Man overboard detection technology

[ducklite]

Okay, did a little rough research:

 

Number of "overboards" from 2000-2013: 217 (source Cruise Junkie, not necessarily valid, but also includes falls in port, and "missing at sea"), so this works out to 16.7 per year.

 

Number of cruise passengers carried per year: 15,449,000 (source Market Watch, total of all passengers worldwide, including ferries, etc, which is similar to Cruise Junkie's reporting)(this is an average, it goes from 7m in 2000 to 23m in 2013)

 

So the ratio is 1:1,000,000 or 1 in a million.

 

So now the lines will do the math, since to them this is a dollars and cents issue, and determine whether it is cheaper to pay for the system, and pay for maintenance, every year, or have the possibility of a lawsuit every million passengers. Cold, but corporate truth.

 

Now, to the family of the millionth person who goes overboard, would having this technology, which could perhaps save their loved one, be worth it? Of course. Would it make any cruisers feel safer knowing it is there? Probably not, given the attention paid at muster drills. Is the corporate math cold hearted, and any reasonable person could not think of a reason not to install this? Yes. But the world is the world, and as I've said, until there is a famous person lost at sea, or some sort of world outcry over the number of people lost, there won't be any regulations, and there is virtually no one to lobby about it, as the IMO isn't an elected body.

 

Techie, I know you're pushing hard for this, but I'm just trying to be realistic about it. There are a lot of things out there that would be great to have, but will never see the light of day because of cost benefit.

 

Add in the crew and the numbers change to one in two million.

 

Now take away the ability to win any sort of lawsuit because the overboard was a suicide or the result of drunken escapades, and it's probably one in five or more million.

 

 

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[chengkp75]

Add in the crew and the numbers change to one in two million.

 

Now take away the ability to win any sort of lawsuit because the overboard was a suicide or the result of drunken escapades, and it's probably one in five or more million.

 

 

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

Not trying to pick an argument, but just to get the facts right:

 

The numbers I am quoting include crew going overboard, and are in gross numbers of passengers carried, not passenger miles or passenger days, so your assumption would be that there are 14 million crew members on the ships. That is not correct. If I go with a rough average of 283 ships (Cruise Market Watch), and 2500 crew per ship (generous), you have 700,000 crew. That changes the ratio from 1.08 per million to 1.03 per million.

 

And remember, its not about winning a court case, its about the cruise line settling out of court, which really has nothing to do with the merits of the case, or the cause of the death, and which happens far more frequently than a court case, particularly in a service industry.

 

We had a case where a passenger got drunk, and decided to slide down the curved bannister in the atrium. He broke the handrail, and managed to impale himself on one of the handrail brackets. This is a no brainer as far as whose at fault, right? He sued, and the company settled out of court.

 

I'm pretty much agreeing with you, but without knowing the cost of the system or its maintenance, you can't dismiss this out of hand.

[ducklite]

Not trying to pick an argument, but just to get the facts right:

 

The numbers I am quoting include crew going overboard, and are in gross numbers of passengers carried, not passenger miles or passenger days, so your assumption would be that there are 14 million crew members on the ships. That is not correct. If I go with a rough average of 283 ships (Cruise Market Watch), and 2500 crew per ship (generous), you have 700,000 crew. That changes the ratio from 1.08 per million to 1.03 per million.

 

And remember, its not about winning a court case, its about the cruise line settling out of court, which really has nothing to do with the merits of the case, or the cause of the death, and which happens far more frequently than a court case, particularly in a service industry.

 

We had a case where a passenger got drunk, and decided to slide down the curved bannister in the atrium. He broke the handrail, and managed to impale himself on one of the handrail brackets. This is a no brainer as far as whose at fault, right? He sued, and the company settled out of court.

 

I'm pretty much agreeing with you, but without knowing the cost of the system or its maintenance, you can't dismiss this out of hand.

 

I think to be accurate you need to go by total souls onboard per day x 365 days a year to get your ratio.

 

Bottom line, it's going to cost more than a handful of settlements.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[chouflour]

2. Has anyone a price on what these systems may cost?

 

I came across a number for Norwegian's new ships of ~$2 million per ship, but I can't find it again now.

 

My layperson concern would be about false positives and negatives more than the cost being passed along. I'd be more in favor of a beacon system (lightweight beacons that auto-activate on immersion) but the people most at risk of an overboard event are probably also the least likely to be wearing their beacon.

[chengkp75]

I think to be accurate you need to go by total souls onboard per day x 365 days a year to get your ratio.

