Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Grand injured

PonyPair

By PonyPair,
in Princess Cruises

 Share

Recommended Posts

cheeseclan

cheeseclan

Posted
Posted

This is not about the Grand but about what happened on the Ruby when we were leaving Cabo on thanksgiving day. We pulled up anchor and were getting ready to leave when the ship stops dead.

We are not sure what happened for quite awhile. The captain makes an announcement that one of the life boats would not retract in place properly. The mechanics are working on it. Comes back later and says they got part of it retracted but the other end is hanging over the side. He says he is contact with corporate.

Captain gets back to us and says that corporate said to just strap the end that is not retracted and to have crew watch and make sure all okay.

We end up leaving about 3 hours late. Of course he has to go a little faster to make up time so that we all can make our flights.

 

We made it back but it was a bumpy ride.... Wonder if they were delayed leaving on Nov 26th due to this problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iceleven

iceleven

Posted
Posted
I was on the Grand a year ago doing the same itinerary (r/t SF to Hawaii) when, on Nov. 30, 2015 at 5:30am, there was a fire in the electrical box of the starboard engines that rendered them inoperable as well as our ability to maneuver well. We were just 20 mi. from Hilo. We, in the aft area, lost electricity for about 12 hrs and the rest of the ship for several hours.

 

It took 24 hrs to limp up to Honolulu, where we spent 2 days. They couldn't get the engines fixed but the maneuverability was back. We got the option of flying home then (about 500 people did) or staying on the ship and going to Ensenada and then SF. We missed Hilo, Maui and Kauai. We also got a very generous consolation package from Princess and had a fantastic rest of the cruise - the captain and staff were excellent. Luckily our weather the entire trip was perfect.

 

I wish all you passengers the best and glad everyone is OK. But personally, I will never sail on the Grand again. It's showing it's age in more than just cosmetic ways.

 

Yes, many of us remember each other because of our very friendly Roll Call. I loved that cruise and, of course, the consolation package. Since friends we met on this same cruise last year are now on this cruise, I am sure they are hopeful of a similar package and not just a free airfare home.

 

Yes, the Grand is showing her age. Perhaps now Princess will give us a newer ship here in San Francisco. What are the chances of that? Ha.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jennybenny

jennybenny

Posted
Posted
Yes, many of us remember each other because of our very friendly Roll Call. I loved that cruise and, of course, the consolation package. Since friends we met on this same cruise last year are now on this cruise, I am sure they are hopeful of a similar package and not just a free airfare home.

 

Yes, the Grand is showing her age. Perhaps now Princess will give us a newer ship here in San Francisco. What are the chances of that? Ha.:D

 

 

 

I worry we will lose what we have! Love having a ship from SF to sail on

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pablo222

pablo222

Posted
Posted

I don't want to worry anyone onboard, but this is a serious breach of watertight integrity, which is why the ship has turned around for the closest port. It will not sail until this is fixed. The ship's pumps can keep up with any water inflow (and they are adjusting speed to minimize this), but even if the entire watertight compartment flooded (there are doors separating it from other compartments along the ship), the ship would not sink.

 

It would seem to me that they could also shift water or fuel

to induce a list, but that would impact passenger comfort.

 

Although not as much as some of the alternatives! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go-Bucks!

Go-Bucks!

Posted
Posted
Yes, many of us remember each other because of our very friendly Roll Call. I loved that cruise and, of course, the consolation package. Since friends we met on this same cruise last year are now on this cruise, I am sure they are hopeful of a similar package and not just a free airfare home.

 

Yes, the Grand is showing her age. Perhaps now Princess will give us a newer ship here in San Francisco. What are the chances of that? Ha.:D

 

 

Howdy!

 

I'm very grateful for a wonderful Hawaiian cruise plus the 2 free future cruises that we get from the compensation money (an 8 day Southern Caribbean with 2 of my daughters in a minisuite plus a 7 day Western Caribbean with my friend Connie in an Owners suite). Quite a blessing.

 

I sure hope the current ones will get some compensation but it sounds like they got to visit all their ports except Ensenada (yuk). They will miss 4 or 5 sea days, so may not get quite as much compensation for missing those. But this situation sounds very serious and would make me more nervous than our fire. At least we weren't far from land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rkacruiser

rkacruiser

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wish all aboard Grand Princess a safe rest of their vacation.

 

This issue brings to mind a question I have had for several years concerning the Carnival Corporation Companies' fleets. I know that the ships are drydocked according to the appropriate regulations. But, are they being drydocked for a long enough period of time to adequately check all of the ship's mechanical systems whether they are "in need" or not?

 

Drydocking is expensive, both from the cost of the actual event as well as from the lost revenue for the time the ship is out of service. But, as any property, be it on land or on the sea, ages, more maintenance needs to be done.

Edited by rkacruiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites
iceleven

iceleven

Posted
Posted
I worry we will lose what we have! Love having a ship from SF to sail on

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I totally agree. The only reason we ever started cruising with Princess was because they had a cruise port here in the Bay Area.

 

We just got back from a B2B on the Royal and I feel that Princess could renew some interest here on the West Coast if they gave us a newer ship, a little variety. Maybe once the new canal is taking the newer, larger ships, Princess can let us have either the Regal or Royal during the winter months. I bet the cabins would fill up quickly. The Royal was a nice change but I am not willing to fly across the country 2-3 times a year just to be on a newer ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullbythehorns

bullbythehorns

Posted
Posted
And at t least you will all be safe.

