Propulsion Damage on the Anthem !!

[CarpeCerevisi]

The difference with the ships mentioned in other posts sailing down one pod is that those ships have three pods and thus they still had redundancy if another pod failed. Anthem only has two pods so if one is completely down they no longer have redundancy and thus would lose the ability to safely return to port if the one remaining pod fails. I do not believe the Coast Guard would allow them to sail with passengers until they at least have partial power to the failed pod.

 

A similar situation occurred with the Celebrity Millennium a few years ago where they had pod problems while up in Alaska. After several attempts to repair it they finally decided the pod needed to be replaced. They had to offload all passengers in Ketchikan and then sailed the ship empty all the way to Freeport via the Panama Canal to replace the pod. I followed that journey closely since I was booked on the Panama Canal cruise that was to be the first after the pad was replaced.

 

Another example was the Enchantment a few years ago where one of the electric propulsion motors that drives one of the shafts wasn't working. The ship didn't leave Baltimore until the morning after the original sail date and not until partial power was restored to the motor. The Captain said that the USCG would not allow them to sail before then. I was on that cruise, we missed two ports and they ended up refunding 100% of the cruise fare even though we still completed a nine night cruise.

 

Hopefully, it won't be so drastic with Anthem. The interiors of the pods are accessible from inside the ship for repair and maintenance.

[cruisenfever]

I read somewhere yesterday in one of these threads that an RC rep has already told CNN the decision to sail was ultimately the Captains. If that is in fact true, its not looking real good for Captain Claus. Im guessing this will be real similar to the Brilliance incident several years ago where the Captain left the ship to aid in the investigation and never returned.

 

That is just my guess and opinion.

As much as I would like to agree with you on this one, I have to respectfully disagree. :o You can not compare with happened on Brilliance on December 13, 2010 to what happened on Anthem this last weekend even though a storm was involved in both incidents.

 

Brilliance was trying to enter the Port of Alexandria even though they were told not to. Damage was done, a life was lost and many, many injuries, including several CC Members. Captain did aid in part of the investigation, but retired on his own due to emotional stress.

[KarinaGW]

I was disappointed read this, as I am usually defending the forum as being not as bad as people try to portray it. So, I went and looked up what you had said before. Found it, but I couldn't find a single post accusing you of being sensationalist.

 

In fact, the closest I found was a post later in the same thread by you, accusing the press of only reporting the sensationalist comments from the cruise.

 

So, I'm back to thinking that this forum is not as bad as people try to make it out to be.

 

Oh no. People did. The mods cut the thread down by some 10-15 pages when they deleted the hatred spewing posts. It was pretty rank.

[Paul65]

Oh no. People did. The mods cut the thread down by some 10-15 pages when they deleted the hatred spewing posts. It was pretty rank.

 

Ah, okay. Maybe some people did get out of hand with that one.

[ehfl]

Tug boats escorting the Anthem into port was not a good sign.

 

I noticed that too. Most likely, they had to use the thrusters to keep the bow into the wind. The thrusters are designed to run for a few minutes at a time while docking, etc. They were not designed for hours of continuous use. In addition, the thrusters were likely out of the water a significant amount of time as the bow came over the tops of the waves. This would have stressed them further with over-revving.

 

The azipods likely had similar stress with them coming out of the water at times and possibly over-revving. Also the lurching motion, would have caused sudden acceleration and deceleration of the props...not good. Ok for a few minutes, but very stressful on the equipment going through many hours of that. There could also have been extreme lateral forces as the wind blew the ship sideways or seas caused it to roll.

 

I'm sure the stabilizers were also stressed to their tolerances.

[J and J]

Smart ship. Maybe they just have to turn it off and back on again.

 

[emoji51]

 

That just gave me a good morning laugh.... Thanks.

[robtulipe]

Here's my picture the Monday after the storm showing only one side working. I also have video that is much clearer.

 

The Monday morning after the storm, I was in 270 looking out the back windows, and noticed that the starboard azipod was hauling ass while the portside one was barely moving. I took a warped panorama photo of it. I'm typing on my desktop right now but I'll log on with my iPhone and try to put the pic up next.

 

Is the shot below similar to the one you took?

This is a screen shot of the Anthem's wake in the video linked to at the beginning of this thread. The port pod seems to be working but not as well as the starboard one considering how its wake appears. In the shot above the port pod doesn't appear to be functioning at all.

I also recall when checking Marine Traffic website seeing Anthem speed as being just over 11 knots for a short period an hour or so prior to the entry into NY harbor.

