chengkp75

Any Yankee worth his/her salt will gladly separate someone "from away" from their money.

Funny you should say that, as I live in coastal Maine. I also know year round residents of Bar Harbor, and I know the demographic of summer homes there. I also know first hand, the inflation of home prices over the last two years, due to demand from people wanting to move to Maine to work remotely.

That is not plausible at all. The bridge has books, tables, and electronics that will predict the state of tide every hour of every day for every port in the world.

And, as I responded in this thread: The SCOTUS has found that the constitution does not guarantee your right to a particular form of transportation, when traveling between states, let alone when traveling internationally, as you do on a cruise ship.

Tell that to the residents of Bar Harbor who have an average household income of $68,000.

Yes, we frequently do this to help train the special needs teams. However, were there thousands of these "role players", and would a crew member "acting" as a passenger have the same reactions as recalcitrant or frightened passengers?

While you were being herded by those crew you saw, other crew were following behind the passengers, to open, search, and mark all cabins as clear. While you are standing in your muster station, those crew are continuing their emergency duties, but you don't see them, because you are collected in controlled, accountable locations, which is the purpose of the drill. But, as for crowd control, you can say "direct people in this direction", but it doesn't provide any training in what to do when a recalcitrant pax (during a drill, which translates to a frightened pax during an emergency) doesn't follow those procedures. As for the additional crew you do see during the weekly crew drills, during an actual emergency, these crew would also be there for the passenger muster. As noted, the "passenger muster" signal is actually the "fire and general emergency" signal, so when it sounds for real, all crew report to their emergency stations, not just the ones you see during the passenger muster drill. During that drill, only the crew needed to "herd the cats" are used, so that the ship's operation can continue (sending baggage to cabins, making meals, etc).

And which of these drills show the crew how to handle thousands of passengers heading for their muster stations? This is the true failure of the new system, any realistic training in crowd control.

I hope you are right, but given our history in the maritime field, it will likely take a disaster to make it happen.

The safety briefing is fluff. The only thing required in this video is how to don the lifejacket. And this was done in a video format before the new muster procedure, when they stopped having guests take the jackets to drill. As I said above, the major thing about muster drill is to see how to get to your station while in a milling herd of cats, and to show up, shut up, listen up.

It's been a while since I looked at any videos of the Concordia, but based on the official Italian report, the crew did a good job. Perhaps some of what you consider panic on the part of crew, was them actually following orders to send passengers away from muster stations. This was caused by a lack of leadership from the top. The muster signal should have been sounded over an hour before the first boats were launched, when the Captain knew the ship was sinking. Secondly, what passengers think is the "abandon ship" signal (passenger muster), is actually the "fire and general emergency" signal, and even after the passengers are mustered in this form, and even in the eventuality of boarding the boats and leaving the ship, the vast majority of the crew do not leave the ship. They are still at emergency stations, dealing with the emergency. Only after the passengers are away, and the Captain feels there is no hope for the ship, will he sound "abandon ship", which releases the crew from their emergency duties to proceed to their abandon ship stations. What happened on the Concordia, was that no signal for passenger muster was every sounded, and the first announcement made was "abandon ship" releasing crew to abandon while the passengers were still trying to evacuate.

Their training tells them to expect a confused, frightened "herd of cats", and they need to be calm and firm and guide the passengers to do what they are supposed to do. Under the new muster system, they have removed any training in dealing with crowds by the crew, so performance will definitely suffer. Not sure what you are asking about "how are things supposed to go beyond the part passengers see". But, I'll add some comments. During the passenger muster, the passengers see the about 75% of crew who are assigned to guide passengers to muster and to control the muster stations. The remainder of the crew will be at their emergency stations dealing with the emergency, as fire teams, technical teams, medical teams, security teams, etc. There will also be crew who are readying the lifeboats for use, even if the Captain never intends to use them, so they will all be lowered to the deck, ready for loading. Special needs teams will be sent out to assist those with disabilities, first to find them, assist them to their station, and then stand by should they need to be moved to the boats. Crew follow behind the passengers, opening and searching every cabin, and sweeping and searching every public space, until everyone is accounted for. That is the purpose of the passenger muster, to account for every passenger, not to get into the boat. As I've noted regarding the Star Princess fire, the passengers were kept at their muster stations for many hours, even though the Captain had very little thought that the ship would need to be abandoned. There are crew members whose assigned duty is to "assist as directed", and stand by until another team leader requests these crew to bring supplies (water, blankets) to the passenger muster stations, to assist with crowd control, or to assist with the emergency teams. A "fire and general emergency drill", of which the passenger muster is only a part, is a huge, finely choreographed operation that involves the entire crew. Taking out the passenger muster part, as the new system does, severely degrades the training effectiveness. This is true, and every first responder, everywhere, will agree wholeheartedly with this. In an emergency, will passengers forget what they are to do? Sure, but just as firefighters train daily over the same thing, the more you actually do something, the more "muscle memory" takes over, and conscious thought is not required. And, doing it while thousands of others are doing it as well, is far better training than simply sauntering, on your own schedule, to muster, a few at a time. And, really, there are three things passengers need to take away from the muster drill: show up, shut up, listen up.

