...

14 minutes ago, Aloha23 said:

 

I obviously don’t have distances, but we did a Timelapse around the majority of Kauai that might provide some additional perspective. The first one is the segment from Nā Pali slowed down so you can see a little better during the rotations and the second one is the original full Timelapse. The phone was set up on the balcony of our 10th floor mid-ship cabin on the port side and we let it run for several hours.  
 

 

My Movie 1.mov 68.16 MB · 0 downloads   IMG_1024.mov 69.65 MB · 0 downloads  

 

Nice movies!

So much for the claims, ahem of being in deep water 🤣🤣🤣

Glad you made it back safe.

You got an excursion with a 1000 foot long cruise ship instead of a smaller boat...

8 minutes ago, cruisestitch said:

Yes there are.  I am on one this coming spring. It circles Japan and also visits one port in S. Korea. But there may not be much availability of cabins left at this time.

 

and there may not be any that only the Japan without that South Korea stop

I was looking to avoid South Korea ...

Are there any cruises that only visit Japan?  I was searching for one ...

Any chance that this could be a meters to feet muff up?  They were planning on going 1000 meters close to shore and instead ended up within 1000 feet?  It does not seem likely, but ...

Any more ideas on a Norway fjords cruise?

26 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not comparing depth and bottom composition at all.  NCL's ships were operating on the edge as far as whether we could keep the lights on, and hence propulsion to keep us off the shore.  If the engines had overheated, there would not have been any "restarting" power, as the cooling system is common to all engines, and once overheated, and without power to run the pumps, not circulating, it will take hours to cool off enough to run an engine again.

Just curious if they still do it?

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

  As noted, NCL used to operate on the edge in giving the passengers a good view of the lava flows in the past.  Was this against common sense?  Not necessarily, we had mitigation measures in place, and were constantly revising those as we gained experience.

You are comparing polar opposites in depth and bottom composition.

We would go to Kona marlin fishing and start fishing right out of the harbor.  We were in several thousand feet of water not 43 feet.  The bottom composition is rock and does not change very rapidly.

In most other parts of Hawaii it takes an hour or two to get to the deep water where you actually start fishing.

A shallow beach where the sand bars move after a storm is very very different from cruising by the deep water of the lava flows.

Perhaps we are looking at this wrong.  Perhaps we should give the captain credit for pulling this Evil Knievel stunt and not getting the cruise ship stuck ...

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

  Assigning blame, firing a Captain, doesn't do that.  Again, if the Captain followed SMS policies and procedures, he is not to blame, the SMS system is, and needs to be revised.

IFF the Captain followed SMS polices ...

So this beach day at Lahaina is standard SMS operating procedure? 😁

I suppose that we will not hear from Celebrity what happened here.  But it seems like a breakdown in common sense.  Let alone procedure...

OK.  So the ship is about 1004 feet long.  With a rough guestimate it looks roughly like 700 feet straight to the rock.  Like if this really matters 

I would like this tour in a smaller boat with a smaller draft...

49 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

Same photo, same resolution. They're too close to shore, and I'm not an expert on interpreting overhead photography. The original article alleged 1000 feet. That's possible, but the distance will be distorted by the angle. Blowing up a 67 KB photo that appears to have been chosen because the original poster didn't have or didn't want to use any data isn't going to give you a better view. Apparently some of the recent Android phones use this as a file format. Or that's what Hawaii News Now uses on their web page. They should probably expect a subpoena from the investigators and maybe they actually have a real photo that can be examined. I'm assuming it hasn't been manipulated.

 

Those are reflections. They all follow the same curvature. The one "closest" to the ship actually overlaps the stern, so it's clearly not underwater. The tan has an unnaturally precise shape, and again, since it's on the same curvature as the other artifacts, it's a reflection of a manmade object. Almost certainly on the helicopter. It actually could be a human hand on a controller; that may be a thumb. Someone somewhere has pictures of the interior of tourist helicopters in Hawaii that will match that look; the helos I've flown in, long ago, had open doors and jump seats. 

 

But yes, they're too close to shore. And they may have damaged the sea floor. I'm far more interested in how it happened and how to prevent it in the future.

 

I think that if you look where the ship is heading to the rock you will agree that it is less than a ships length to the rock.  However if you measure the  angle to the closest point on shore it will be about 1000 ft.

If this is really a reflection then why does it have a water image over it?    Too me it looks like it is 1 to 5 feet underwater...

I would also like to see what kind of fish are on the reef.  The internet and all providers should provide more detail...

