chengkp75

And, for those commenting on how accurate ship's equipment is, remember that maritime GPS, depending on satellite coverage at the location, is only accurate within about 15-25 meters (50-80 feet), 95% of the time.

Correct, these are not pilotage waters. When I worked for NCL, we used to stop on the Big Island's south shore to view the lava flow into the ocean, but never got closer than half a mile (3000 feet), and our time to stop and spin was limited due to the high water temperature causing the engines to overheat. We were in deep water, though.

This is precisely why a root cause investigation does not assign any blame, or suspicion of blame. It is found that when participants know that there will be no blame assigned, they are more likely to give truthful recounting of the facts of the incident. As I said, the "root cause" or "ISM" culture is designed to fix the problem, by making it almost impossible to have the same incident happen again. 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.

This is known as the "swiss cheese" model of accident causation. While there may be a lot of "holes" (wrong decisions or actions) in the "cheese" (the ship's operations), only if all the holes line up (contribute to one another) do you have a straight path to the disastrous result.

Okay, whole lot to unpack here, so I'll open this thread twice to try to answer things in order. Apologies for not listed answers by username. Lazy. Post #9: Yes, a passage plan must be made, and submitted to corporate showing the ships exact, planned routing, but this is typically done for just a couple of ports ahead of time, as the time from each port to the next is a separate "passage". Not to have found the note on the chart regarding the protection zone (and if it's not on the chart it is in the "notice to mariners" or sailing directions publications) is a failure from the navigating officer (who prepares the passage plan) to the Marine Superintendent ashore who reviews it, though the vast amount of responsibility lies with the onboard staff: Navigating Officer, First Officer, Staff Captain, Captain. #16: I see, from a professional mariner's viewpoint, the very close correlation between the Costa Concordia and this incident. Both were dangerous, and both were "uncalled for" PR stunts. One went horribly bad, one got lucky. #18: I don't know the chart, but it likely was not delineated on the chart, but was noted in fine print in the title corner of the chart, and was likely overlooked. Still no excuse. #24: You are correct. The investigation will almost certainly be of an ISM (International Safety Management Code) type, where the assigning of "blame" is not considered, but the finding of the root cause of the incident is of primary importance, so that policies and procedures can be amended to prevent it from happening again. For all those calling for, or speculating on, the Captain being relieved because of this, again, that is not what an ISM investigation does. Almost regardless of the outcome of any incident, if the Captain, or any officer or crew, are found to have followed the company's SMS (Safety Management System, that is created by the ISM) policies and procedures, however flawed those turn out to be, then no blame is assigned against him. The only time a Captain would come under censure would be if he failed to follow the SMS policies and procedures. Even in the case of the RCI Captain on Anthem (I believe) that is mentioned here, was found to not have violated SMS procedures, and is not an ex-Captain, he was however, relieved for PR reasons, to be reassigned later. #45: This is perhaps the most disturbing part of this thread. If the Captain took this light-hearted approach to this incident, that is indeed worrisome. #52: While the Captain may not have started the cruise, apparently weeks before, it is his responsibility to review the passage plan, prior to each passage (i.e. before the ship left port to sail to the Na Pali coast) with the bridge team. #58: What is the date on the NOAA chart? NOAA has started phasing out printing paper charts, back in 2021, so not sure when that chart was last published. Navigating officers spend most of their days taking the "Notice to Mariners" updates and making corrections to the paper charts, and then noting on the chart the last date it was updated. Various posters: If the depth was as reported in this thread (no confirmation), then there was sufficient under keel clearance, but as others have noted, things change in the ocean. One important note that is always on a chart, is the last date the area was surveyed, meaning the depths could change wildly (I've seen charts that casually mention that the area has not been surveyed (sonar mapping) in over 50 years). #76: No one said they drove the ship at high speed into shallow water. Just the fact they are shown using bow thrusters, shows the ship was stopped, or nearly so, as thrusters lose effectiveness above 3-5 knots. Depths do change over time, and even when charted, the bottom profile is not a continuous map, but a series of data points that is extrapolated (educated guess) between. As for depth sounder alarms, typically these are set for the minimum under keel clearance set forth by the company's SMS (for a ship this size, likely 2 meters) #99: By "rare and expensive" equipment that sees the depth ahead of the ship, I'm assuming you mean side scan sonar? Because that is the only technology that does this, and I can assure you that even your highly regarded Edge does not have this. I'm bothered that this happened in the first place, as the damage that can be done by a ship in shallow water to delicate underwater ecosystems is great (though this instance is probably less destructive than anchoring), but hope that this leads to changes in Celebrity's SMS to prevent it happening again. I am also bothered by the Captain's lack of contriteness in discussing the incident, and apparent lack of concern for the why of the violation. That may, in the end, get him into more trouble with Celebrity than the actual violation.

