Star Azipod News and progress

[DaveS32]

The problem is, most likely the parts that were repaired in Melbourne had not failed, nor had given any indication of failure in December. And the part needed in December was not a stock item, and had to be manufactured.

Do you think it needs a "proving period" now or should it be OK form here on. My fear would be other parts in the mechanical chain may have been affected by the failure and may now fail.

[chengkp75]

Do you think it needs a "proving period" now or should it be OK form here on. My fear would be other parts in the mechanical chain may have been affected by the failure and may now fail.

 

As much as anyone can tell, it should be fine. Anything can break at any time, and even new parts can fail, as witness the flexible fuel pipe on the Triumph that caused the fire, and which had been renewed within the last year. I don't really believe that running one pod caused any "stress" due to running at full load, as this is what it is designed to do, with maximum reliability. I've been surprised by the problems the Star has had over the years, since her sister the Dawn has not had these, and other ships of similar age haven't had them to this extent. This will most likely result in revisions to the maintenance schedule for older systems like this, to renew or at least check some of the components that have failed on the Star, so the manufacturer can build a better database.

[teamflames]

Please... can we have more posts asserting that Corporate Overlord NCL is trying to kill everyone in the name of profit with Gilligan at the helm of the Norwegian Minnow...

 

 

What is the difference between one poster speculating that NCL is cutting corners on repairs and taking a risk on sailing with less than fully functional equipment and another who continues to assume that the various failures are independent of one another and that the ship is never in danger because most other seafaring vessels only have one propulsion system??

I appreciate Cheng amazing technical knowledge but he has admitted that he doesn't know what the various failures have been.

So both John and Cheng who claim to have extensive experience with the sea are speculating but it makes for interesting reading.

The fact is the ship has had multiple mechanical issues in a short time frame; the ship ended up after multiple failures without propulsion in the open sea ... that deserves to be explained.

Almost everyone who has been affected by these sailings (exception being the NCL apologists) admits the crew have been spectacular but the management have been woeful in their communication and behaviour.

Will NCL and the authorities give us a true explanation!?

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Forums

[MicCanberra]

The problem is, most likely the parts that were repaired in Melbourne had not failed, nor had given any indication of failure in December. And the part needed in December was not a stock item, and had to be manufactured.

There is more to this than any of us know.

They already knew that the first Azipod was broken and needed repair back in December, having the parts available may be the reason but then why did it take so long to get it. Were they going to wait until Auckland to fit it.

As for the second Azipod failure, those parts were quite handily obtained and fitted once they got back to Melbourne.

[MicCanberra]

Will NCL and the authorities give us a true explanation!?

Sent from my iPod touch using Forums

Not any time soon, if ever.

[karoo]

There is more to this than any of us know.

They already knew that the first Azipod was broken and needed repair back in December, having the parts available may be the reason but then why did it take so long to get it. Were they going to wait until Auckland to fit it.

As for the second Azipod failure, those parts were quite handily obtained and fitted once they got back to Melbourne.

 

 

The December one was fixed mid January. The second one started having problems January 25th.

[aussie cruzer]

All going well on the Star so far.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[triptolemus]

What is the difference between one poster speculating that NCL is cutting corners on repairs and taking a risk on sailing with less than fully functional equipment and another who continues to assume that the various failures are independent of one another and that the ship is never in danger because most other seafaring vessels only have one propulsion system??

 

Well, in one case, the poster is making claims without any evidence to support them. In the other, we have an individual with years of experience with which to base his comments as well as several years of competent and insightful posting history here on Cruise Critic.

 

 

No one here believes that a ship being dead in the water is an okay place to be. It's rather difficult, however, to reconcile the baseless claims of one internet poster against the (apparent) directives of the relevant class society and port state officials who have cleared the ship to sail in recent weeks and months. Not only are they the authorities on the matter, but they have all of the information necessary to properly evaluate the safety of the situation and clear the ship to sail. We know this because the ship... sailed. In my opinion, these sources are far more reliable than the sky-is-falling type of posts we have seen here. But each one of us can choose who we wish to believe.