19 minutes ago, jelayne said:

I was there, we were never within a ships length of shore from our view.  

Not according to the photos from above.  Unless they were doctored by Hawaii News...

You mean from the shore or hitting a rock.  LOL

Didn't you say they were in deep water 🤣

One more shot..

23 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

It's a 67 KB file in an open source format known to be highly compressed. If you blow it up, you just get even less detail and more grain. On my 32 inch monitor it's already losing detail at the posted resolution, which is 980 x 1305. Gets worse if I try to go full screen. Unless someone has the original, uncompressed photo, what you see on the web is what you get. But that's clearly not a sandbar. Looks much more like a window seat on a helicopter reflected in a window.

 

Not that I think that matters. They're somewhere they shouldn't be. Not directly because of navigable depth. They stir up the seabed all the time, but usually in harbors where that's expected. And there are photos (without the ship, as I recall) that clearly show the seabed stirred up. Regardless of depth they shouldn't have been there, and they shouldn't have been disturbing the seabed. 

 

Almost all of the photography I've seen distorts size and distance. Sometimes badly. And much, like the one overhead oblique shot with reflections from the helicopter, were taken with pretty poor quality equipment and compressed even more to post on the internet. I'm not sure why anyone would pay for a helicopter tour of the islands to just take bad iPhone photos...

So your point is that they were more than a ships length from shore and hitting the rock?  LOL  

Low res or high res they were closer than that.

So who is sitting on that window seat with the brown Marlin onboard with the curved bill?  Why is the sandbar a foot or two underwater?  Reflections do not show that characteristic ...

A reflection is a single layer.  The picture shows two or more layers...

19 minutes ago, Mr. Click said:

I saw, I said they were close. My only point about the picture I quoted was it is misleading because of the lens optics. 

The point that they had smaller vessels all around the ship,  just goes to show what the hey?  Why the heck is a big a$$ cruise ship on the beach less than a ship length away?

If this is normal,  I will sign up.  But this seems like the muff up where they just missed an accident.

My recollection is that when they are in unmarked or shallow water that a tug boat will guide them in?  What am I missing?

They are more than 2000 foot inshore more than they are supposed to be.

The fact that the smaller ships are in deeper water to avoid the big a$$ cruise ship is idiocy...

They are in much much much closer than most of my tenders.

1 minute ago, Mr. Click said:

That is all well and good but the point I am trying to make is that use of a telephoto lens will make things appear closer, more compressed than they really are. 

Take a look at the overhead picture...  That tells how flipping close they came ...

16 minutes ago, Mr. Click said:

Yes they were too close but this picture is misleading. It was made with a telphoto lens and that will compress the look. It makes the ship look shorter and closer to the shore. The aerial images give a better perspective on the distance.

The problem is that the fishing vessels and smaller ships were the ones in deeper water.  Most likely where the photo was taken from.  

1 hour ago, msolok said:

 

The stuff at the bottom of the image above is 100% a reflection on glass. Even a little bit of a zoom in shows that.

 

Not saying that there wasn't churned up sand, but that picture 100% isn't showing it, only blue water and a reflection.

The picture is a point in the video before they got closer to the sand bar.  You can tell from the picture that they are moving left to right on the screen with the propulsion.

If I get bored this weekend I will find out how close they came.

🤣

47 minutes ago, markeb said:

If you look really closely, you can see Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster carving out square edges ending in a curved end of that tan sandbar….

The square edges are of the reflection above.  But the sandbar does look a bit like a marlin with a curved beak.

I hope that y'all are looking at the picture on a large (32") high res (4k) monitor and not on your phones...  Otherwise it is a Roshak test...

You do notice that the front and rear propulsion are moving it from left to right on the screen.  If it goes straight across it will hit part of the sandbar...

1 minute ago, msolok said:

 

The stuff at the bottom of the image above is 100% a reflection on glass. Even a little bit of a zoom in shows that.

 

Not saying that there wasn't churned up sand, but that picture 100% isn't showing it, only blue water and a reflection.

The sandbar is brown.  The one/two reflections are transparent ...

OK.  Now I see 2 reflections.  Or a second one.  Still way way to close to the sandbar.

35 minutes ago, yogini06 said:

Previous reports said the reflection on the right is reflection from the helicopter windshield 

The top one looks like a reflection perhaps ...  The one below it looks like a sandbar ...  The bottom one really does not look like a helicopter.

Much closer to an accident than I originally imagined...