chengkp75

That is why I have advocated the completely unwelcome suggestion that everyone is kept at muster station until all lifejackets are stowed properly, which means with the straps wrapped around the jacket, and clipped. This is true. I cannot think of the number of times I saw a passenger who had put the lifejacket on in such a way that it would have pushed their face down into the water and drowned them. This is not a cruise line decision. SOLAS prefers that muster stations be as close as physically possible to the lifeboats. So, ships that have sufficient space on the promenade deck to muster a full station under a boat, and still have room for people to pass by, will have them outside. Only if there is insufficient space on the promenade deck are alternative muster stations considered as primary ones. One of the critical pieces of information disseminated during an emergency is the "fire zone" or "danger zone", and all crew will know to direct passengers around these areas, and if that includes a lifeboat, they will send people to alternative muster locations. And, again, if the weather conditions are that harsh, the Captain can send passengers to alternative muster stations, once everyone has been accounted for. The only truly innovative, and in my professional opinion the best, muster procedure is HAL's, where the first stage of the muster is for passengers to return to their cabins, and accountability can be taken there as a first time, and public areas are cleared. As above, if passenger cabins are in the "fire zone", then they will be directed elsewhere, but typically this stage is called before any passenger areas are greatly involved.

The problem is that most units that have both power outlets and USB ports also have surge protection, which is not allowed, and frankly dangerous, on ships. Search for one that claims "no surge protection" and double check that there is no "VPN" number in the fine print on the back of the unit. VPN is the measure of how well a surge protector protects electronics. Some so-called "cruise approved" (there is no such thing) multi-outlets have claimed no surge protection, but had a VPN visible in advertising copy.

What?

I see that there is a product called "InstaSteam" that claims to be "cruise ship safe". It says that it is approved by TSA but only for transport of unopened packages, not for use. As this is quicklime that you add water to, this reaction releases enough heat to ignite paper, so I would have my doubts about it being allowed on the ship. Whether it is found by security is one thing, but I would not bring this myself.

The ship's irons are inspected and tested regularly, something they cannot do with ones brought onboard by passengers. I remember when NCL was trying out coffee makers in every cabin, and we were required to rotate them out for inspection and servicing, and one of them caught fire in the electrician's shop. The most common failure of things with heating elements is the "auto-off" switch, that everyone claims is the key to safety.

Yes, most of these countries that prohibit shell taking, require that all shells sold in stores be boiled to remove any minute traces of biologic material.

Demonstration of what? Where? And how does this address the issue of crew training during the original muster drill, or give the new cruisers the training of going to the muster station?

Just so you know, things that are not required of the ship to make a port call, like water, garbage collection, delivery of stores, etc, are not allowed to be included in port fees. Tugs, if required by the port, are allowed.

Because the law allows it, and it allows the cruise line to advertise the lowest possible fare.

You have to remove your glasses for passport photos as well. And, yes, this has to do with facial recognition.

I've read some articles from the California agencies dealing with service dogs, and their wording is very similar to the ADA. The animal must be trained to do a specific service for the disabled person, but that training can be performed either by the disabled person or a third party, and there are no standards that must be met for this training. As I've noted, I've seen stories of dogs that spontaneously learn to alert or signal, or guide a PTSD sufferer to a calmer setting. These are considered to be "trained" to do this function, and therefore allowed both under the ADA and California law. To the best of my knowledge, a state cannot pass a more restrictive law than the pertinent federal law.

Where do you draw the line of distinction? Suppose someone is new to a particular line, but has sailed 50 times on another line? Are they "new"? How do you segregate those required to attend the drill from those who aren't while trying to direct traffic at stairwells, etc. Sorry, it has to be all or nothing.

Sure, during the weekly fire and boat drill, crew will be sent to their stations at the stairwells and passageways, and to muster locations, but there will be no one to direct. The actual "herding of the cats" is what is needed to make the training realistic, and realistic training is what leads to "muscle memory" taking over from conscious thought in an emergency, overriding a crew member's natural self-preservation instinct.

I equate the new muster drill to "writing off" a lot more than first time cruisers, since the crew is deprived of realistic training, and things could go sideways real quickly. The old muster was beneficial to both passengers and crew.

Most countries require a pet passport when bringing any animal into the country. It takes the place of the previously required quarantine period.

What Andy is saying is that while in the US there is no requirement for a true service dog to have any documentation, or specialized training, in Canada, if a dog that a family discovers "signals" when their son's blood sugar is low, and declares that dog as a service dog (which under the ADA it is), were to try to travel in Canda, it would be considered an ESA, not a service dog.

Fortunately, it is not a popularity contest with the passengers, nor is feedback from the cruise lines important. The maritime safety experts on the various IMO committees are the ones who will decide if the old muster comes back

No, what you don't understand is that in order to be effective, training needs to be as realistic as possible "train as you would fight" is the saying. What the old muster drill provided was hands on training for the crew to learn to handle thousands of unwilling, and sometimes unruly guests. How/when could this be simulated? Take a day out of service for the ship, and hire a bunch of day labor to act as passengers? Have other crew act as passengers on a port day? You know, as well as I do, that that would not pass the "smell test", as the crowd reactions would be totally different than a cruise ship's "herd of cats". Getting passengers to muster in an orderly and safe manner is probably the most important training the crew can get, since muster is all about accountability, and not about boats, as accounting for everyone is the basis of cruise ship safety. Training for this in as realistic situation as possible, meaning thousands walking down stairs and passageways, and getting directed to their proper locations, is crucial to the training actually sticking in the crews' minds and becoming second nature when an emergency happens.

Cell signal from land towers generally drops off at about 10-15 miles offshore. You will be that far offshore most of the nights.

And the crew aren't learning anything in the new drill. I dread an actual emergency.

To the best of my knowledge, even those ships with a viewing room no longer open them.

I'm starting to suspect that this was a case similar to Texas, where only liquor with a state tax label on it (whether Michigan or Minnesota) can be sold while docked or within that state's waters, not a liquor licensing issue. Cruise ships get liquor that is "out of bond", meaning that no federal, state, or local liquor tax has been paid on it, and no import duty. Some states don't allow this out of bond liquor to be sold, and only liquor with a state tax seal on it can be sold, and the ship did not buy any of this taxed liquor.

First off, there is no package other than what a travel agent has cobbled together (unless you can show otherwise). As such, Cunard has no liability to accommodate passengers when they are not on Cunard ships. Could this cause problems for Cunard, if people cancel because they can't do the middle leg? Sure. Whose fault is that? The travel agent who sold the idea, not NCL's. That agent would likely find it difficult to make Cunard bookings in the future. Would the travel agent have problems? You betcha, but you know what? That travel agent should have disclosed the terms and agreements in the NCL ticket contract that state that NCL can cancel the cruise for any reason, and what, if any, compensation they will give for a cancelation. Otherwise, the travel agent is liable for selling a fraudulent product to their clients. NCL would have no liability to anyone, unless this was a contractual agreement between NCL and Cunard.

I have never heard of any foreign flag cruise ship needing a local liquor license in the US, whether docked or not. States can enforce the state liquor laws (not local ones) (especially if the vessel sails only within that state) on US flag vessels, but not foreign flag ships.

While it may be faster, unless the patient is ambulatory, and the seas outside the port are mirror calm, docking the ship is safer for the passenger, and probably presents less risk to the medical condition.