Too Big to Sail? - NY Times

[capnpugwash]

I admit it, Capn, I'm spoilt! I only go to stylists who have been trained by the late great Vidal Sassoon. It was an Australian stylist, trained that way, who ruined me for any other style of cutting, back when I was young. I can't even find a stylist in Oxford who suits me! Precision cutting is the game.

 

I have just booked the cruise. I emailed loads of friends and someone from the last cruise is the only one ready to abandon everything and take ship. She's 91 years old and ready for anything. We're still hoping we can persuade her niece to join us.

 

Excellent news, have a great time. I wouldn't trust them to cut mine either

[Cruise Liner Fan]

I admit it, Capn, I'm spoilt! I only go to stylists who have been trained by the late great Vidal Sassoon. It was an Australian stylist, trained that way, who ruined me for any other style of cutting, back when I was young. I can't even find a stylist in Oxford who suits me! Precision cutting is the game.

 

I have just booked the cruise. I emailed loads of friends and someone from the last cruise is the only one ready to abandon everything and take ship. She's 91 years old and ready for anything. We're still hoping we can persuade her niece to join us.

Diane, Enjoy your cruise :) Regards,Jerry

[fantasy51]

Thanks Capn and Jerry. Now reality is hitting me! So much to organise! However, I've counted out all the pills and I've started on the Christmas cards. I've worked out the transportation. It will all work!

[Salacia]

TV interview with a former CCL employee...

 

 

"Are large cruise ships safe?

 

November 2, 2013 5:23 AM

 

Safety experts are concerned over the safety of large cruise ships that have grown to unprecedented sizes. Jay Herring, a former Carnival Line senior officer and the author of "The Truth About Cruise Ships," joins "CBS This Morning: Saturday" with more on their safety regulations."

 

Here's the link http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50158373n

[Pitaro]

I have a brief read of the responses in this thread, so forgive me if I have missed something. I work for the aviation safety regulator in Australia, so on a daily basis I have exposure to safety issues in general and aircraft (airplane for US readers) certification issues. As a point of comparison, cabin crew receive regular testing and assessment of their competence - they are not on the aircraft to serve passengers, they are there to get them out of the aircraft as quickly as possibly in an emergency - their presence on board the aircraft is a legislative requirement - if you left it to the airline, there would be half as many cabin crew, so the lesson there is don't trust anyone who is operating aircraft or cruise ships for profit - unless there is a legislative requirement to do something, they will only do the bare minimum.

 

One of the criteria for transport category aircraft certification is that ALL passengers must be evacuated from the emergency exits on only ONE side of the aircraft in 90 SECONDS. In the light of the Costa Concordia accident, perhaps ship designers and the regulators of marine safety should be looking at similar standard.

 

Further, the crew that either fly the aircraft or work in the cabin have usually been doing the same job for years and have been subject to as many as four assessments of their competency each year. From what I have heard about the cruising industry, this is extremely unlikely to be the case. Perhaps deck crew have some measure of experience, however I doubt that the service staff would be as experienced. The working hours alone would preclude most crew from being at the top of their game should an emergency occur.

 

My thoughts are that when I travel on a cruise the best course of action is to make my own investigations, listen to what the briefings contain and then if worst happens, look after myself, because to expect the crew to do so would be folly.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Cruise Critic Forums mobile app

[glojo]

TV interview with a former CCL employee...

 

 

"Are large cruise ships safe?

 

November 2, 2013 5:23 AM

 

Safety experts are concerned over the safety of large cruise ships that have grown to unprecedented sizes. Jay Herring, a former Carnival Line senior officer and the author of "The Truth About Cruise Ships," joins "CBS This Morning: Saturday" with more on their safety regulations."

 

Here's the link http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50158373n

Hi Salacia,

I'm not sure that person said anything that was really informative or did I miss something?

 

My thinking aloud and voicing yet more queries

I would like to think that modern cruise ships have to comply with very strict fire regulations?

 

I would like to think that modern ships are not allowed to use combustible materials in their construction unless absolutely necessary? (by this I am talking about furniture, furnishings and fixtures)

 

I would like to think that these modern ships have state of the art fire sprinkler systems and of course fire repressive systems in vulnerable areas?

 

I would also like to think there is a secondary fire main system throughout the ship?

 

whilst these ships are now far bigger, are they also far safer, especially the very latest vessel that have this emergency power capability to get back to port? Hopefully this might be considered when the QM2 goes in for an extended refit?

 

I would also like to think these huge monsters are far safer than anything that went before them?

 

I would personally love the chance to get onto the bridge and hear about the latest 21st century technology that these ships use to operate.

 

But no I am not a fan of them :eek:;) (but DEFINITELY NOT from a safety point of view)

[SeaFlint]

This discussion whilst interesting is academic because as has been stated the drills are merely that, they aren't and cannot be taken through to finality on the high seas. In ports some of the drills do involve actually launching some lifeboat(s) because they are in sheltered waters. Clearly it isn't a total reconstruction of what would happen in heavy seas in the dark with the ship leaning over, but it is probably the best that one can hope for. Safety is rightly a concern but there are always things in life that if circumstances conspire will imperil people's safety. As someone once said “Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” If you're not happy to accept any risks in life you may not live any longer than others but it will certainly feel like you have.

