chengkp75

Viking has contracted with Wilhelmsen Ship Management to provide technical (i.e. ship operations, not the hotel side) and crew management, since the Oceans operations started.

There is almost no maritime power system less efficient than a steam plant. And that is due to simple physics, not any design flaws or things that can be designed out. That's why the world shifted from steamships to motor ships (diesel) after WW2, because fuel was expensive. But, in the US, fuel was always far cheaper than the rest of the world, so we retained steamships into the 1970's.

If you notice at the right of the helipad is a note "0,5 t", which means the helipad is designed for a weight of 1100 lbs (metric ton). That looks like a Eurocopter UH-72 (can't be sure), which has an empty weight (no fuel or crew) of 3900 lbs. This means the pilot is seriously overloading the deck, or is practicing "light on the skids" (creating enough lift with the rotor to not quite lift the helicopter off the deck). With any ship's motion at all, especially on the bow you would get a lot of pitching, this could cause the helo to come off the deck as the ship's bow goes down, and slam back into the deck as the bow comes up, before the pilot can react. Note the nearly flat calm seas in the photo. Only very small, "light class" helicopters have an operating weight under 1/2 a ton.

Since both of these are in the Philippines, she won't likely get anything there.

They can get off at any port they want to, subject to local immigration, though with crew that's normally not a problem. Some places, like the US, a crew member getting off the ship (whether quit or end of contract) has to be escorted from the ship to the airport by a bonded ship's agent. Yes, if they are not working while onboard, they get charged room and board. So, you can "quit" but keep working to keep getting paid until you get to port.

They pay their own way home.

First, the port charges are for all ports on your cruise, including the embarkation/debarkation (same) port, so there are 4 ports on your cruise. It is not true that there is only one port charge for two ports in a country. The port charges are for wharfage (essentially dock space rental), pilots, and other things, but they are not "country" specific, they are port specific. This would be like saying that NYC and Miami split the port fees for a cruise from one to the other.

Just the same as they have in the past, essentially not at all. Probably 25-30% of new hires either don't complete their first contract, or never come back after the first contract. No way to "vett" somebody as to whether they are compatible with shipboard life.

It's not a fine, but I know that RCI charges a fee for downline disembarkation, since it does require more paperwork for passenger manifests, and the fact that the cruise for everyone else actually returning to the US is no longer on a closed loop cruise, since the manifest changed since leaving the US embarkation port. Not sure if Carnival charges this fee.

While it could be flown as a drone, there still needs to be a paramedic onboard for patient care.

But, most of the helipads are not strong enough, or large enough for most SAR helicopters to land, though I suspect they could try to stay "light on the skids" to reduce weight on the pad.

Just like the little loop on the back of men's shirts, who knows?

Probably done to minimize the passengers out there with their cameras and flashes distracting the pilot.

And that helicopter does have aerial refueling capability, see the probe extending out of picture lower right.

The USCG helicopters don't have aerial refueling probes like some Army helicopters do, but USCG helicopters do practice an "aerial refueling" of a sort, where the helicopter hovers over the deck of a cutter if the helicopter is too large, or the cutter motion is too great for the helicopter to land on the cutter. Otherwise, the helicopter will land on the cutter and refuel. That doesn't look like a USCG helicopter, maybe Army, so maybe less range, hence the cutter to refuel.

I don't think you will be charged tax while in the Inside Passage, either.

You will be charged tax while in Vancouver. Alaska does not have a state sales tax, though some municipalities do, including some cruise ports, but I have not heard that they require that it be charged on the ship.

The decision as to whether to use a helicopter for evacuation or divert the ship is made by committee. That committee consists of the ship's doctor (what condition is the patient in), the ship's Captain (what is the risk to the ship, crew, and passengers, the helicopter flight crew (are weather conditions or distance okay to make it safe), and the USCG flight surgeon (is there more risk in winching the patient off the ship and spending an hour or two with sub-optimal life support (this is a helicopter, not an ER), or is the patient stable enough with the life support systems on the ship to make the diversion). All of these decisions put together are what determine whether a helicopter evac is warranted. If the distances that the helicopter has to cover are great, USCG will deploy a fixed wing aircraft to supervise the scene, in case things go sideways, they can deploy lifesaving equipment. The helipads on cruise ships are almost never used for landing, and being on the bow, they are difficult to use for winching operations. The ship must continue to move, in order to remain as stable as possible, and so the helicopter is forced to make a "moving hover" (staying stationary over a moving spot) with the front of the ship in his face while backing away. For this reason, most winching is done from an upper deck, around midships. This presents problems as well, as the thermal updrafts from the ship's exhausts are near, and can cause problems with hovering. No commercial helicopter (certainly not a MediAir type) company trains for hovering over a moving ship, nor winching exercises, nor even landing on a moving ship (ship would still need to be moving to maintain a stable helipad), and no Captain would think of allowing a commercial helicopter anywhere near his ship. Some countries do outsource their SAR responsibilities to private companies (Holland for one, I think), but these are typically ex-military pilots who do train for these operations.

No more than you would with bringing a six pack of root beer. Go for the Dark and Stormy.