[lovenewexperiences1]

All going well on the Star so far.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

 

Awesome! Thanks for the update!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[MicCanberra]

All going well on the Star so far.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Good stuff, let's hope it stays that way now.:D

[chengkp75]

What is the difference between one poster speculating that NCL is cutting corners on repairs and taking a risk on sailing with less than fully functional equipment and another who continues to assume that the various failures are independent of one another and that the ship is never in danger because most other seafaring vessels only have one propulsion system??

I appreciate Cheng amazing technical knowledge but he has admitted that he doesn't know what the various failures have been.

So both John and Cheng who claim to have extensive experience with the sea are speculating but it makes for interesting reading.

The fact is the ship has had multiple mechanical issues in a short time frame; the ship ended up after multiple failures without propulsion in the open sea ... that deserves to be explained.

Almost everyone who has been affected by these sailings (exception being the NCL apologists) admits the crew have been spectacular but the management have been woeful in their communication and behaviour.

Will NCL and the authorities give us a true explanation!?

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Forums

 

Well, as for the "authorities" (the Australian AMSA), it depends on your conspiracy level as to whether they will give a "true explanation". There will be a report, just like the USCG gives a report for any PSC detention. In additon, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (akin to the US NHTSA) is completing a report because this became a "significant marine incident" (simply by being a total loss of propulsion).

[chengkp75]

There is more to this than any of us know.

They already knew that the first Azipod was broken and needed repair back in December, having the parts available may be the reason but then why did it take so long to get it. Were they going to wait until Auckland to fit it.

As for the second Azipod failure, those parts were quite handily obtained and fitted once they got back to Melbourne.

 

The reason for the delay in getting parts for the December repair, was even stated by the Captain as reported by a poster back then, as the part needed to be manufactured. Not every part of every piece of machinery, based on the historical life of the item, is kept in stock at the manufacturer.

 

 

Obviously, the part that failed on the second failure, prior to Darwin, was available, but needed time to ship to Oz, and perhaps the part needed for the third failure was available in Oz.

 

 

Major parts like those needed to overhaul the diesel engines require months of lead time, and need to be planned ahead for this reason, which is why an unprecedented failure, which the first one was, is so time delayed.

[MicCanberra]

Bunnings to the rescue?

[havenfan]

What is the difference between one poster speculating that NCL is cutting corners on repairs and taking a risk on sailing with less than fully functional equipment and another who continues to assume that the various failures are independent of one another and that the ship is never in danger because most other seafaring vessels only have one propulsion system??.

 

The difference is that John is presenting his speculations as fact and will not admit to another possibility. chengkp75 is presenting his speculations as a possibility and will not commit to a conclusion until he gets more information. If you read their interactions carefully, chengkp75's posts to John mostly consist of "what is your justification for..." while John's responses mostly consist of "how else do you explain..."

 

I appreciate Cheng amazing technical knowledge but he has admitted that he doesn't know what the various failures have been.

 

Whereas John has categorically stated that it can only be negligence on the part of NCL abetted by The Bahamas, and then failed to provide factual justification when challenged. The one tells the world what he can't know yet, the other's message boils down to "just trust me, I'm a professional".

 

In a situation like the present one, when facts are in short supply, I know who I'm going to pay attention to.

Edited February 15, 2017 by havenfan

[em-sk]

....

Whereas John has categorically stated that it can only be negligence on the part of NCL abetted by The Bahamas, and then failed to provide factual justification when challenged. The one tells the world what he can't know yet, the other's message boils down to "just trust me, I'm a professional".

 

In a situation like the present one, when facts are in short supply, I know who I'm going to pay attention to.

 

 

 

Leaving aside which position to trust.

 

 

NCL has a track record of having a solid operation over many years. We all complain about their "creativity" at finding new ways of increasing revenue but that is on the business side as opposed to the logistics of running these ships. Could it be negligence in running the Star? Perhaps but unlikely given their past track-record.

 

 

I think it is more likely they had an unexpected problem. At each step they tried to make the best decision with the limited information they had at that moment in time. Did they have two problems that appeared at the same time that resulted in being dead in the water or did having one pod inoperative cause the problem in the other? Who on this board knows for certain?

 

 

I think it is a stretch to jump to negligence in describing what happened.

[VK3DQ]

Have you all ever wondered why many cruise lines register their ships in FOC states

 

Funny all those Norwegian ship are registered in the Bahamas ???