It may be that the port pad isn't working or performing as well as it should but was working at one time after the storm episode.

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by robtulipe

[CRUISEFAN0001]

Don't hold your breath waiting for a comprehensive explanation from Royal. At this point their primary concern is liability issues. I'm sure their attorneys have told them "admit nothing."

Nope...not holding my breath.

 

Two words at this point.

 

Analysis Paralysis.

[johnjen]

According to our resident engineer on another thread, they wouldn't have been able to hold their position in that wind with one down.

 

Wait, there's a resident engineer in this forum somewhere? I guess this person is an expert on what happened? Or is this person just another speculator like everyone else?

Edited February 12, 2016 by johnjen

[papaflamingo]

clearly there were structural issues, and I will feel better if the Coast Guard releases a statement saying the ship is safe for travel.

 

There is NO indication from the Coast Guard or anywhere else (unless you have other information) to support your statement about "clearly there were structural issues." Clearly there is a propulsion issue. Not structural. BIG difference. Plus the Coast Guard can effectively cancel the cruise if necessary (I am retired Coast Guard). If they don't feel Anthem is safe to sail they'll do just that. So if they release her, then she is considered safe.

 

shouldn't passengers have the right to know any and all damages that a ship has before they get on and be given the choice to sail or not. The standards and practices of cruise lines needs serious reevaluations. Imagine flying in a plane missing half its engine power

 

I am an airline pilot. We fly frequently with mechanical issues. But they don't affect "safety of flight." Obviously, unlike a cruise ship, all engines must operate for takeoff. But we often fly with an inoperative Auxiliary Power Unit (back up electrics). We often fly with a failed generator, but use the Auxiliary Power Unit to supply half of the electrics. No problems. But we don't tell passengers unless there is a need to know. Otherwise they'd do what people here are doing.. assume that they are all going to die.

Another "propulsion issue" cruise to add to the list was Freedom last year. Had to remove a propeller in Nassau because it wasn't working and creating too much drag. So they spent 24 hours in Nassau then changed their itinerary from Eastern to Western Caribbean and went without the one azipod for a significant time.

Look, I'm not defending anyone. If they knew the path, winds, and seas, then heads should roll. If they were caught unawares, then so be it. We were on Carnival in the Med. in 2007 and spent a night in 30 foot seas and 85 kt winds. Believe me, I'm willing to bet that Anthem could handle them more than Carnival Freedom. Yet we did fine. It's a fluid environment (pun intended). Ships are machines. They break. Just like cars, airplanes, etc. Can you even comprehend keeping one of these mechanical marvels 100% 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with no scheduled "down time" for 5 years? The demands of 6000 passengers and 2000 crew? Toilets, water systems, high demand electrical systems, etc. No excuses for stupid decisions, but if you think you are sailing on a ship with no "mechanical issues" I think you are delusional. Most are just unnoticeable and don't impact you. But when your toilet fails or you have an electrical issue in your cabin.. .you notice that. The other 5998 people don't, but YOU sure do. :)

[jonbgd]

When the Anthem sailed from England didn't it go through a huge storm>

Did the TA cause any damage to the azipods that was exacerbated by this storm?

 

Was Capt Claus onboard for the TA or is he relief?

If he was the Capt onboard maybe he was over confident from the TA:confused:

[pspercy]

shouldn't passengers have the right to know any and all damages that a ship has before they get on and be given the choice to sail or not. The standards and practices of cruise lines needs serious reevaluations. Imagine flying in a plane missing half its engine power

 

 

Done that, in the old days it was called Aeroflot:eek::eek:

[robtulipe]

The difference with the ships mentioned in other posts sailing down one pod is that those ships have three pods and thus they still had redundancy if another pod failed. Anthem only has two pods so if one is completely down they no longer have redundancy and thus would lose the ability to safely return to port if the one remaining pod fails. I do not believe the Coast Guard would allow them to sail with passengers until they at least have partial power to the failed pod.

 

A similar situation occurred with the Celebrity Millennium a few years ago where they had pod problems while up in Alaska. After several attempts to repair it they finally decided the pod needed to be replaced. They had to offload all passengers in Ketchikan and then sailed the ship empty all the way to Freeport via the Panama Canal to replace the pod. I followed that journey closely since I was booked on the Panama Canal cruise that was to be the first after the pad was replaced.

