Insignia Post Fire Location and Movement

[roothy123]

Thank you for the Quest report - interesting. My husband would probably like to read it as well, since he was involved in damage control in the Navy.

 

Now I'll read about the Carnival ship; thanks!

[NCP]

Thank you for the report; it is very interesting.

[dwgreenlee]

Ok, for more fun reading you can get both the Carnival Triumph and Grandeur of the Seas fire reports at:

 

http://www.bahamasmaritime.com/index.php?page=97

 

For even more fun reading the Star Princess fire report is located at:

 

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/star%20princess.pdf

 

A sample of a report produced by the Insignia flag state Marshal Islands Maritime Authority - on the Major Marine Casualty Deepwater Horizon Oil Platform - can be found at:

 

http://www.register-iri.com/forms/upload/Republic_of_the_Marshall_Islands_DEEPWATER_HORIZON_Marine_Casualty_Investigation_Report-Low_Resolution.pdf

 

or

 

http://www.tradewindsnews.com/incoming/article268023.ece5/binary/Marshall%20Island%20Deepwater%20Horizon%20findings

 

I know that an oil platform is not a cruise ship but the report - compared to the others - should give some indications of what to expect from the Marshal Islands in terms of investigation.

[Freightgoddess]

FWIW vessel finder still shows Insignia in San Juan.

[SellaVee]

FWIW vessel finder still shows Insignia in San Juan.

 

Surely that's exactly where we'd expect her to be? The repairs were due to take 9 weeks.

 

I'll be looking forward to news of her journey once that time is up as we're due to board in Singapore.

[emanon42]

Surely that's exactly where we'd expect her to be? The repairs were due to take 9 weeks.

 

I'll be looking forward to news of her journey once that time is up as we're due to board in Singapore.

 

the insignia appears, however, to be at the same pier since arriving in SJ. what happened to the dry dock? sure wish we had a spy in the area!

[Noxequifans]

I believe the dry dock is where it is supposed to be.

[Mura]

Maybe they're waiting for parts? Just because Insignia is there doesn't mean everything they need is.

 

Just a thought.

 

Mura

[SellaVee]

I believe the dry dock is where it is supposed to be.

 

Pollyanna here, busy whistling "Always look on the bright side of life."

 

Could it be that some work is being done at the pier? If that's possible it would make sense to do as much work as could be done before putting her into dry dock, which I'm guessing is a very expensive option.

 

The thought of waiting for parts fills me with trepidation.

 

I also wish we had a spy in the area! Anyone with a contact in San Juan? Six degrees of separation? :)

[PR Cruisers]

I live in san juan and saw the insignia ship on a dock that is not usually used by cruise ships. Reading the thread now I know what is going on with the ship

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RJB]

The data collection part of the investigation is likely over unless there was some parts or materials removed for laboratory analysis. The writing, review and approval of the report is a bureaucratic thing within the Marshal Islands and St Lucia authorities - with some input from the US Coast Guard and NTSB. That process will take from several months to never. Generally reports are released in about a year.

 

In my opinion, coordination with other R class ship is not necessary and likely would only cause confusion and delays. Timely release of the "lessons learned" to other R class operators is extremely important so those operators can assess the impact to their configurations.

 

With regard to the comment that Oceania should do "their own determination as to

what extra things to be done"; I was quoting another author but I would note in the Carnival fires, Carnival had already implemented - or was in the process of implementing - the recommendations made by the time the report was published. Problems identified should be corrected as soon as possible and not wait for a final report - waiting can cost lives.

 

I also do not expect Oceania or NCL Holdings to provide a statement with technical details. I would expect a simple summary of what happen, some information on the expected repair process, and when the next update is expected. Not really any more that the airline agent would release while you are waiting for your plane to be fixed. This would help the folks on the truncated world cruise make a more informed decision about canceling or continuing.

A simple statement would be good. Maybe now that Mr. FDR is back in charge the PR will be better. :):)

[SellaVee]

I live in san juan and saw the insignia ship on a dock that is not usually used by cruise ships. Reading the thread now I know what is going on with the ship.