 

Bottom line, it's going to cost more than a handful of settlements.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

Why? 16,156,000 is the total number of people onboard in a year (crew included). 16.7 is the number of people who go overboard in a year. That ratio gives you the number of overboards per passenger for a year. If you look at the total people onboard per day, and multiply by 365, you are counting each passenger 7 times (based on CMW's figures for 2013 of 20.9m passengers on ships with a capacity of 438,595, this means the average voyage is 7.6 days). Do you think that a person on a 7 day cruise is 7 times as likely to jump/fall overboard as a person on a 1 day CTN? Sure, they have more chances, but are they more likely to? I am talking about actual occurrences, not the possibility of going overboard, that is a whole different thing, and would require a whole different set of statistics.

[ducklite]

Why? 16,156,000 is the total number of people onboard in a year (crew included). 16.7 is the number of people who go overboard in a year. That ratio gives you the number of overboards per passenger for a year. If you look at the total people onboard per day, and multiply by 365, you are counting each passenger 7 times (based on CMW's figures for 2013 of 20.9m passengers on ships with a capacity of 438,595, this means the average voyage is 7.6 days). Do you think that a person on a 7 day cruise is 7 times as likely to jump/fall overboard as a person on a 1 day CTN? Sure, they have more chances, but are they more likely to? I am talking about actual occurrences, not the possibility of going overboard, that is a whole different thing, and would require a whole different set of statistics.

 

Tomato tomato. Bottom line, take away the people who commit suicide (they would do that using a bridge, gun, gas stove, whatever if they were someplace other than a ship) and the number is smaller yet. Then remove the number of people from ferry's and smaller boats not likely to adopt any sort of technology, and again the ratio rises significantly. I just don't think that the very small statistic is worth the cost.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

[Ex techie]

We were taught to jump overboard, legs crossed, chin down, teeth clenched and pull down on the neck of the lifejacket with both hands. The reasons being that you don't want the neck of the PFD to pull up on your chin, the more important reason is that you don't want the crotch straps to become taught.:eek:

 

Absolute EEEK if the PFD has crotch straps! ;)

 

What I posted above was for high drops.

For short drops the procedure was to wear the lifejacket, legs crossed, arms crossed over your chest and pinch your nose with one hand.

Glad we didn't have crotch straps on the Magic! Lifeboat drills would have been unbearable wearing them! lol!

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

Techie, I know you're pushing hard for this, but I'm just trying to be realistic about it. There are a lot of things out there that would be great to have, but will never see the light of day because of cost benefit.

 

Cheers for your response Chief!

 

I'm not pushing for the technology to be implemented if it cannot reasonably provide a good level of protection.

I'm just pushing for a good level of reasoning as to why not, which, thanks to you and some others on here are providing!

I wish the cost of a system could be provided, but obviously it would be tailored to each vessel or type of vessel, and subject to negotiation between the provider and ship owner.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

[sNIP] Bottom line, take away the people who commit suicide (they would do that using a bridge, gun, gas stove, whatever if they were someplace other than a ship) and the number is smaller yet. [sNIP]

Yes you can remove all of the reasons why someone "could" go overboard and dismiss the need for life buoys as well with that dumbed down reasoning.

Why could anyone go overboard without wanting to, so lets not provide life saving equipment because they chose to end their life or they screwed up majorly and did manage to fall overboard somehow?

 

I hope that monetary worth is never realized by you because someone, working in a large corporation, one day said like you, I don't think its worth it, but it's not in the budget so no, well we could have it, but do we really need it?

 

ex techie

[ducklite]

Yes you can remove all of the reasons why someone "could" go overboard and dismiss the need for life buoys as well with that dumbed down reasoning.

Why could anyone go overboard without wanting to, so lets not provide life saving equipment because they chose to end their life or they screwed up majorly and did manage to fall overboard somehow?

 

I hope that monetary worth is never realized by you because someone, working in a large corporation, one day said like you, I don't think its worth it, but it's not in the budget so no, well we could have it, but do we really need it?

 

ex techie

 

Don't you realize that everything in this earth is ROI based? Everything from workplace safety to healthcare to the food production Industry to the clothing you wear. Everything. I simply do not see a reasonable return on this, it is far too expensive to implement.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

Edited December 9, 2013 by ducklite

[Host Mick]

Don't you realize that everything in this earth is ROI based? Everything from workplace safety to healthcare to the food production Industry to the clothing you wear. Everything. I simply do not see a reasonable return on this, it is far too expensive to implement.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

I was working at a healthcare facility. One day a patient crashed through a 3/4 height window and was severely hurt. At the next safety meeting, I was tasked with replacing all of the similar windows with safety glass. I mentioned that it was going to be very expensive. The chairman was aghast and scolded me "How can you put a price on a human life?"

