Insignia Post Fire Location and Movement

[chengkp75]

What are your comments on my other point - that in the grand scheme of things the generator is of little value?

 

Carnival had two incidents sufficiently close together to cause a PR disaster. The real fix to provide separation of the engine rooms - something that may be difficult, expensive and impossible to 100% achieve given the forward and aft engine room configurations. The touted emergency generators may keep some toilets flushing and maybe provide some hot food but being dead in the water has real risks if weather is closing in. The addition of the generator seems to be being touted by Carnival as the "fix" while there is still a risk that a single event may leave you dead in the water.

 

Please note, I am not criticizing Carnival - this seems to be an industry standard problem with electric propulsion - for ships built before the safe return to port standard. I also note that Carnival's fire teams were sufficiently robust to mitigate the event without loss of life. Still, it seems this "fix" is really not very valuable.

 

No question that the temporary generators, and even their "permanent" replacements are a PR exercise. As the ships of this class are being drydocked, the faults of their original design are being addressed. The cabling from the forward engine room is being routed up from the forward engine room to the deck above, then aft outboard of the aft engine rooms (each engine room, forward and aft, are divided by non completely fire or watertight bulkheads)(above the incinerator room to port and the boiler room to starboard) on the way to the switchgear room. This will go a long way to eliminating the possibility that another Splendor or Triumph fire will completely black out the ship. Is this going to completely meet the Safe Return requirements? Probably not, in that some areas are probably still common (the fuel treatment room is one area that I can think of), but it will go a long way towards eliminating the need for these additional generators. So, Carnival has in my opinion done a good job in dealing with this problem (probably should have been addressed after the Splendor, but that's another story), by applying some window dressing (the temporary generator and announcing that they would have an additional layer of redundancy with the new generator), while designing and installing the actual fix for the problem in what they knew would be a solution that would take a long time to complete.

 

However, even ships dead in the water will survive even the most severe weather. Look up the SS Badger State, which was carrying bombs to Vietnam, when the cargo shifted in a typhoon, and the ship lost the boilers. The crew abandoned ship (though they lost half the crew when a bomb came out through the side of the ship and dropped through a lifeboat as it was clearing from the ship's side). After the crew was rescued, and the storm had past, the ship was found still afloat, and was subsequently sunk by gunfire.

 

And I disagree that this is an industry problem with electric propulsion. I don't know of any other class of ship other than the Destiny class and its derivatives (many of Carnival's and their sister cruise lines ships) that would make such an egregious design flaw as routing the forward generators' cables through the aft engine room. Though the fault for the design is more Fincantieri's than Carnival's.

Edited January 29, 2015 by chengkp75

[Caroldoll]

I know for a fact that 60 of them went to The Riviera.

[dwgreenlee]

No question that the temporary generators, and even their "permanent" replacements are a PR exercise. As the ships of this class are being drydocked, the faults of their original design are being addressed. The cabling from the forward engine room is being routed up from the forward engine room to the deck above, then aft outboard of the aft engine rooms (each engine room, forward and aft, are divided by non completely fire or watertight bulkheads)(above the incinerator room to port and the boiler room to starboard) on the way to the switchgear room. This will go a long way to eliminating the possibility that another Splendor or Triumph fire will completely black out the ship. Is this going to completely meet the Safe Return requirements? Probably not, in that some areas are probably still common (the fuel treatment room is one area that I can think of), but it will go a long way towards eliminating the need for these additional generators. So, Carnival has in my opinion done a good job in dealing with this problem (probably should have been addressed after the Splendor, but that's another story), by applying some window dressing (the temporary generator and announcing that they would have an additional layer of redundancy with the new generator), while designing and installing the actual fix for the problem in what they knew would be a solution that would take a long time to complete.

 

However, even ships dead in the water will survive even the most severe weather. Look up the SS Badger State, which was carrying bombs to Vietnam, when the cargo shifted in a typhoon, and the ship lost the boilers. The crew abandoned ship (though they lost half the crew when a bomb came out through the side of the ship and dropped through a lifeboat as it was clearing from the ship's side). After the crew was rescued, and the storm had past, the ship was found still afloat, and was subsequently sunk by gunfire.

 

And I disagree that this is an industry problem with electric propulsion. I don't know of any other class of ship other than the Destiny class and its derivatives (many of Carnival's and their sister cruise lines ships) that would make such an egregious design flaw as routing the forward generators' cables through the aft engine room. Though the fault for the design is more Fincantieri's than Carnival's.

 

Thanks for the info. You are a great consultant on cruise ships. I appreciate your efforts. Of note, I would not expect a dead in the water cruise ship to sink even in weather except in case of some sort of collision - rather many injuries from falls by passengers that would not listen and stay put (cargo listens better). Thanks again.