From your lips to the IMO's ear. 🤞

The operative word is was. But because of his actions that night, he has had his license revoked, and because of those actions, I have no professional respect for him, and will not refer to him as a Captain in any reference from the time of the accident onwards.

No, if you read the report, you find that the investigators found that the crew in general, did very well, with the information and direction they were given. You will note that all of the "should haves" you quote are attributable to one person, the Captain. Crew cannot go willy nilly making decisions about sending passengers to muster, getting boats ready to launch, loading boats, etc. That is chaos. Like it or not, a ship is a hierarchical operation, and things have to come from the top down, but this didn't happen on the Concordia that night.

As I said, it was a violation, but MSC and the various commands that the cargo belonged to insisted that we could transport it. Some of the MSC operated ships are US built so they are coastwise compliant, but many are not, and they don't understand the difference.

Andy would know better than I, but I don't see anything in these links that suggests that the foreign seafarers are allowed in cabotage trade. I know that US flag ships are not necessarily compliant for Jones Act/PVSA trade, as many of even the US government owned and operated US flag ships are not Jones Act compliant. I served on one foreign built, US flag ship that was under charter to Military Sealift Command, and that was constantly being asked to carry military cargo from one US port to another, and we had to repeatedly deny this use, as we had been fined once for doing so. I believe there are Canadian flag vessels, as well, that are not coastwise compliant.

Just shy of $4 million to eliminate a competitor, about what I expected. Wonder if the Empress will follow.

I'm not sure what union represents the unlicensed crew on the Staten Island ferry, but the licensed officers are represented by MEBA, one of two maritime officer unions. I would be surprised if the unlicense crew are not represented by the SIU (Seafarers International Union, as these two unions typically require the company to contract with both unions), but you can be an employee of a company (or city) and a member of a different union than other government employees (like government employees union and teachers union). But, this is far afield from the OP's question.

Yes, but it is possible for someone in a supervisory position, especially on a ship, to have never faced a true at sea emergency. Many mariners go their entire career without an emergency, just as many law enforcement officers go their entire career without drawing their firearm. Is it the norm? No, but not unheard of either.

All licensed officers have to be US citizens. Unlicensed crew have to be 75% citizens, and 25% green card (resident alien, so taxpaying) holders. Only NCL has an exemption to allow NRAC (non-resident alien crew) to serve on US flag ships, and those have to be part of the 25% of unlicensed crew. The NRAC's have to be paid US wages, pay US Social Security tax, US income tax, and have other requirements, like having worked for NCL for 10 years prior, and NCL obtaining a work visa for them.

And, none of the ship's crews on the Staten Island ferry are government employees. They are members of the maritime unions. And, yes, the Staten Island ferry is free, so that can be an outlier. How many government run entities have been privatized in the last couple of decades?

I've known firefighters and EMT's that fold up at the first actual emergency, but let's face it, their careers are typically very short then. I don't recall whether or not Schettino was found to be drinking, but I don't believe he was breathalyzed. Merely incredibly poor judgement, but then again, the actual allision would not have proved fatal (to the ship, yes, to the passengers and crew, no) had he acted accordingly afterwards. Even his claims of "steering" the ship back to ground on Giglio are false. You don't "steer" a ship with no propulsion, let alone power. And the forensic engineering shows that had the ship not drifted back to Giglio and grounded, it would have taken significantly longer to sink, and would have done so upright, if down by the stern. What caused the ship to roll over was the second grounding at Giglio, where, as the ship continued to fill with water, the port side was grounded and could not sink any further, so the water filled the starboard side, causing the ship to roll over. You'll note that Concordia was laying on her starboard side, while the tear in the hull was on the port side, and eventually up in the air, above water level.