At the next meeting I presented them with two quotes, the lowest was $280,000. The charman quietly looked at them then moved on to the next topic not bothering with a vote.

The guy next to me leaned over and whispered "I think that we just found out what the price of a human life is."

So yes, everything is based on risk analysis.

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

DCL fitted 'Man Overboard Cameras' over a year ago, so thy are very much already in place.

 

The system operates by having 14 pairs of cameras - one is a thermal imaging camera, and one is a motion sensor. They cover the entire circumference of the ship, and it is monitored on the Bridge. They are configured so that any object that moves beyond a preset point (ie. the ships rail) and has a heat signature will set off an alarm.

 

It was developed by a private firm, and demonstrated on a Princess ship a year last August time in new England. I'm unsure what other companies use this or a similar system, but I'm sure some do.

[Ex techie]

Don't you realize that everything in this earth is ROI based? Everything from workplace safety to healthcare to the food production Industry to the clothing you wear. Everything. I simply do not see a reasonable return on this, it is far too expensive to implement.

 

Where is the return on investment of DCL providing lifejackets for kids at the pool?

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

Do you know what the costs of implementing the system are? :confused:

 

 

I was working at a healthcare facility. One day a patient crashed through a 3/4 height window and was severely hurt. At the next safety meeting, I was tasked with replacing all of the similar windows with safety glass. I mentioned that it was going to be very expensive. The chairman was aghast and scolded me "How can you put a price on a human life?"

At the next meeting I presented them with two quotes, the lowest was $280,000. The charman quietly looked at them then moved on to the next topic not bothering with a vote.

The guy next to me leaned over and whispered "I think that we just found out what the price of a human life is."

So yes, everything is based on risk analysis.

 

I agree Mick. A cheaper option would have been having the windows fitted with a safety film layer though.

But it does prove a point. And why legislation is required sometimes to make companies and corporations do things that morally they should do, but financially wont unless forced to.

 

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

DCL fitted 'Man Overboard Cameras' over a year ago, so thy are very much already in place.

 

The system operates by having 14 pairs of cameras - one is a thermal imaging camera, and one is a motion sensor. They cover the entire circumference of the ship, and it is monitored on the Bridge. They are configured so that any object that moves beyond a preset point (ie. the ships rail) and has a heat signature will set off an alarm.

 

It was developed by a private firm, and demonstrated on a Princess ship a year last August time in new England. I'm unsure what other companies use this or a similar system, but I'm sure some do.

 

Without prying too much, or revealing too much info, may we ask how you know this?

Not that I doubt you, but some will question how you know! lol!

 

ex techie

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

I have worked for DCL in a Deck Officer position and have personally used the system. Have a look at any recent pictures of the Magic/Wonder and you'll see extra cameras positioned around Deck 4. The easiest ones to see are under the Bridge wings.

[Ex techie]

I have worked for DCL in a Deck Officer position and have personally used the system. Have a look at any recent pictures of the Magic/Wonder and you'll see extra cameras positioned around Deck 4. The easiest ones to see are under the Bridge wings.

 

Thank you so much YouOnlyLiveTwice for your information!

Thats great to know DCL took advantage of whatever system they have implemented to provide additional safety of life at sea!

 

Ducklite,

it seems you are already paying for the system that doesn't provide enough ROI in your opinion.

 

Mick,

I'm glad there is a resolution to this question I asked.

 

ex techie

Edited December 9, 2013 by Ex techie

[MizDaisy]

Don't you realize that everything in this earth is ROI based? Everything from workplace safety to healthcare to the food production Industry to the clothing you wear. Everything. I simply do not see a reasonable return on this, it is far too expensive to implement.

 

 

Autocorrect responsible for most typos...

 

That's a rather broad statement, and inaccurate.

[MizDaisy]

Quoted from a post by chengkp75:

 

" I worked for NCL, and as with most cruise lines (Disney excepted), the surveillance department started for the casino. But its use spread as litigation soared, and now on nearly every line there are cameras in most public spaces, in each guest corridor, and depending on the line, many, many in crew areas. I suspect that Disney has at least a couple of hundred cameras onboard their ships now, mostly required by insurance."

 

As of 2010, Disney didn't have cameras in the guest corridors. I REALLY hope they do now. I would have thought it would be mandatory. Not only from a liability aspect, but for passenger protection and safety.

[Ex techie]

My husband is a first responder, he feels that the return is not worth the expense. The ratio overboard to passenger and/or crew is like 1:6,000,000.

 

I meant to ask earlier but I forgot and got distracted. Much like CCTV monitoring staff.