 

 

 

 

Please think a little before making statements that are way off the mark

 

 

Regards

 

 

John

[chengkp75]

Have you all ever wondered why many cruise lines register their ships in FOC states

 

Funny all those Norwegian ship are registered in the Bahamas ???

 

 

 

 

Please think a little before making statements that are way off the mark

 

 

Regards

 

 

John

 

As is 95% of the world's shipping. And this from someone who has intimated that their own maritime safety agency is not up to snuff because they didn't stop the ship prior to a full breakdown, or that they would cave in to pressure from the Flag State or class. So, what advantage would there be to register in Australia over the Bahamas, if the enforcement of regulations is no better. Personally, I've had experience with AMSA and have a very different impression of them from you.

[richstowe]

Leaving aside which position to trust.

 

 

NCL has a track record of having a solid operation over many years. We all complain about their "creativity" at finding new ways of increasing revenue but that is on the business side as opposed to the logistics of running these ships. Could it be negligence in running the Star? Perhaps but unlikely given their past track-record.

 

 

I think it is more likely they had an unexpected problem. At each step they tried to make the best decision with the limited information they had at that moment in time. Did they have two problems that appeared at the same time that resulted in being dead in the water or did having one pod inoperative cause the problem in the other? Who on this board knows for certain?

 

 

I think it is a stretch to jump to negligence in describing what happened.

Is it too long ago to bring up the S.S. Norway ? I don't think so .A whole lot of people should have gone to jail on that one .. So I look at their track-record differently then you .

[lucymorgan]

As someone who has only cruised with RCI so far, I am watching with interest.

 

So far I have had a few reactions:

- I hadn't even considered NCL to date as I didn't know they traveled to Australia before this very unfortunate series of events.

- Why would I risk my holiday on a cruise line that has had this very unfortunate series of events (along with the media and many people saying that they sent a lemon/old ship down here).

- In a weird way, they now have my attention (any publicity is good publicity)

- Perhaps if they demonstrate good customer service and no further problems, and don't treat Aussie customers like fools, I will investigate cruising with them in the future.

 

So there may be pluses and minuses for NCL downunder, depending on what ships they send down here next.

 

(Any chance of a status match?)

[JVilleGal]

Have you all ever wondered why many cruise lines register their ships in FOC states

 

Funny all those Norwegian ship are registered in the Bahamas ???

 

 

 

 

Please think a little before making statements that are way off the mark

 

 

Regards

 

 

John

 

 

Taxes and employment practices! Not rocket science.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

For those who disparage Flags of Convenience outright, lets bring up the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Dover ferry that capsized and killed 193, while under British registry, or the Costa Concordia, under Italian flag, neither of which are considered Flags of Convenience.

 

While not a fan of FOC's, my professional opinion is that it is far more a factor of company reputation than the flag flown as to the safety of the vessels.

[DaveS32]

For those who disparage Flags of Convenience outright, lets bring up the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Dover ferry that capsized and killed 193, while under British registry, or the Costa Concordia, under Italian flag, neither of which are considered Flags of Convenience.

 

While not a fan of FOC's, my professional opinion is that it is far more a factor of company reputation than the flag flown as to the safety of the vessels.

Both of which were human error. When was the last time a ship sank due to mechanical error? Much like planes I'd imagine most accidents are human error.

[chengkp75]

Both of which were human error. When was the last time a ship sank due to mechanical error? Much like planes I'd imagine most accidents are human error.

 

True, but the Flag State controls more than just the mechanical condition of the ship. It controls the training, competency, and inspection of the crew, and the quality and completeness of the ISM (International Safety Management) system used by the ship to delineate all policies and procedures used onboard the ships.

 

 

As to the last sinking due to mechanical failure, we need look no further than the US flag El Faro.

 

 

My point is that accidents are not limited to Flags of Convenience, and not all operators of FOC ships are the same.

[havenfan]

Have you all ever wondered why many cruise lines register their ships in FOC states

 

Again, your response consists solely of "how else do you explain..." Not only is this not a constructive proof, it also demonstrates your limited view of possibilities. I tend to agree that a lack of a minimum wage has something to do with the phenomenon you are describing.

 

 

Please think a little before making statements that are way off the mark

 

 

Please specify which statements you considered off the mark.

[bostonfred]

How about actual reports on current status of ship...speed location. Performance..etc