 

Thank you for replying! Does it look as if any work is being carried out, or is the ship just sitting waiting?

[hondorner]

the insignia appears, however, to be at the same pier since arriving in SJ. what happened to the dry dock? sure wish we had a spy in the area!

My guess is they used the tetm "dry dock" a little loosely when they first announced the move to San Jaun. They often refer to the biannual refits as "dry dock", even though the ship generally stays planted in the water unless bottom work is needed. Unless the fire blew a hole in the hull below the water line, or the hull needs to be cut open for major replacement, there would be no need to actually get the ship out of the water.

 

There was an earlier report, not from the cruiseline, that there is no drydock at San Jaun. I can't attest to the accuracy.

[YoHoHo]

Eyes on the ground - fantastic! Thanks for the post. If you see anything new I'm sure lots of inquiring minds would appreciate hearing about it.

[PR Cruisers]

Thank you for replying! Does it look as if any work is being carried out, or is the ship just sitting waiting?

 

 

I just saw it from the espressway while I was driving and doesnt seems that there is any work carried out.

 

Maybe I could go near the dock during the weekend and confirm any information.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chengkp75]

Late to the party here, just returned from a couple months at sea, hadn't heard about this fire before (internet limited to e-mails on cargo ships).

 

As the OP has answered to other posters, the NTSB and USCG will not have anything to do with this incident, unless requested to by the Marshall Island Registry.

 

In post #5, the OP states that he would have assumed that Oceania would have taken all due care to prevent the fire. After 40 years as a merchant ship's engineer, 34 as Chief Engineer, I can say that even following all of the USCG regulations (stricter than the IMO requirements the rest of the world follows), meeting class requirements, and following all manufacturers' recommendations, failures will always happen, so that while Oceania are responsible for the fire, it is to be determined whether they are at fault or not.

 

Others have said that since this is the third fire on ships of this class, there is a problem. This is not necessarily so. The Carnival Splendor and the Triumph are same or similar class, and both suffered complete loss of propulsion and power, yet the causes were totally different: a flexible fuel line on the Triumph, and a hydro-locked engine causing a catastrophic failure of a piston and rod on the Splendor.

 

The OP, in post #15 claims that Carnival implemented all of the recommendations made in the USCG report on the Splendor. While this may be true, there is no concrete evidence to support this. We have Carnival's statements that they reviewed their processes and procedures, and implemented changes, but whether or not all of the USCG recommendations were completely implemented is not proven, especially since these are, as the USCG even states in the report, only recommendations, since it is up to the Panamanian Maritime Authority to decide whether the recommendations are required.

 

I no longer work in the cruise industry, so have no horse in this race, and have been forceful in my defense of Carnival after the Triumph fire, and the charges of negligence, etc. Having been in engine rooms as long as I have, and having done "expert witness" testimony on marine engineering incidents, I withhold my judgments until I have all the facts.

 

To those questioning maintenance, I will say the same thing I said during the Triumph discussion: IMO requires a Safety Management System, generally supervised by the class society (insurance underwriter), that must include a planned, preventative maintenance system, based on manufacturer's recommendations and best industry practices.

 

The fact that contract workers were onboard in no way implies that there was a problem. They were possibly technicians from the engine manufacturer (or for any other equipment in the engine spaces) that were performing routine planned maintenance. We frequently had one of our six engines down for a complete overhaul (about 2-3 weeks), that was overseen by a service engineer from the manufacturer, and performed by a mix of engine crew and contract engine mechanics. There is too much everyday maintenance ongoing for the crew to be able to perform a major overhaul while still keeping the ship in operation. These overhauls were scheduled every 12000 hours.

 

As for statements about the fire, cause, and repairs, that really ain't gonna happen, and probably shouldn't. As others have said, any statement made in advance of the findings of the investigators (and the line will see results before the final report) could change liability. Carnival made few reports about the Triumph (the only real indication of the cause of the fire was from USCG investigators), and RCCL was very closed mouth about the Grandeur fire.