[dwgreenlee]

The below link states that the Marshal Islands has granted the US "substantially interested state " status to the US and thus the US Coast Guard and NTSB is now investigating the fire and deaths.

 

http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/147309/uscg-investigating-insignia-fire/

 

This is the only article I have found with this claim and I have no way to verify it. However, Insignia is now in US waters so if the USCG/NTSB wants to investigate - they can.

 

There is a post on the world cruise roll call that claims that an Oceania rep stated that Insignia is repaired and the investigation is now the hold up on departure from San Juan. Again, I cannot verify that claim.

[chengkp75]

The below link states that the Marshal Islands has granted the US "substantially interested state " status to the US and thus the US Coast Guard and NTSB is now investigating the fire and deaths.

 

http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/147309/uscg-investigating-insignia-fire/

 

This is the only article I have found with this claim and I have no way to verify it. However, Insignia is now in US waters so if the USCG/NTSB wants to investigate - they can.

 

There is a post on the world cruise roll call that claims that an Oceania rep stated that Insignia is repaired and the investigation is now the hold up on departure from San Juan. Again, I cannot verify that claim.

 

I saw that, but it is a slightly different situation from the Carnival Splendor, where the USCG was asked to be lead investigator.

 

Without the granting of interested party, neither the USCG nor NTSB would have any jurisdiction to investigate the accident, regardless of where the ship is currently located. Since the incident did not occur in US waters, they would have no jurisdiction to investigate the fire. Now, the USCG can and will inspect the ship prior to its being allowed to leave, but only so far as to ensure that SOLAS requirements are met (which would include no fire damage in the engine room, all engines in good order, etc.)

 

Is she supposed to leave San Juan soon? I thought the next cruise didn't start until Mar 20th or so. Apologies if this was covered earlier in thread. Very likely the deaths are what is lengthening the evidence collection phase, which is what would hold the ship up.

[dwgreenlee]

I saw that, but it is a slightly different situation from the Carnival Splendor, where the USCG was asked to be lead investigator.

 

Without the granting of interested party, neither the USCG nor NTSB would have any jurisdiction to investigate the accident, regardless of where the ship is currently located. Since the incident did not occur in US waters, they would have no jurisdiction to investigate the fire. Now, the USCG can and will inspect the ship prior to its being allowed to leave, but only so far as to ensure that SOLAS requirements are met (which would include no fire damage in the engine room, all engines in good order, etc.)

 

Is she supposed to leave San Juan soon? I thought the next cruise didn't start until Mar 20th or so. Apologies if this was covered earlier in thread. Very likely the deaths are what is lengthening the evidence collection phase, which is what would hold the ship up.

 

I really do not know what to make of this claim/story either. You could be correct that the USCG involvement is just to verify the vessel seaworthy to leave port - or the USCG could be leading the investigation now - impossible to tell from the reporting even if accurate. Also noteworthy is the departure from San Juan is without passengers so the USCG port state inspection would be limited. Also, it seems a little late to be investigating after repairs are started.

 

Insignia is scheduled to embark passengers on 20 March in Singapore - roughly 11000 NMI from San Juan. Depending on what you believe about the route, bunkering stops, traffic, best speed, etc. that gives a departure date from San Juan o/a 20 February. To be clear, this is a calculated date - not an Oceania schedule.

Edited February 8, 2015 by dwgreenlee

[chengkp75]

I really do not know what to make of this claim/story either. You could be correct that the USCG involvement is just to verify the vessel seaworthy to leave port - or the USCG could be leading the investigation now - impossible to tell from the reporting even if accurate. Also noteworthy is the departure from San Juan is without passengers so the USCG port state inspection would be limited. Also, it seems a little late to be investigating after repairs are started.

 

Insignia is scheduled to embark passengers on 20 March in Singapore - roughly 11000 NMI from San Juan. Depending on what you believe about the route, bunkering stops, traffic, best speed, etc. that gives a departure date from San Juan o/a 20 February. To be clear, this is a calculated date - not an Oceania schedule.

 

No, what I'm saying is that without the grant of interested party, the USCG could only inspect for SOLAS requirements. Also, the SOLAS port state inspection is/would be the same regardless of whether or not there are passengers onboard. It is to verify that the required equipment is onboard, in working order, and that the crew has the required training. Really has nothing to do with whether the ship has passengers, or is "in ballast".

 

Granting the USCG/NTSB interested party status means that they can do their own investigation (but most likely cannot delay the ship beyond what the Marshall Islands Registry needs for their investigation), and can see all evidence that the MI authorities gather, and can make a non-binding report. I think that if they had been granted lead status, that would have been mentioned. Similarly, when the USCG was granted lead investigative status on the Carnival Splendor fire, they were still not able to make binding requirements for training, maintenance, or design, but could only recommend, and then it was up to Panama to decide whether or not to adopt the recommendations.

