chengkp75

It's actually a 215mm radius circle, or 16.9" width.

It's actually 87.5 kg or 192.5 lbs.

I'm kinda assuming that the two cases were in the same cabin, so if it was contracted on the ship, it was likely from one shower head.

Royal Caribbean had a ship with Legionnaire's about 4 years ago. It really isn't something that only happens on older ships.

This would have to be a cruise that begins in Vancouver, Canada, and ends in Hawaii. However, these tend to be repositioning cruises, so the Vancouver-Hawaii are September, while the Hawaii to Vancouver ones are April.

I know when I was with NCL, that we had to turn off all the air jets on the hot tubs, since the hot tub temperature is the prime breeding temperature for Legionnaire's, and then you purposely aerosolized it. I think they have allowed using the air jets again. The other common area for Legionnaire's is a shower head, where there is always a little water still in the head when shut off, and this mixes with the air, and the bacteria grows, and then is transmitted by the shower spray. For this reason, the shower heads have to be taken off every 6 months and soaked in a sanitizing solution. With a report of Legionnaire's from a passenger, they will start testing various water sources around the ship (mostly the shower heads of the affected passengers' cabins), to see if it indeed did come from the ship, and whether mitigation methods have removed it. Ship's water is tested monthly, both from storage tanks, and also 6 random locations around the ship (like sinks, showers, galleys, laundry), but a mitigation testing would test far more locations.

Not sure what services the spa offers, but it must include aerosolized water, like a shower, to have any possibility of being a Legionnaire's source.

The bathroom razor outlet is limited to 40 milliamps, or about 5 watts. Check your waterpik or toothbrush fine print.

Most likely because nothing was reported during the cruise, and it wasn't diagnosed for a while afterwards (by the person's PCP). Then, they had to test to see if the Legionnaire's was caused by the ship or not (testing hot tubs and shower heads).

The lifeboats have a total capacity of 7392, while the maximum passenger capacity is 6631. Then there are life rafts with a capacity of 3672 for only 1735 crew. So, while she is required to have 125% life saving capacity, she has 132%.

I've seen reports of some who had them work, and some who didn't. It is not ship specific, it is what is happening on the ship at the time that determines.

Are you asking about the OP's cruise or cruisingsister's cruise? I was questioning whether cruisingsister's cruise was the Panama Canal, because that is the only place that I know requires port fees in advance with no refund, though Suez may be the same, it's been a few years since I transited Suez. As for the OP's cruise, this would most likely have resulted in a 24 hour delay from time the ship estimated arrival after delaying in Costa Rica, as getting a daylight priority slot would have meant bumping lower priority ships. Container ships are just about as high priority as cruise ships, they pay a premium for a guaranteed slot, but they will take night transits just as well, and pay about the same as a cruise ship. Tankers and bulkers are the lowest priority (especially in ballast ones), so the first to get bumped.

Yes, the doors are metal, no you cannot decorate them. This article from CC back in 2019, has quotes from NCL spokesperson: https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/4373/

Unless this was for the Panama Canal, this explanation is not correct. No ship pays port fees prior to entering the port, with the exception of the Canal, where the deposit is needed 24 hours in advance.

The only fines are for violations of US or Canadian cabotage laws. The US fine is $769, the Canadian fine can be up to $5000 Cdn. However, Canada is not on the itinerary, and since the person would be getting on in a US port, but getting off in a foreign port, the US cabotage law does not apply. The ship cannot stop anyone from disembarking, but the person would be liable for illegal entry into Mexico, since he was only cleared for an "in transit" visa for the cruise ship, not a tourist entry into Mexico. They can, however, delay and argue with the passenger while they notify the local immigration officials. If there is unpaid amount on the onboard account, they can place an "innkeeper's lien", which would prevent the person from taking any belongings (baggage, carry-on) off the ship until the bill was paid in full.

While you are correct that a new passenger manifest would be needed, there would be no fine involved, since the person is leaving at a foreign port.

But you must treat this movie as totally unrealistic, and totally inaccurate.

So, what were the "protocols" that needed to be put into place to ban smoking on balconies, that took Princess 6 years to implement? Their ship, their rules. As far as I know, there are no laws in Bermuda that restricts a business owner from designating non-smoking areas. In the aftermath of the report, the International Council of Cruise Lines, the MAIB, and the IMO all issued safety notices or notices of amendments to requirements, none of which recommended banning smoking on balconies, which if they thought it was a root cause of the fire, they would have said something about it. Instead, they are all focused on the structural fire protection of balconies, and the flammability of balcony furnishings. And, Princess, in addition to complying with the above safety requirements and recommendations, implemented additional operational and training actions regarding fires on balconies, but not one mention of smoking being the root cause is mentioned. Because smoking was not proved to be the cause, no action was taken against it. There is still no "rule" (i.e. any legal requirement that would require lengthy implementation) against smoking on balconies, it is a cruise line policy.

From the MAIB report (the horse's mouth) on the Star Princess: From the Synopsis: "It was probably caused by a discarded cigarette" From the Analysis: "it is considered that the most likely source of ignition was a discarded cigarette end." "the ignition of towelling material from Star Princess by a lighted cigarette end was not reproduced during the BRE tests" From the Conclusions: "probably ignited by a cigarette end" So, don't know what you've seen published, but the official report of the incident, as assisted by, and in concurrence with the USCG and US NTSB, uses very conditional language. Their findings were that in the absence of any other cause being detected, that a cigarette was likely the cause. That's like saying, "we know you're guilty, but there is no evidence at all to prove it".

And, upon what personal experience do you know that the crowd management would be significantly different in an emergency? Is this based on experience, knowledge of past emergencies, or merely a "feeling" ? Because I've stated a few examples up thread of real emergencies where the muster went much as the drill did. Why do your local firefighters train on a weekly basis (sometimes daily)? Why does the Navy train at damage control, and firefighting on a weekly basis? Why does the crew do a fire and boat drill weekly? Muscle memory. The more realistic training is, and the more it is repeated, the more the proper response becomes second nature and doesn't require conscious thought to do the right thing. How else do you train someone to run into a fire? How else do you train someone to disregard their own safety to help another person get to safety (what the crew do during a muster)? You question why the crew train so often, but then want the best trained crew possible, in case there is a real emergency. I did over 2000 drills over my career, and I was still learning on the last one.

This is moot, since the safety briefing does not have to be part of the in person muster. Actually, if you read SOLAS, it does not say that passengers are required to find their muster stations, it says they are to be mustered at their stations. Yes, it fulfills the legal requirement under the conditional approval of the e-muster. There is no data to show it provides superior training.

It is the passengers' responsibility to learn to work with, and obey the orders of the crew. Cause when there is an emergency, there will be orders, and some folks' feelings will obviously be hurt, based on the comments here.

To simulate what would happen in a real emergency. Remember a concept called "realistic training"? How can I answer that since I don't know the credentials of the person saying it, or the metrics on which they based it. From the article, it seems that they are also focused on the safety briefing being more "understood" in the e-muster format, and it improves the "passenger experience" (read this to be: more comfortable).

I'm sorry, little confused here. What farcical training are you talking about? The safety briefing you feel is so important? If you can do the safety briefing via video, your main complaint about the in person muster goes away. It reverts to realistic training for mustering, and you can stand there during the drill and listen to nothing.

It isn't that important, but you seem to think that it is the main training involved with the muster drill, and also the main complaint that it was not able to be seen/heard, so I pointed out that it is allowed to be done outside of the muster drill.