 

But how does your first responder husband feel about already paying for the expense?

 

I'm sure you are spitting blood about those that are reckless and chose to be drunken and throw themselves overboard and the extra cost that DCL seem to have already built into the cost of your past or future cruise.

 

How Dare They do this on your behalf.

 

How dare they protect the people they serve alcohol to.

How dare they protect the people that have poor judgement, or limited capability to judge certain risks.

How dare they protect someone with a mental illness that comes aboard and cannot deal with the situation.

 

ex techie

Edited December 10, 2013 by Ex techie

[Tonka's Skipper]

Quoted from a post by chengkp75:

 

" I worked for NCL, and as with most cruise lines (Disney excepted), the surveillance department started for the casino. But its use spread as litigation soared, and now on nearly every line there are cameras in most public spaces, in each guest corridor, and depending on the line, many, many in crew areas. I suspect that Disney has at least a couple of hundred cameras onboard their ships now, mostly required by insurance."

 

As of 2010, Disney didn't have cameras in the guest corridors. I REALLY hope they do now. I would have thought it would be mandatory. Not only from a liability aspect, but for passenger protection and safety.

 

 

Please let me know where you got this information?

 

 

None of the line release to the public, security camera locations for the obvious reasons.

 

I didn't find any location details for any lines in a online search.

 

 

AKK

[Tonka's Skipper]

That's a rather broad statement, and inaccurate.

 

Actually Ducklite is totally correct. All companies activities have a risk review and all actions are based on that.

 

Its sad but true.

 

AKK

[dsrdsrdsr]

I was working at a healthcare facility. One day a patient crashed through a 3/4 height window and was severely hurt. At the next safety meeting, I was tasked with replacing all of the similar windows with safety glass. I mentioned that it was going to be very expensive. The chairman was aghast and scolded me "How can you put a price on a human life?"

At the next meeting I presented them with two quotes, the lowest was $280,000. The charman quietly looked at them then moved on to the next topic not bothering with a vote.

The guy next to me leaned over and whispered "I think that we just found out what the price of a human life is."

So yes, everything is based on risk analysis.

It has to be. Society can't work on the basis that human lives must be saved at all costs - only that human lives must be saved at reasonable cost.

 

Example - about 2,000 people per year die on Britain's roads. Virtually all of these lives could be saved by introducing a 20mph speed limit on motorways, 10 mph in towns. But it isn't done, because "society" accepts the risk of the 2,000 dead.

[chengkp75]

Please let me know where you got this information?

 

 

None of the line release to the public' date=' security camera locations for the obvious reasons.

 

I didn't find any location details for any lines in a online search.

 

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I believe my quote is misunderstood. The "exception" that I mentioned for Disney was because they have no casino, so surveillance could not have started there for that reason. It started at Disney for liability reasons. I have no personal experience with Disney as to whether or not they have surveillance cameras, but I believe they do, based on the news reports about some of the recent crimes onboard. As the Skipper states, the lines will not publish camera locations, and with today's cameras, you really need to look to find them. Ever see the camera in the traffic light that adjusts the left turn signal based on how many cars are in the turn lane? No, its hidden in one of the red/yellow/green lights.

Edited December 10, 2013 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

Quoted from a post by chengkp75:

 

" I worked for NCL, and as with most cruise lines (Disney excepted), the surveillance department started for the casino. But its use spread as litigation soared, and now on nearly every line there are cameras in most public spaces, in each guest corridor, and depending on the line, many, many in crew areas. I suspect that Disney has at least a couple of hundred cameras onboard their ships now, mostly required by insurance."

 

As of 2010, Disney didn't have cameras in the guest corridors. I REALLY hope they do now. I would have thought it would be mandatory. Not only from a liability aspect, but for passenger protection and safety.

 

Actually, I am referring to passenger protection and safety as liability issues, because that's how the companies look at them. They really don't care how safe you are, or how safe you feel, as long as it doesn't cost them in the bottom line. Cold, but true.

[MizDaisy]

Please let me know where you got this information?

 

 

None of the line release to the public' date=' security camera locations for the obvious reasons.

 

I didn't find any location details for any lines in a online search.

 

 

AKK[/quote']

 

You've heard the story before......

 

But to answer your question, the Head of Security for Disney Cruise Line (Onshore) told me that they don't. Somewhere in a file, I have his name and phone number, not that I would post it online.

And as I said, that was 2010.....maybe (hopefully) they do have them by now.

 

They DO have some security cameras, obviously....in public areas, and most likely in crew-only areas....but I didn't say anything about those. I only said in the guest corridors.