[dwgreenlee]

No, what I'm saying is that without the grant of interested party, the USCG could only inspect for SOLAS requirements. Also, the SOLAS port state inspection is/would be the same regardless of whether or not there are passengers onboard. It is to verify that the required equipment is onboard, in working order, and that the crew has the required training. Really has nothing to do with whether the ship has passengers, or is "in ballast".

 

Granting the USCG/NTSB interested party status means that they can do their own investigation (but most likely cannot delay the ship beyond what the Marshall Islands Registry needs for their investigation), and can see all evidence that the MI authorities gather, and can make a non-binding report. I think that if they had been granted lead status, that would have been mentioned. Similarly, when the USCG was granted lead investigative status on the Carnival Splendor fire, they were still not able to make binding requirements for training, maintenance, or design, but could only recommend, and then it was up to Panama to decide whether or not to adopt the recommendations.

 

I was also assuming most of the Crew - the hotel staff specifically - would not be onboard for the 30-day ferry and that would reduce the scope of the port state inspection. However, that was an assumption on my part. I agree that all the engineering and navigation functions would be inspected the same regardless of mission.

 

I would not expect the USCG to delay departure for the investigation but that is what was reported in the roll call - again I cannot verify that is accurate.

 

I also noted two interesting things about the Marshal Islands (MI) registry. First a contractor in the United States - International Registries Inc (IRI) of Reston VA - runs it for MI. Second, only four cruise ships - those of Oceania - are registered in the MI.

[SellaVee]

Surely Oceania has 5 ships, so which one isn't registered in the Marshall Islands?

 

Or is it 4 plus Insignia?

[chengkp75]

Surely Oceania has 5 ships, so which one isn't registered in the Marshall Islands?

 

Or is it 4 plus Insignia?

 

All 5 are MI flag.

[dwgreenlee]

Surely Oceania has 5 ships, so which one isn't registered in the Marshall Islands?

 

Or is it 4 plus Insignia?

 

My bad. 4 + 1 does equal 5. Sorry about that.

[dwgreenlee]

Insignia is underway doing 10 knots just north of San Juan. It may be a test run since the AIS transponder indicates the next port is also San Juan ETA 2/17.

[SellaVee]

Thanks for that news. I was hoping someone would post when this happened. So glad to hear Insignia is moving and a test run makes sense to me.

[roothy123]

Thanks. I'm going to marinetraffic.com to check it out!

[chengkp75]

Out of range now.

[dwgreenlee]

Of note, if this is not a test run, Insignia is (was) on course for Bermuda. At 17 knots she will arrive there on Tuesday morning - which will be then next time she will be in range of a shore based AIS receiver. From there Porta Delgada Azores would be the next logical stop.

[dwgreenlee]

The site www.vesselfinder.com shows Insignia turning back toward San Juan. Last report was about an hour ago. I have never used this site before but it must be using Satellite data.

[chengkp75]

The site www.vesselfinder.com shows Insignia turning back toward San Juan. Last report was about an hour ago. I have never used this site before but it must be using Satellite data.

 

I believe vesselfinder may be using satellite AIS, but I would warn folks about signing up for the "for pay" satellite AIS systems. While satellite AIS does in fact track vessels 24/7 anywhere in the world, the raw data is only made available to government agencies. Commercial sites will only get updates every 24 hours, so it is still pretty limited for tracking cruise ships at sea.

[dwgreenlee]

I believe vesselfinder may be using satellite AIS, but I would warn folks about signing up for the "for pay" satellite AIS systems. While satellite AIS does in fact track vessels 24/7 anywhere in the world, the raw data is only made available to government agencies. Commercial sites will only get updates every 24 hours, so it is still pretty limited for tracking cruise ships at sea.

 

Based upon experience, I would completely agree with you. Also, research of the vessel finder site FAQs indicate that they only use shore based AIS receivers. That said, vessel finder currently (11:58 UTC) shows an update (11:51 UTC) with Insignia running a racetrack pattern about 60 nmi north of San Juan. The site I normally use - marine traffic - shows Insignia out of range. I did not sign up or provide billing information for vessel finder. There is a lot of advertising but I have no explanation - other than vesselfinder using satellite data - for the current updates.

[chengkp75]

Based upon experience, I would completely agree with you. Also, research of the vessel finder site FAQs indicate that they only use shore based AIS receivers. That said, vessel finder currently (11:58 UTC) shows an update (11:51 UTC) with Insignia running a racetrack pattern about 60 nmi north of San Juan. The site I normally use - marine traffic - shows Insignia out of range. I did not sign up or provide billing information for vessel finder. There is a lot of advertising but I have no explanation - other than vesselfinder using satellite data - for the current updates.