I don't think anyone disputes that the ship should not have been where it was, it would be interesting to see if the Sailing Directions and the Port Entry Guide for Kauaii have the information regarding the exclusion zone. Those would be the areas where the shipboard crew would learn about the zone, unless it is marked on the chart, which I don't think it would be, as it is not a federal requirement.

Staff Captain, who has to be a licensed Master, the same as the Captain.

Fuel quality issues are a large, and growing problem in the industry, but over the last 20 years or so, we've come up with ways to minimize the risk, but nothing in life is without risk.

The ISM model of safety management uses a "likelihood/consequence" matrix to make decisions on actions that are not automatically approved by the SMS. This is a matrix with "likelihood" on the vertical (how likely is the result of the action to happen), and "consequences" on the horizontal (what happens if the worst happens). So, for each action (say, running aground on the Na Pali coast), you assign a likelihood (rare to almost certain) and then a consequence (from insignificant to extreme) that may happen (if you do run aground). Crossing the likelihood with the consequence gives a risk assessment for the action, from low to extreme. Your actions should never be in the high or extreme risk areas, moderate is allowed with permissions and mediating methods, and low is best. You then think of the mediating actions that can moderate the risk (having bow thrusters running, going slowly, etc), and assign an effectiveness rating to these mediating actions, to determine how much risk there is after you've done all the mediation actions you think can help. So, long story long, yes it is a sliding scale of risk, and the risk assessment matrix allows you to find where the risk isn't acceptable anymore. Edge could have gone closer (baring any legal restriction) should the risk matrix allowed it (which would depend on things like weather, water depth, obstacles, etc) Actually, while the cruise ships may be maseratis, Navy vessels are the Corollas, and 95% of merchant ships are the "dump trucks". Most Navy vessels have multiple propellers and multiple rudders, while most merchant ships have one diesel engine bolted to a propeller shaft driving one propeller, and having one rudder. While Navy vessels most often use tugs, merchant ships (other than cruise ships) will always use them, as they are so unmaneuverable. When a merchant ship Captain transitions to cruise ships, it takes a few hours to become comfortable with the systems, and amount of maneuverability. In the "old days" he learned by doing it (docking the cruise ship under the Captain's supervision), but now simulators are so good that some ships even have one onboard for training/refreshing/casualty training. Again, not trying to marginalize the ex-Navy Captain's experience, but it is similar to someone who has a private pilot's license and learned on a single engine Cessna, comparing their comfort level to sitting in the flight deck of a 777.

Looking at some of the RCI "who's the Captain" threads, it seems he was Captain of Allure in 2020.

That depends on what you call a "fuel system problem". Each separate engine room has a separate low pressure fuel system, and each engine has a separate high pressure fuel system. So, mechanical failure in the "fuel system" does not mean that all engines will fail. You would have to have multiple mechanical failures. One problem I've heard questions about is fuel quality. Ships still use residual bunker fuel for the propulsion engine, but many use diesel fuel for the generators. But, even those that use residual in the generator engines, just about all will draw fuel for their various fuel systems from one tank, the "day tank" (so named because it will hold about 36 hours of fuel for all uses (propulsion and generation), and is filled daily from the storage tanks. Fuel from various locations around the world are not always "compatible" (meaning when you mix them together, bad things happen), and incompatible fuels can form long chain hydrocarbons that will clog fuel filters, stopping fuel flow to the engines. For this reason, fuel is typically loaded to empty storage tanks only (so no mixing there), and is sampled and the sample sent to a lab for analysis. Industry standard is to not use the newly bunkered fuel until the lab results come back, and the ship makes the determination of whether the new fuel and the old fuel are compatible. Residual fuel, and all fuel that has come via pipelines is dirty (rust flakes, sand, etc) so when fuel is needed from the storage tanks, it is transferred to the "settling tank", so named because it gives the contaminants time to settle out before going to the "day tank". When transferred from the settling tank to the day tank, it is filtered by sending it through a centrifuge (solids get flung to the outside and are discharged, fuel stays on the inside and is pumped to the day tank. Some fuels are "unstable", meaning that the "heavy phase" (bunker oil), and the "light phase" (the diesel fuel used to "cut" the bunker to the proper viscosity) are not really compatible, but only react when subjected to the high speeds/forces in the centrifuges. This can cause long wax strings to form in the fuel, also clogging fuel filters. So, incompatible fuels, and unstable fuels are a known problem in the maritime world (refineries will send you anything they can, just to get rid of it), so the use of sampling and testing, and fuel segregation measures will mediate the problem, but there is always the possibility of having it happen. I had it happen on a few ships. And, if this was the case on the Dali, it is very likely that the fuel taken on in Baltimore was not the cause, but the fuel taken on the previous time, which was just starting to be used while at the dock in Baltimore. Again, it is the swiss cheese model of accident causation. There are several slices of cheese (fuel testing, fuel segregation, fuel additives), that are mediation techniques, and each of them likely has a "hole" in the slice causing that method to fail (like mixing fuel in a tank), but if that hole lines up with solid cheese on the "fuel testing" slice, then there is no problem. It is only when all the "holes" (potential failure modes) line up together, that the failure has a way to get to the end, the casualty. Sorry for the long winded explanation.