And, how have the maritime unions done with maintaining a US flag foreign-going fleet? Why are the vast majority of USNS ships (Marad owned and operated for logistical support of the DOD) foreign built? Maritime labor has very little clout in the US. And the bad optics would be offset by the optics of saying "we cut the cost to operate these ferries by 75%, there will be fare decreases or no fare increases for the foreseeable future" And, if the competitors, like Circle Line, and all the water taxis in NYC were to go foreign flag, and then offer services competing with the Staten Island ferry, demand would drop, revenue would drop, subsidy would increase, and the politicians would say "let's privatize it", and let it go..

No idea. Lots of the muslim crew would not want to partake. The tips are usually very good on these cruises, so I don't think there would be a shortage.

While you may be right about government agencies not going to foreign flag (though what would be the incentive to incur far higher operating costs by retaining US flag?), there are 190 private ferry operators in the US that would be likely to avail themselves of foreign flag. Wouldn't any government agency avail itself of cost reductions if they were legal? Who even looks to see what flag the Staten Island ferry is flying, or the port of registry? Alaska Marine Highway (I misidentified), is having huge problems keeping vessels operating, and crewing them, and are cutting back on services, some of which are essential to rural areas in Alaska. What would be the holdback to foreign flagging these vessels if the PVSA was no longer in force?

One of the most damning things I've found about the Concordia, were recordings from Schettino's girlfriend's phone, and the bridge voice recorder. On them, Schettino is informed by the senior engineer on scene that there are three engine room compartments flooding (there were actually 4). Schettino then says, "are you sure it's three compartments", and comments that if it were only two, the ship could stay afloat, but if it were three, the ship would definitely sink. All modern cruise ships are "two compartment" ships, meaning that two adjacent watertight compartments can completely flood, and the ship will remain afloat, but that if more than two flood, there is nothing that can be done to keep the ship afloat. So, Schettino acknowledges that he knows this, and is informed repeatedly that it is three compartments, and he does nothing. Had he signaled for passenger muster at that time (within minutes of striking the rock), passengers would have been accounted for, and standing by the boats, and they could have all been launched while the ship was upright, as she did not start to list beyond the ability of the lifeboats to launch (15* list) for at least an hour after the allision.

Crew are given the option of remaining on for the nude cruise, or transferring to another ship.

Further to the OP's question, if the PVSA were repealed, then virtually every passenger vessel operator in the US, like the NYC Circle Line ferry, Staten Island ferry, Washington State Marine Highway, San Francisco Bay ferry, all the way down to the small car ferries operating on Galveston Bay, would reflag to Panama, hire Panamanian crew, and stop paying corporate tax to the US. And, that would just be one branch of the industry that would do this, all the types of vessels I mentioned above would do the same.

The US Maritime Administration, which is tasked with supporting US flag shipping, has published what is actually damning evidence against US flag ships, stating that it costs 3 times as much to operate a US flag ship over a ship with a flag of convenience. Of that higher total cost, crew cost is almost 5 times higher for US crew over foreign crew. And, this is for a cargo ship where the crew is about 20, so you can imagine how expensive a US cruise ship crew would be when it numbers in the thousands. And, in addition to the point this poster makes about the cost of the items manufactured overseas, remember that that item was shipped from overseas, as 80% of the world's economy is shipped by sea, and all on foreign flag ships. Imagine if every ship in the world was required to pay US wages to their seafarers.

