Propulsion Damage on the Anthem !!

[thespuff]

Interesting, I know nothing about what kind of damage the azipod suffered and how long that would take to fix, but many of the news outlets are quoting the coast guard as saying it was replaced?

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/efc55ab0f1134b718f4671b51c97a19a/storm-shortened-cruise-had-damaged-propulsion-system

[A&L_Ont]

The moderators are silently deleting posts.

 

There was one thread where 20 pages disappeared in 5 minutes. A lot of drama was lost on those 20 pages, thankfully I might add.:)

 

It also appears that some of the over the tops posters are quiet today. Maybe a time out from the mods or perhaps they have something else better to today?

Edited February 12, 2016 by A&L_Ont

[mark290]

AP Quote

 

"The azipod was replaced, Rowe said, and Coast Guard officials were examining it along with the ship's lifeboats and other safety equipment to see if they meet standards. The ship can safely maneuver with one azipod, Rowe said.

[JRYMCMB]

I worked on the P&O Pacific Dawn when it experienced similar issues and it still sailed for nearly 3 months before finally going in for repairs, one propeller being out isn't going to make or break the cruise.

[ETOPS]

They do. Any 2 engine plane that carries paying passengers has to be ETOPS (ExTended Operations) ((though some wags call it Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim)) certified to be able to make an alternate landing site with only one engine running. So, in other words, if it's ETOPS certified for 180 minutes, then it can't fly farther away from an alternate landing site than 180 minutes without getting in serious trouble with the FAA.

 

DID someone say ETOPS-- :), the above is correct except. "Engines turn or people swim" ...

[ISABELLA]

As one of the passengers scheduled on the Feb. 13 cruise, I will be quite unhappy, to say the least, if Royal Caribbean, knowing the Coast Guard has not yet cleared them to leave, is still keeping that banner up on their website saying we are sailing as planned. And for anyone planning to say "don't trust the media," I'm more concerned with the interview with the Coast Guard member during the segment than whatever the reporter said.

 

As of Thursday, it would still have been possible to book cabins on the Breakaway leaving Sunday out of New York -- but we're certainly not willing to lose everything we paid for the Anthem.

 

I have had really, really good experiences with RCCL in the past, including having the company help us with rescheduling a cruise without charging us the cancellation fee a few years ago when my sister found out at the last minute she would be going through chemo right when we were supposed to sail. So I'm definitely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now, but I'm a bit more nervous than before seeing this post (and, no, obviously I don't want them to sail if the Coast Guard thinks they shouldn't).

As good as company RC is - I don't trust them as far as I can throw.

They are famous for putting wrong information on their website and very bad PR.

[antsnanny]

I think ships often sail with propulsion issues, however it does impact the sailing. Port times are adjusted and/or ports are cut. With Anthem coming from up north, it would definitely impact the itinerary. They should just get it fixed to make everyone happy and not mess with any other sailings.

 

I agree 100 % with you. This propulsion issue is the reason passengers were reporting they weren't making any headway. What concerns me is that they did encounter bad weather coming up the coast from Florida, seems like a ship with propulsion problems shouldn't have been in that weather. IMHO they should have disembarked their passengers in Port Canaveral end not take another chance.

[ETOPS]

The Anthem of the Seas sailing scheduled for Saturday, February 13, 2016 is departing as planned.

 

posted on there site....

[pearlie]

Local Philly TV just said it is up to the coast guard it it will sail "again". I am scheduled for the 2/21 cruise. Will we or won't we. ? That is the question.

[marksoe]

I agree 100 % with you. This propulsion issue is the reason passengers were reporting they weren't making any headway. What concerns me is that they did encounter bad weather coming up the coast from Florida, seems like a ship with propulsion problems shouldn't have been in that weather. IMHO they should have disembarked their passengers in Port Canaveral end not take another chance.

 

The reason they didnt disembark the passengers in Port Canaveral is becase of some maritime laws that permit them, as a foreign ship, so only do certain things.