 

Another example was the Enchantment a few years ago where one of the electric propulsion motors that drives one of the shafts wasn't working. The ship didn't leave Baltimore until the morning after the original sail date and not until partial power was restored to the motor. The Captain said that the USCG would not allow them to sail before then. I was on that cruise, we missed two ports and they ended up refunding 100% of the cruise fare even though we still completed a nine night cruise.

 

Hopefully, it won't be so drastic with Anthem. The interiors of the pods are accessible from inside the ship for repair and maintenance.

 

We were sailing a lot with X on M Class ships so I followed that Millennium thread also and was going to post about that also.

I'm sure Paul, Aquahound, can confirm that the CG wouldn't allow Anthem to sail without propulsion redundancy. ;)

[TubbyMrT]

I wonder what this does?

 

:D

 

 

 

.

[robtulipe]

When the Anthem sailed from England didn't it go through a huge storm>

Did the TA cause any damage to the azipods that was exacerbated by this storm?

 

Was Capt Claus onboard for the TA or is he relief?

If he was the Capt onboard maybe he was over confident from the TA:confused:

 

I believe that was Capt. Anders, who was the master for our cruise in January. Capt. Claus Andersen just took over at the star of this past cruise.

[Big_G]

Wait, there's a resident engineer in this forum somewhere? I guess this person is an expert on what happened? Or is this person just another speculator like everyone else?

 

Sarcasm? :confused: So far he's provided more valuable technical information regarding the ship and operations than speculation unlike an overwhelming majority of the posters here. Have you read any of his posts.

[Big_G]

I wonder what this does?

 

:D

 

 

 

.

 

Too funny. :D:D:D

[Paul65]

I wonder what this does?

 

:D

 

 

 

.

 

Cute. And it has occurred to me that this may even be somewhat true - not so much that it is unplugged and they don't realize it, but it's possible it was functional, but not operating quite properly, so they chose to "unplug" it until they had a chance to evaluate what the problem was.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Paul65

[Eslader]

Makes you wonder, why they don't build planes like cruise ships, with extra engines. Some have 6, so 2 can be held for backup. :rolleyes:

 

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.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Eslader

[dandee2]

Especially when the captain made public declarations of his plan to OUTRUN a major storm.

 

Question: Is English the first language of the Captain? He might be working in an English language environment but if English is not his mother tongue then you might pardon his choice of word. He could have used a multitude of synonym to explain what they were doing. circumvent, steer clear of, get around!!!, etc.

[foxgoodrich]

Wait, there's a resident engineer in this forum somewhere? I guess this person is an expert on what happened? Or is this person just another speculator like everyone else?

 

Chengkp75 is Chief Engineer on a commercial vessel. He's a professional mariner with 40 years of experience. He's currently at sea but he's been keeping up with the Anthem threads and providing information from his experience with engines, propulsion and such. You can find his posts in the Anthem threads. Most of us respect his expertise.

Judy

[setsail]

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.

 

Thanks for the lesson, I think.:D . I will stick to ships, modern rci ships that carry extra engines that are not needed in normal pod/ship operations, but can be used for backup or added power

Edited February 12, 2016 by setsail

[cruisenfever]

When the Anthem sailed from England didn't it go through a huge storm>

Did the TA cause any damage to the azipods that was exacerbated by this storm?

 

Was Capt Claus onboard for the TA or is he relief?

If he was the Capt onboard maybe he was over confident from the TA

I believe that was Capt. Anders, who was the master for our cruise in January. Capt. Claus Andersen just took over at the star of this past cruise.

According to the Current Captains Thread Captain Claus started his rotation on Anthem 8/29/2015 and was in charge on the TA from Southampton. Up until that time he was rotating with Captain Gus Anderson. Captain Anders took over after the TA and started his rotation on 11/22/2015.

Edited February 12, 2016 by cruisenfever

[vxr]

I was disappointed read this, as I am usually defending the forum as being not as bad as people try to portray it. So, I went and looked up what you had said before. Found it, but I couldn't find a single post accusing you of being sensationalist.

 

In fact, the closest I found was a post later in the same thread by you, accusing the press of only reporting the sensationalist comments from the cruise.

 

So, I'm back to thinking that this forum is not as bad as people try to make it out to be.

 

The moderators are silently deleting posts.

[Susie51]

I'm glad RCI is going to change it's weather policies so that these situations can be avoided.

 

Leaving from NYC area in the winter, passengers, officers, and, of course, cruise line officials should expect bad weather. Changing course is the safe thing to do.