 

What I find interesting is that everyone clamors for "transparency" and "openness" from ships that are not registered in the US, and operated by companies that are not incorporated in the US. If you want the protections and benefits of US laws and corporate practices, you need to lobby for US flag cruise ships. And we all know how many people want to deflate their wallets when that happens. The flags of convenience are there for a reason, and the lack of transparency or thoroughness in incidents like this are some of those reasons.

[StanandJim]

What I find interesting is that everyone clamors for "transparency" and "openness" from ships that are not registered in the US, and operated by companies that are not incorporated in the US. If you want the protections and benefits of US laws and corporate practices, you need to lobby for US flag cruise ships. And we all know how many people want to deflate their wallets when that happens. The flags of convenience are there for a reason, and the lack of transparency or thoroughness in incidents like this are some of those reasons.

 

+1

It's all fun and games until the subject of money comes up.

I'm by no means a fan of flags of convenience, but they Do keep costs down by a gigantic margin.

An Ocean voyage in first class was the exclusive playground of older, affluent people, back in the day for a reason.

 

Consider that a Parlour Suite on the Titanic, the equivalent of our Owners Suite, cost £870 or $83,200.00 in todays' money for the six day crossing! :eek:

This, at a time when the average annual income in Britain was £499

[Mura]

YIPES. And I thought the OS on Oceania was expensive ...

 

No wonder those first class passengers wanted to stay away from hoi polloi ...

 

Mura

[rallydave]

YIPES. And I thought the OS on Oceania was expensive ...

 

No wonder those first class passengers wanted to stay away from hoi polloi ...

 

Mura

 

Guess you haven't seen the new Regent Explorer Regent Suite, about $5,000 per person per nite. For the Maiden Voyage, 14 nites $140,000 for two people!!! Suite was taken then available, and now Wait Listed and, the deposit is the full cruise price with 100% penalty from day one.

[Mura]

Nope, Dave, I haven't. We've never sailed with Regent although we came close about two years ago for an anniversary ending in zero. But when I realized that it would cost us $40K before air fare to Bangkok, we opted out. (Because we were booking late we were on a wait list for an upper suite which came through at around that amount. I just couldn't justify that cost for a 2 week cruise. Had we tried booking earlier we could have gotten a suite that would have pleased us, just not so high up.)

 

For that money we took two Oceania cruises, one in an OC and one in a VS. And for 18 days ...

 

(I'm not sure it would have been $40K ... it might have been more. I just don't recall.)

 

I'm sure we'd have loved the Regent cruise ... but I've lived with a tightwad for more than 40 years and some of his tightwadiness has rubbed off!

 

Mura

[no fuss travel]

Consider that a Parlour Suite on the Titanic, the equivalent of our Owners Suite, cost £870 or $83,200.00 in todays' money for the six day crossing! :eek:

This, at a time when the average annual income in Britain was £499[/font][/size]

 

I had to work this one out in US dollars today taking in account inflation, etc. You would pay $1,678.577.30 US, today's currency for that suite. Our cruise costs today are cheap in comparison.

[Winner]

AND you are unlikely to hit an iceberg and drown!!!

[PaulMCO]

Did it include insurance?? :D

[dwgreenlee]

Late to the party here, just returned from a couple months at sea, hadn't heard about this fire before (internet limited to e-mails on cargo ships).

 

As the OP has answered to other posters, the NTSB and USCG will not have anything to do with this incident, unless requested to by the Marshall Island Registry.

 

In post #5, the OP states that he would have assumed that Oceania would have taken all due care to prevent the fire. After 40 years as a merchant ship's engineer, 34 as Chief Engineer, I can say that even following all of the USCG regulations (stricter than the IMO requirements the rest of the world follows), meeting class requirements, and following all manufacturers' recommendations, failures will always happen, so that while Oceania are responsible for the fire, it is to be determined whether they are at fault or not.