The chaos that would be from the new muster drill, would be that passengers would not have the experience of walking to their muster stations with everyone else onboard, not just sauntering down when you feel like it. Also, the chaos of the new drill will be caused by the lack of training of the crew in actually handling hordes of unruly and unwilling guests (during the drill), that would translate to frightened passengers during the actual emergency. The old method has been tried and found to be the best, over decades of use. And, standing there, packed and sweating like sardines, may give some guests a bit of humility for the people who are performing duties to save their lives. Those crew train to save you, without pay, the least you could afford them is a half hour of your precious vacation.

Fortunately, the maritime safety experts at the IMO are not real interested in popularity with cruise passengers. How would you expect a real emergency muster to look like? Real curious, as I have read the reports of the Prinsendam sinking and the Star Princess fires, so I know how real emergencies unfold.

It was not the USCG, it was the IMO that allowed the change, and I've been hoping that it would change back. Just the fact that the poster in your link mentioned that only one member of the party had to go find the muster station is one of the major flaws in this system.

If there was more competition, each company's market share would be less, R&D and general overhead would be more, and the overall cost of each unit would go up. A lot. This is a very small market. This is mere hyperbole. There is nothing that made the ships unsafe for those 3000 souls, except the cruise lines' decisions to continue to operate when a unit was showing signs of deterioration (and there are plenty of warning signs). There was no negligence proven in this court case. And, I don't care whether it is a billion dollar company or the mom and pop store on the corner, they will always pass cost on to the customer.

The main delay determinate is whether the crew show sufficient knowledge, skill, and conviction during the crew fire and boat drill. At any time, the USCG inspectors can stop the drill, and have it restarted from the beginning, perhaps with a different scenario.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the law still covers most of the ports in Florida (many that don't deal with cruise ships), not just Key West. And, of course, the major ports were fine with the new law that didn't apply to them, just follow the money. They didn't "cave", they accepted the exemptions as their "right", as major players, not some podunk little port.

Just like any municipality within a state, the town of Bar Harbor does receive funding from the state, for specific purposes. The land where the pier is, and the pier itself are owned by the town. While not knowing Florida's constitution intimately, I have argued that the bill the legislature passed there is likely not constitutional for a variety of reasons.

If they prove fault by ABB. These ships all have the newer XO pods, so not sure that this is the problem these ships are experiencing. Not sure that Carnival is following manufacturer's planned maintenance. Not sure, even if they are all azipod related.

The flaw in your argument is that you are comparing domestic interstate travel with international travel. Once you have boarded a foreign flag cruise ship, this is no longer domestic travel. And, if you read down the link you posted, it notes that Crandall v Nevada does not guarantee the right to a particular mode of transportation, when transiting between states.

Well, for one thing, the infinite rooms are designed to not only shut off the AC recirculation system in that cabin, but also the fresh air supply to that cabin, which does not happen when you leave a balcony door open for extended time. This affects the fresh air supply to whole banks of cabins, and affects those cabin's ability to maintain temperature. Balcony doors are not designed to be kept open.

I doubt it.

Even on the Celebrity ships, the door is more of a tri-fold door that does not seal the cabin from the "balcony", and the AC is turned off when the window is open.

Okay, here's a mariner's take on this. The gangway had a load limit on it, every gangway does. Whether that was the 2 person limit or not, I can't say from this distance. One thing I do note is that the gangway being in two joined sections creates a weak spot in any unsupported span, and may be why if each section had a higher capacity, they limited it to 2 persons. It appears that an operational decision was made on the second day to increase the capacity of the gangway, and for this the Captain holds complete and ultimate responsibility, and should be reprimanded for his lack of attention to the passengers' safety, as I am sure this gangway was not approved under the company's ISM (International Safety Management) plan, and therefore should not have been allowed, but other ways of handling passenger disembarking should have been worked out. In line with this, from the photos, it would have made sense to me that the passenger gangway should have been moved to the crew gangway location, one deck lower and just aft, and used the ship's gangway. There is another sideport just forward of the broken gangway, on deck 4 (I think), that is a storing port, and could have easily been used for the crew gangway. Would this have required moving security equipment and possibly requiring more personnel to handle security, sure, but it would have worked, and been safer from the start, and even after the slow and reportedly "wobbly" initial disembarkation, this should have been investigated as a better alternative. Blame for this (and the ISM doesn't like to assign blame) rests squarely with the ship's Captain.