 

For example, they can do what they did, and come back to create a full loop, without hitting another port, and be fine.

 

If they did want to make a straight shot, they would have had to stop at a foreign port (non-US) first, which they did not.

 

The fine is somewhere along the lines of $300 per person, from what I've heard over the past few days.

 

 

Please don't take this as me saying it is right or wrong.....but just informing that this was probably one of the major factors at play.

[LMaxwell]

Well, that's exactly what happens, if a plane loses and engine mid-flight. Of course, nobody wants that to happen mid-flight, but the planes are designed to handle that contingency and still be able to fly.

 

(I do know of one exception to the above. I saw a documentary on the development of the Boeing 747, and they were having trouble with engines flaming out when they tried to push them to full power. They intentionally caused on of these flame-outs when an executive of the engine company (I think it was GE) was on a test flight to drive home the point that they needed the problem to be fixed.)

 

Pratt & Whitney

[KarinaGW]

I agree 100 % with you. This propulsion issue is the reason passengers were reporting they weren't making any headway. What concerns me is that they did encounter bad weather coming up the coast from Florida, seems like a ship with propulsion problems shouldn't have been in that weather. IMHO they should have disembarked their passengers in Port Canaveral end not take another chance.

 

The 150mph winds is why we weren't making any headway. Before the storm, both were working fine. It was after the storm that the port pod was having issues. The ship was a champ.

[Winghunter]

The reason they didnt disembark the passengers in Port Canaveral is becase of some maritime laws that permit them, as a foreign ship, so only do certain things.

 

For example, they can do what they did, and come back to create a full loop, without hitting another port, and be fine.

 

If they did want to make a straight shot, they would have had to stop at a foreign port (non-US) first, which they did not.

 

The fine is somewhere along the lines of $300 per person, from what I've heard over the past few days.

 

 

Please don't take this as me saying it is right or wrong.....but just informing that this was probably one of the major factors at play.

 

I'm not an expert by anyone's standards, but I'd bet the Jones Act is not enforced before the health and safety of humans.

[marksoe]

I'm not an expert by anyone's standards, but I'd bet the Jones Act is not enforced before the health and safety of humans.

 

Nor am I, so I may be wrong, but this is just some things I've gathered from looking into it.

 

I also found that starting in 2016 they don't want cruises to go to 'nowhere' on purpose. So they may be getting a waiver for this, anyways.

 

 

I know normally that in order to get a waiver, the person would have to of been seriously injured. I know for sure that is a reason to get a waiver, but probably only for that person.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong...again, I am also not an expert on this topic.

[grandgeezer]

AP Quote

 

"The azipod was replaced, Rowe said, and Coast Guard officials were examining it along with the ship's lifeboats and other safety equipment to see if they meet standards. The ship can safely maneuver with one azipod, Rowe said.

 

I find that hard to believe. I just looked up azipods for cruise ships online, and those things are huge. The smallest one they mentioned weighs 70 tons and is as big as a small house. There is no way they could change that out without taking the ship out of the water. I also don't believe they would just have one laying around in NJ. You would be hard pressed to find one that would fit anywhere, even a shipyard, because of the cost.

This from the guy who determines if the ship sails, as planned tomorrow?

[Winghunter]

Nor am I, so I may be wrong, but this is just some things I've gathered from looking into it.

 

I also found that starting in 2016 they don't want cruises to go to 'nowhere' on purpose. So they may be getting a waiver for this, anyways.

 

 

I know normally that in order to get a waiver, the person would have to of been seriously injured. I know for sure that is a reason to get a waiver, but probably only for that person.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong...again, I am also not an expert on this topic.

 

My understanding is the same as you on both accounts, I've heard all the same things and also read them on here. I just stand by the fact that everything that happened on Sunday to the Anthem would allow them to not be fined for breaking the Jones Act, not like they wanted to be stuck in a hurricane and break their ship. I'd like to believe that the "law's & Acts" that are in place for financial and union reasons would not be enforced if peoples lives were at risk or even potentially to be at risk.