 

Others have said that since this is the third fire on ships of this class, there is a problem. This is not necessarily so. The Carnival Splendor and the Triumph are same or similar class, and both suffered complete loss of propulsion and power, yet the causes were totally different: a flexible fuel line on the Triumph, and a hydro-locked engine causing a catastrophic failure of a piston and rod on the Splendor.

 

The OP, in post #15 claims that Carnival implemented all of the recommendations made in the USCG report on the Splendor. While this may be true, there is no concrete evidence to support this. We have Carnival's statements that they reviewed their processes and procedures, and implemented changes, but whether or not all of the USCG recommendations were completely implemented is not proven, especially since these are, as the USCG even states in the report, only recommendations, since it is up to the Panamanian Maritime Authority to decide whether the recommendations are required.

 

I no longer work in the cruise industry, so have no horse in this race, and have been forceful in my defense of Carnival after the Triumph fire, and the charges of negligence, etc. Having been in engine rooms as long as I have, and having done "expert witness" testimony on marine engineering incidents, I withhold my judgments until I have all the facts.

 

To those questioning maintenance, I will say the same thing I said during the Triumph discussion: IMO requires a Safety Management System, generally supervised by the class society (insurance underwriter), that must include a planned, preventative maintenance system, based on manufacturer's recommendations and best industry practices.

 

The fact that contract workers were onboard in no way implies that there was a problem. They were possibly technicians from the engine manufacturer (or for any other equipment in the engine spaces) that were performing routine planned maintenance. We frequently had one of our six engines down for a complete overhaul (about 2-3 weeks), that was overseen by a service engineer from the manufacturer, and performed by a mix of engine crew and contract engine mechanics. There is too much everyday maintenance ongoing for the crew to be able to perform a major overhaul while still keeping the ship in operation. These overhauls were scheduled every 12000 hours.

 

As for statements about the fire, cause, and repairs, that really ain't gonna happen, and probably shouldn't. As others have said, any statement made in advance of the findings of the investigators (and the line will see results before the final report) could change liability. Carnival made few reports about the Triumph (the only real indication of the cause of the fire was from USCG investigators), and RCCL was very closed mouth about the Grandeur fire.

 

What I find interesting is that everyone clamors for "transparency" and "openness" from ships that are not registered in the US, and operated by companies that are not incorporated in the US. If you want the protections and benefits of US laws and corporate practices, you need to lobby for US flag cruise ships. And we all know how many people want to deflate their wallets when that happens. The flags of convenience are there for a reason, and the lack of transparency or thoroughness in incidents like this are some of those reasons.

 

I agree with your points except US Flag is necessary for transparency. Several flag states do publish their maritime incident reports for all to see. As for the cruise lines, they will respond to customer demands. If customers focused their demands on safety and transparency rather than cosmetic things, (i.e. dining, entertainment, etc.) cruise lines would both be safe and transparent. This may or not happen, but I will continue to raise the issue and hope others do the same.

 

NCL Holdings did do a very good assessment of the impact to their stock values as a result of the Insignia fire. Their class one directors, including the chairman, are about to stand for re-election. It does seem that the all mighty dollar gets transparency.

 

As a side note, I took the first revenue cruise on the Pride of America - only major US Flagged cruise ship in the world. Fully certified by the US Coast Guard, the ship had major safety issues that were obvious to the passengers - little stuff like the survival craft fouled when launched. This is the only time onboard any ship - US Navy, US Coast Guard and several foreign navy ships as well as numerous cruise lines and ships - that I did not feel safe.

 

I do appreciate your input and prospective. Cargo ships do not have the same customer pressure for safety as cruise ships - the cargo rarely complains. I also note that cruise ships have an extremely good safety record when compared to other passenger vessels - most notably ferries.