 

I can't see a fiberglass tender damaging a heavy steel platform. I would think is was the seas. There is a major storm(almost hurricane) going thru Hawaii this week end.

 

Swells can hit the platform from the bottom with significant force.

If the platform was midway through closing or even partially up as they closed it, it may have been damaged then.

 

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kamloops50

Kamloops50

Posted
Posted
I totally agree. The only reason we ever started cruising with Princess was because they had a cruise port here in the Bay Area.

 

We just got back from a B2B on the Royal and I feel that Princess could renew some interest here on the West Coast if they gave us a newer ship, a little variety. Maybe once the new canal is taking the newer, larger ships, Princess can let us have either the Regal or Royal during the winter months. I bet the cabins would fill up quickly. The Royal was a nice change but I am not willing to fly across the country 2-3 times a year just to be on a newer ship.

 

Some of the new ship are to high to go thru the Canal even is the new locks can handle them. The Emerald and Golden are coming to the West coast in 2017 and 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeromep

jeromep

Posted
Posted
What a great experience! As long as no one has been injured. Sounds great!

 

Now let's get a great conversation going about who will pay the PVSA fines, or will there be an exemption or does anyone even care! LOL (popcorn is free)

 

So far the thread hasn't said anything about PVSA. However PVSA fines are only assessed when the law is willfully broken. In the case of the the seaworthiness of a vessel and the safety of its contents, and the need to get into a port, any port, which will secure the ship, keep it safe, and allow for repairs, PVSA is easily waved.

 

I could use some popcorn now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PonyPair

PonyPair

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Not being onboard, I can only speculate, and hopefully I am not casting unwarranted stones, but this is a major screw-up for the ship to have gotten this far from land. That hydraulic ram is one of two that raises and lowers the platform into place. Once raised to the stowed position, the platform becomes the watertight shell of the ship. It is held against large rubber gaskets by other, smaller hydraulic rams that wedge themselves in, forcing the door/platform tighter into the gasket.

 

 

 

The hydraulic system for the tender doors had to have been left on, otherwise the hydraulics are mechanically locked. Also, the locking cylinders would have either not been engaged, or were defective and drifted open. Then the flexing of the ship in a seaway could have broken the raising cylinder attachment points allowing the door to drop. However, the raising/lowering ram is in the lower (extended) position, indicating that it was commanded to lower the door, because if it broke off in the raised position, it would have fallen out of the ship like it has, but would not be extended.

 

 

 

Because these areas are typically below the "subdivision" deck where the watertight compartmentization ends, these spaces are normally patrolled by security, and they should have noted water leaking past the gaskets long before the entire system failed.

 

 

 

This is not something damaged by the tenders, or by the seas. If this door could not have been properly secured after tendering, the ship should not have sailed for the West Coast. This is a major failure of the system, or gross negligence on the part of the crew, and that's not something I throw out there lightly.

 

 

 

I don't want to worry anyone onboard, but this is a serious breach of watertight integrity, which is why the ship has turned around for the closest port. It will not sail until this is fixed. The ship's pumps can keep up with any water inflow (and they are adjusting speed to minimize this), but even if the entire watertight compartment flooded (there are doors separating it from other compartments along the ship), the ship would not sink.

 

 

Thanks for the technical info. We can see that both large rams are protruding out into the ocean. At our 11 knot speed quite a bit of water is flowing in and out of the rather impressive gaping hole in the hull.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeromep

jeromep

Posted
Posted (edited)
7af391d85a8212cb78a7ced20e6cf632.jpg. Door appears to be hanging down along side ship. End of hydraulic ram looks to be broken. Always a grand adventure. Food is still hot and the casino is open!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I've been looking at that photo. Has the tender gate actually dropped below the water line?

 

Somehow the ram has been separated from the dock.

 

I'm not a naval engineer, but I have this feeling that something might have gotten torqued when the dock was lifted into place causing strain on one of the main hydraulic rams and causing forced separation. Or maybe we're dealing with years and years of salt water and usage and metal fatigue has kicked in.

 

This is all speculation, but it is interesting nonetheless. Things break. What can I say.

 

I wish a safe journey to everyone.

Edited by jeromep
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triptolemus

triptolemus

Posted
Posted (edited)
I've been looking at that photo. Has the tender gate actually dropped below the water line?

 

The platform is 180 degrees open and out of position from that which it should be when underway. In other words, the platform has gone another 90 degrees down past the point where it normally operates. Much of the platform/door is below the waterline in that photo, yes.

 

The photo below shows the doors and the hydraulic rams in their open position on Emerald. You can see the hydraulic rams here, painted white.

 

emerald-princess-tender.jpg

Edited by triptolemus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colo Cruiser

Colo Cruiser

Posted
Posted
I've been looking at that photo. Has the tender gate actually dropped below the water line?

 

Somehow the ram has been separated from the dock.

 

I'm not a naval engineer, but I have this feeling that something might have gotten torqued when the dock was lifted into place causing strain on one of the main hydraulic rams and causing forced separation. Or maybe we're dealing with years and years of salt water and usage and metal fatigue has kicked in.

 

This is all speculation, but it is interesting nonetheless. Things break. What can I say.

 

I wish a safe journey to everyone.

 

 

Its on hinges. It looks to have flipped downwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...