 

I've used vesselfinder in the past. I believe that they actually use some vessel to vessel reporting (they pay the companies to send them AIS info).

 

My warning was a general one to CC posters, not really to you, as many folks find out they can track ships, and then go "where did the ship disappear to?" and buy into the advertising on the sites to "upgrade" to the satellite service. The consumer satellite AIS is restricted to one update daily because there are hundreds of thousands of ships with AIS (every ship over 300gt), and if all of CC was pinging marine traffic all day for vessel updates, the systems would be overloaded with all those uplinks from the vessels, and all the requests for downloads. There is also a factor of vessel security involved, so that ships which are not close to shore cannot be tracked except by recognized VTS systems. This is one reason AIS was designed as a short range system, and was originally designed for use with vessel radar systems, so that each blob on the screen could come up with a name and characteristics, much like air traffic control radars do.

[chengkp75]

If she is sea trialing now, that should get her underway to Singapore in time. You mentioned questions about routing, do you know which way she is planning on going? Panama is costly, but if she is without ANY passengers at all, there is a "ballast" rate for cruise ships. Suez is less costly, but still represents a cost. Around Good Hope is only 1000 miles more than Suez, so it could be an option depending on the Suez tax (not sure about their rates).

 

At 18 knots, Suez is 23-24 days, both Panama and Good Hope are 26-27 days.

Edited February 16, 2015 by chengkp75

[roothy123]

I like Marine Traffic (free version) a lot better than vesselfinder, although the latter does have a few nice things about it. I use Marine Traffic to see a projection of a ship's track, plus former track, to see how close a ship passes a lighthouse and how long that takes from port. While occasionally a ship will be shown out of range, I find it's very helpful for what I want to find out.

 

I didn't look to see how close she was or where she had been, but it's nice that Insignia is now plowing away at over 17 knots heading southeast.

[dwgreenlee]

I've used vesselfinder in the past. I believe that they actually use some vessel to vessel reporting (they pay the companies to send them AIS info).

 

My warning was a general one to CC posters, not really to you, as many folks find out they can track ships, and then go "where did the ship disappear to?" and buy into the advertising on the sites to "upgrade" to the satellite service. The consumer satellite AIS is restricted to one update daily because there are hundreds of thousands of ships with AIS (every ship over 300gt), and if all of CC was pinging marine traffic all day for vessel updates, the systems would be overloaded with all those uplinks from the vessels, and all the requests for downloads. There is also a factor of vessel security involved, so that ships which are not close to shore cannot be tracked except by recognized VTS systems. This is one reason AIS was designed as a short range system, and was originally designed for use with vessel radar systems, so that each blob on the screen could come up with a name and characteristics, much like air traffic control radars do.

 

 

If she is sea trialing now, that should get her underway to Singapore in time. You mentioned questions about routing, do you know which way she is planning on going? Panama is costly, but if she is without ANY passengers at all, there is a "ballast" rate for cruise ships. Suez is less costly, but still represents a cost. Around Good Hope is only 1000 miles more than Suez, so it could be an option depending on the Suez tax (not sure about their rates).

 

At 18 knots, Suez is 23-24 days, both Panama and Good Hope are 26-27 days.

 

A very good warning on not paying for services on these sites. Also, you could be correct that the data is coming from other ships in the area or the company itself - I did not think of that. As noted, I have not used vessel finder before today so I am not sure of the site. It has not asked for any info on me but there is a lot of advertising including offers to sell cruises. I will continue to use it with caution.

 

I would bet on Suez but that is just my speculation. The Panama toll - last year - for the NCL Pearl (full) was $480K. Insignia is about 25% of the Pearl tonnage so maybe $120K minus any discount for being empty. I have never been thru the Suez and have no data there. They have time for any route but I would still bet on the short one to save on fuel.

 

It is good to see her moving. She obtained a top speed of 19.7 knots and is heading back to San Juan now. Good to see they took her for a test drive.

Edited February 16, 2015 by dwgreenlee

[chengkp75]

I would bet on the Suez route as well. I looked up the rates, which are based on Suez canal tonnage, which is not quite the same as gross tonnage, closer to net tonnage really. Insignia is 30k+ gross tons, so maybe 25k Suez tons which comes to about $88k (would have been $104k if carrying just one passenger). Panama Canal fee would be about $105k in "ballast", or $132k with passengers. The $88k Suez fee represents only about 150mt of fuel, so the longer Good Hope doesn't pay.

[Freightgoddess]

FWIW - Egypt's main source of foreign currency is Suez Canal tolls.