[cruiserking]

It's On.

 

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/02/coast_guard_deems_storm-damaged_cruise_ship_seawor.html

 

Jonathan

[Clarea]

It's On.

 

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/02/coast_guard_deems_storm-damaged_cruise_ship_seawor.html

 

Jonathan

Thanks for the update, sounds promising.

[marksoe]

My understanding is the same as you on both accounts, I've heard all the same things and also read them on here. I just stand by the fact that everything that happened on Sunday to the Anthem would allow them to not be fined for breaking the Jones Act, not like they wanted to be stuck in a hurricane and break their ship. I'd like to believe that the "law's & Acts" that are in place for financial and union reasons would not be enforced if peoples lives were at risk or even potentially to be at risk.

 

That is very true! I'm sure if they tried hard enough they could have found a way to get a waiver!

[cot427]

The reason they didnt disembark the passengers in Port Canaveral is becase of some maritime laws that permit them, as a foreign ship, so only do certain things.

 

For example, they can do what they did, and come back to create a full loop, without hitting another port, and be fine.

 

If they did want to make a straight shot, they would have had to stop at a foreign port (non-US) first, which they did not.

 

The fine is somewhere along the lines of $300 per person, from what I've heard over the past few days.

 

 

Please don't take this as me saying it is right or wrong.....but just informing that this was probably one of the major factors at play.

 

The circumstances should have allowed them to obtain a fee waiver from the government. However we all know how the government works and there is no way they would turn down $$!

[OSUZorba]

They do. Any 2 engine plane that carries paying passengers has to be ETOPS (ExTended Operations) ((though some wags call it Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim)) certified to be able to make an alternate landing site with only one engine running. So, in other words, if it's ETOPS certified for 180 minutes, then it can't fly farther away from an alternate landing site than 180 minutes without getting in serious trouble with the FAA.

 

Point of clarification: All aircraft are certified to be able to fly down an engine. But not all 2 engine planes are certified ETOPS and especially not all airlines maintain ETOPS certification on all of their 2 engine aircraft. It is only required if the aircraft will be more than 60 minutes from a suitable airport at the reduced cruise speed.

 

Whats interesting is ETOPS used to only apply to Twin engine aircraft and stood for "Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards" but it changed to apply to all aircraft in Feb, 2015 and now just stands for "Extend Operations." Except non-twins can be 180 minutes from a suitable airport, without being ETOPS certified.

 

I'm also pretty sure it only applies to airlines and air-taxi operators.

 

/aviation-geek.

[Ocean Boy]

I think ships often sail with propulsion issues, however it does impact the sailing. Port times are adjusted and/or ports are cut. With Anthem coming from up north, it would definitely impact the itinerary. They should just get it fixed to make everyone happy and not mess with any other sailings.

 

Most of the Voyager /Freedom/ and Oasis class ships have sailed at times with pod issues. However, all of those ships have three pods. I find it odd that Quantum/Anthem have only two pods. With the other ships if they happened to loose another pod they still had one to limp home on. If Anthem were allowed to sail with one pod out and something happened to the other one they would be dead in the water.

 

Why would they build a ship that is bigger than the Freedom class and only have two pods?:confused: And since they know that the pods have been notorious for developing issues it make the decision even more perplexing to me.

[Ocean Boy]

Didn't Allure sail around the Caribbean for months with a down azipod?

 

Yes, Allure did sail with one of its three pods out. But as I said above with only two pods on this ship I suspect if it does have a pod problem it won't be allowed to set sail on a cruise.

[Irene7]

An article which is spot on about the industry !!

 

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2016/02/11/note-to-cruise-lines-and-politicians-we-save-our-forecasts/

 

Good article.

[FSUNole]

An article which is spot on about the industry !!

 

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2016/02/11/note-to-cruise-lines-and-politicians-we-save-our-forecasts/

 

I love cruising and will continue to do so but I don't trust the cruise corporations (all of them) as far as I can throw the Oasis.