 

Going to sea is dangerous. And you can do as much as you'd like to offset that. It will still be dangerous. Same goes for flying, and driving a car and, oh, life. :-)

[Salacia]

Going to sea is dangerous. And you can do as much as you'd like to offset that. It will still be dangerous. Same goes for flying, and driving a car and, oh, life. :-)

 

Yes, living is dangerous, and it always has the same end result.

 

Nevertheless, I believe that safety improvements can and should be made on cruise ships, just as they have been made in other modes of transportation as part of a continuing process.

 

In the past 5 years, I've taken 15 cruises. I'm a CCL stockholder. Family members and friends also take cruises. My interest in improved safety is not only for those personal concerns, but also for those millions of other passengers and crew members that I haven't yet met.

 

As was previously mentioned: if paying passengers aren't concerned, what impetus is there for the cruise industry to focus on safety rather than building bigger ships with little or no chance of safely evacuating passengers? Or cutting costs so close to the bone on even smaller ships that safety is endangered?

 

If not us, who? If not now, when?

 

<end of rant>

 

Salacia

Edited November 5, 2013 by Salacia

[QM1]

And that's as it should be. Given a choice between being on QM2 when she suffered engine failure in the Med and being on board a 747 when it suffered engine failure at 30,000 feet, I know which I would prefer. :)J

 

Sure, I´d choose the QM2, but if in the air you should be happy to be in a 747 when you´re experiencing engine failure. That plane still got 3 engines in such case. I´d be much more worried to be aboard a one-engined 777 over the ocean! I´m always choosing 4-engined planes on long flights. They say that 777s are safe with two engines, but that are only people who dont remember the Titanic!

[capnpugwash]

Sure, I´d choose the QM2, but if in the air you should be happy to be in a 747 when you´re experiencing engine failure. That plane still got 3 engines in such case. I´d be much more worried to be aboard a one-engined 777 over the ocean! I´m always choosing 4-engined planes on long flights. They say that 777s are safe with two engines, but that are only people who dont remember the Titanic!

 

Didn't Titanic sink because of a slight collision with an iceberg? Or have we been misled all these years into thinking that, when the true cause was engine failure!

[QM1]

QM2 is as large a ship I will ever sail on. Regardless of safety assurances, anything bigger is too big for me.

 

I tend to agree with that. The QM2 has a perfect size/passenger/crew ratio. Two times as much passengers on a ship only 30% bigger doesnt sound like something I would like to experience. Beside safety concerns its also way to anonymous.

 

That said, any airplane needs to pass evacuation tests, and the biggest of them all, the A380, was evacuated in 1 minute 18 seconds before it was certified. We are talking about close to 900 people who left the plane in that short time. I wonder how they test evacuation procedures on cruise ships. And how realistic these methods are.

[QM1]

Didn't Titanic sink because of a slight collision with an iceberg? Or have we been misled all these years into thinking that, when the true cause was engine failure!

 

You misread my post somewhat. I didnt mention the Titanic because of an engine failure scenario, I mentioned it because it was said it was damn safe due to the latest technology overall. Thats where the parallel is.

[capnpugwash]

You misread my post somewhat. I didnt mention the Titanic because of an engine failure scenario, I mentioned it because it was said it was damn safe due to the latest technology overall. Thats where the parallel is.

 

Sorry, when you said "They say that 777s are safe with two engines, but that are only people who dont remember the Titanic!" I wrongly assumed that you were discussing engines; it is so much clearer now. :eek:

[Austcruiser84]

You misread my post somewhat. I didnt mention the Titanic because of an engine failure scenario, I mentioned it because it was said it was damn safe due to the latest technology overall. Thats where the parallel is.

 

It's worth mentioning that Titanic was considered too big by many people. In fact, her maiden voyage was very under booked and it was only due to a recent coal strike that many people ended up sailing on her.

 

As she left Southampton the Titanic nearly collided with the SS New York, which was pulled from its moorings due to the suction created by the Tiantic's huge propellers.

 

In a cruel twist of fate, the fact Titanic didn't collide meant that she went on to hit the iceberg that sank her.

 

But her size was advantageous in some ways. She took a while to sink, which allowed more people to evacuate. Sadly, overconfidence in the size of the ship meant so many early lifeboats were launched less than half full.

[joysav]

If Concordia had not drifted back onto Giglio Island, it would have gone to the bottom and I fear the casualty list would have been much more.

 

From the 2 Documentaries I have seen she was probably going to roll over :eek:

[joysav]

In regards to Plane Safety

 

Aeroplanes Are Brilliantly Engineered So That Almost No One Dies In A Crash

 

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-so-many-people-survive-plane-crashes-2013-7