 

Again, thanks for your input. Stay safe. R/Don

[chengkp75]

I agree with your points except US Flag is necessary for transparency. Several flag states do publish their maritime incident reports for all to see. As for the cruise lines, they will respond to customer demands. If customers focused their demands on safety and transparency rather than cosmetic things, (i.e. dining, entertainment, etc.) cruise lines would both be safe and transparent. This may or not happen, but I will continue to raise the issue and hope others do the same.

 

NCL Holdings did do a very good assessment of the impact to their stock values as a result of the Insignia fire. Their class one directors, including the chairman, are about to stand for re-election. It does seem that the all mighty dollar gets transparency.

 

As a side note, I took the first revenue cruise on the Pride of America - only major US Flagged cruise ship in the world. Fully certified by the US Coast Guard, the ship had major safety issues that were obvious to the passengers - little stuff like the survival craft fouled when launched. This is the only time onboard any ship - US Navy, US Coast Guard and several foreign navy ships as well as numerous cruise lines and ships - that I did not feel safe.

 

I do appreciate your input and prospective. Cargo ships do not have the same customer pressure for safety as cruise ships - the cargo rarely complains. I also note that cruise ships have an extremely good safety record when compared to other passenger vessels - most notably ferries.

 

Again, thanks for your input. Stay safe. R/Don

 

I worked 4 years on the Pride of Aloha, which entered service about a year and a half before POA, as a US flag cruise ship. So I know a thing or two about the "cargo that talks back". The thing you have to realize about the US crew on the POA (which is the only REMAINING US flag cruise ship), is that every crew member, from the Captain to the dishwasher has to be a credentialed merchant mariner. This required recruiting, training, and certifying a completely new pool of labor. On international ships, only the deck and engine crew are mariners, and the hotel department gets their training onboard, and don't require credentials. This means that not only is there a vast pool of trained, experienced hotel department crew available, but that they are readily available (one call to a PI crewing agency gets a person on the next flight to the ship). With every crewmember requiring a USCG credential, this requires basic firefighting and life saving training, as well as a full FBI background check. Therefore, the crew you saw on the inaugural voyage of POA most likely had about 2 weeks time onboard a ship, any ship. While they received training at US maritime training schools, the equipment varies between ships, and the schools do not have all of the various models of equipment, so there needs to be some time to adjust to the particular ships' equipment and layout. Also, there is no pool of dishwashers with a mariner's credential waiting for a job in the US. This is why the ships out there had so much understaffing. It costs NCL about $8-10k just to get a new crewmember to the gangway for the first time, and then, since it is a US flag ship, in a US port, and a US citizen, they can quit and walk off the ship at any time.

 

To give you an example of the difference between the international crew and the US crew in safety training, the international crew are assigned an emergency duty on the fire teams. On the POA, all of the fire teams are volunteers, since they are restricted to ship while in port 3 days a week (as are the international crew, but they don't have any labor laws against holding them on the ship). We had a running fight between the Aloha's senior officers and the corporate safety director, who wanted deck and engine crew assigned to the fire teams, as is done on the international fleet. We resisted this for two reasons, it would cost the company many thousands of dollars annually, because the unions have a restriction to ship clause that would pay the deck and engine ratings for 24 hours of overtime if kept onboard. The more important reason for us on the ship, was that we had set up fast response teams of trained, skilled crew who would know where to isolate systems to assist the fire teams, and these required engine ratings, and the deck ratings were better used preparing the boats for launch. This was finally resolved when the corporate safety manager visited the ship and witnessed one of our crew fire and boat drills. He came away so impressed with the attitude, professionalism, and dedication of the volunteer fire teams, who really wanted to learn firefighting (not just go through the motions like the international crew), that he told us to keep doing it our way, it was the best performance by a crew that he had seen.

 

While what you say is true, that if people were focused on safety rather than having a good time, the cruise lines would respond, but the cruise lines know their market very well, and know that safety is far, far, from the forefront of most passengers' minds. Witness the attitudes towards the muster drill.

 

Your fight for transparency in safety matters is a noble one, but I fear it is just as doomed as mine to require US flag cruise ships that home port in the US.