Okay, let's first get through a few historical misconceptions that sites like Wiki present regarding the PVSA and Jones Act. While I understand that the Jones Act is not the focus of the OP's question, let me answer the last poster on it. The Jones Act was sponsored by the Senator of that name from Washington state, and was because the Seattle shipowners saw the lucrative Alaska gold rush traffic moving to base out of Canada. So, it had nothing to do with US shipbuilding, or US crews, but everything to do with who owned the ships and docks. It has protected the US by requiring that all domestic US waterborne traffic be US flag, so that it falls under the jurisdiction of the USCG and their far stricter regulations on safety, training, documentation, etc, than foreign ships. And, the Jones Act fleet today includes all tug/barge traffic on US rivers and in US harbors. Now, to the PVSA. The first point to be made is that the Act is the "Passenger" Vessel Services Act, not the "Cruise" vessel act. This is important, since under maritime law, a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire. So, the regulations of the PVSA not only cover cruise ships with thousands of passengers, but also every single ferry boat, commuter boat, water taxi, dinner cruise, casino boat, tour boats like NYC's Circle Line, whale watching boats, and even larger charter fishing boats, as well as several smaller US flag cruise vessels. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of US jobs, held by US citizens, paying US taxes that are supported by the PVSA US flag passenger vessel fleet, and hundreds of millions of dollars put into the US economy by the fleet. Both the Jones Act and the PVSA apply only to domestic transportation (within the US) and not international transportation (from one country to another). Now, as to why the PVSA was passed into law, lets say that the claim it was to protect US shipbuilding is false, since the types of vessels being regulated by the Act, at the time, were paddlewheel steam boats on US rivers and harbors, and not ships that would safely be built overseas and steamed across oceans to the US. As to the claim that it was passed to protect US maritime labor, this is also false, as organized maritime labor was in its infancy at the time, the first US maritime labor union having been formed on the Great Lakes only 11 years before the PVSA passed, and the unions had no political clout. So, why was the PVSA passed? Safety. In the mid 1800's, many steamboats were catching fire or having boiler explosions, killing thousands of passengers yearly. Congress passed the Steamboat Act of 1838, followed by the Steamboat Act of 1852. While both of these acts required increasing safety features (hydrostatic testing of boilers, licensing of pilots and engineers on steamboats), there was no enforcement mechanism. So, the Steamboat Act of 1871 created the Steamboat Inspection Service, the ancestor of today's USCG Marine Inspection Service, which inspects not only US flag, but all foreign flag vessels that call at US ports for safety and environmental compliance. The SIS enforced the provisions of the various Steamboat Acts, and this, of course, drove up the building and operating costs to the steamboat owners. In retaliation, the steamboat owners started to reflag their vessels, that never left US waters, to various foreign nations, so they would not be subject to the SIS and the Steamboat Acts. The PVSA was the answer to this, requiring that all domestic passenger vessels be US owned, US built, US crewed, and US flagged. Therefore, they were forced to be subject to US safety laws. To this day, the USCG administers safety, training, and documentation regulations that are far stricter for US flag vessels, than it can for foreign flag vessels. International maritime conventions, like SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, MLC, and others that nations sign on to agree to (and the US has signed on to most), require two things: one, that the country pass the wording of the international convention into law in that country, and two, that the country cannot enforce any stricter laws on vessels of other nations, but they can enforce stricter laws on vessels of their own flag. Take for example the training and documentation of a cabin steward on a cruise ship. On a foreign flag cruise ship, the USCG can only determine that the crew member has passed an STCW approved "Personal Safety and Social Responsibility" course (4 hours). All aspects of that crew member's duties in performing their assigned emergency duty are done onboard the ship. On foreign flag cruise ships, the only crew that have extensive emergency training at approved training centers, are the deck and engine crew and officers (who make up about 10% of the total crew. Conversely, on a US flag cruise ship, if a crew member has an assigned emergency station (so, the entire crew), they must have completed STCW Basic Training, at a USCG approved training center, which is a 40 hour course that includes hands on operation of lifeboats, and hands on firefighting. This additional training of course increases the cost for the cruise line to hire US personnel, but gives a much better trained crew. Now, why haven't the cruise lines lobbied for repeal of the PVSA? They did lobby for an exemption for transportation between Puerto Rico and the mainland US. That took over 10 years of lobbying to get passed, and only one cruise line ever started regular one way cruise itineraries between PR and the mainland, that lasted only about 2 years, and folded due to lack of passenger demand, yet it still remains on the books. The cruise lines know that in order to get a repeal of the PVSA, they will have to accept laws placing them further under various US laws (USCG inspection, US labor laws, US tax laws) that would adversely affect their bottom line more than doing away with the foreign port calls, or even the "distant" foreign port calls would gain them. CLIA has stated this publicly over the years.

It is a decision as to whether or not they want to dedicate man/hours to maintaining the equipment, and whether or not their insurance club wants the additional risk of the added laundry machines. It is a simple risk/reward calculation. It's just like the decision as to whether or not to have coffee makers in every cabin. Some lines do, some don't. Some lines have them on certain itineraries, and not others. Why? Because if the line provides the coffee makers, they have to inspect and test them on a regular basis, for safety, and this takes up a massive amount of man/hours. Does the reward of giving each passenger their own coffee maker outweigh the cost of the units and the time required to inspect/test them taken away from other maintenance tasks, perhaps on more important equipment? They do, but given the limited size of technical departments onboard, it becomes a question of where do we better utilize our resources.