Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
sevenseasnomad

Norweign Ship Evacuation

Recommended Posts

Weather channel online reports that Viking Sky ran into propulsion problems, has sent a mayday signal, and is trying to off-load 1300 passengers and cruise off the coast of Norway.  Hope everyone is safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this on a National new site.  They are using 5 helicopters to airlift passengers one by one off the ship.  Very dangerous and as of 18:00 only 100 of the 1,300 passengers and crew had been evacuated.

 

Prayers to all involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts and Prayers to the pax and crew of the Viking Sky and to the heroic helo crews of the Royal Norwegian Air Force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She seems to be underway....slowly proceeding south.


David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Already being discussed here:

 

Several hours before your post.

 

 

 

You are absolutely right.  I was so worried and concerned about the situation that I hastily misread the other title, thinking that it was about the Nieuw Statendam.

Barbara 

Edited by bcummin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These ships have no business being in the North Atlantic at this time of the year, normally cruise ships start there in May, even the Med can be bad in March/April, it all has to do with competition, and in the meantime putting passengers at risk who have no clue about how bad the weather can be up in Northern Atlantic Ocean...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute Priority is to get the propulsion working again.

evacuating by helicopter really is a last resort in my opinion as this takes ages, involves a not small amount of risk to the evacuated passengers and is a procedure not practiced on a large scale. Things must have been looking grim before an order like this is given.

A nightmare, not only for the passengers, but also for the crew who have the safety of all as First priority.

The incident report will be very interesting reading material.

 

Sidenote...

does anyone know what they were doing on the North Atlantic, in a early springtime storm, close to shore with known (and some uncharted ) reefs?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cruise to Northern Norway was in search of the Northern Lights.

Seeing them is only viable in Spring & Autumn by cruise ship.

The Norwegian coast is no doubt very well charted.

the failure of all 4? generators cannot be an engine failure.  More likely a fault common to all those that were running.

It could be caused by the vessels motion or a fuel problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Despegue said:

Absolute Priority is to get the propulsion working again.

evacuating by helicopter really is a last resort in my opinion as this takes ages, involves a not small amount of risk to the evacuated passengers and is a procedure not practiced on a large scale. Things must have been looking grim before an order like this is given.

A nightmare, not only for the passengers, but also for the crew who have the safety of all as First priority.

The incident report will be very interesting reading material.

 

Sidenote...

does anyone know what they were doing on the North Atlantic, in a early springtime storm, close to shore with known (and some uncharted ) reefs?

 

 

 

As SeaDog46 states The Northern Lights are best to be seen by the Naked eye October-March.

 

QUOTE "What is the best month to see Northern Lights in Norway?

The northern lights are therefore always present. Historically, the chances of seeing the northern lights are best viewed in Northern Norway between October and March, because the polar night makes them easier to see. The northern lights are visible in a belt around the magnetic North Pole."UNQUOTE
 
I watch the Live Feed from Senja and Tromso and believe me, these are something that Most lovers of the Lady "A" would brave inclement weather and/or the seas to view. It can be said by many that seeing the lights is a once in a life time experience......
 
https://www.fjordtravel.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/003522_ystein-Lunde-Ingvaldsen_www.nordnorge.com_Boe-e1396956456738.jpg003522_ystein-Lunde-Ingvaldsen_www.nordn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, the lights were supposedly very active last night. The local weather forecaster for the NYC area said that we might  be able to see them if we could get to a place without a lot of background light. (Not easy to do in the suburbs of NYC!)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the London/UK Times late this afternoon, they had this headline: “Britons winched to safety from stricken cruise ship in Norway” with a picture of the Viking Sky being docked in Molde, Norway.  

 

Here are some of their story highlights: “British passengers described the ordeal today of being winched up to helicopters from a stricken cruise ship in howling wind and heaving seas on a treacherous stretch of the Norwegian coast.  Derek Browne, from Hampshire, said the rescue had been frightening. 'I’d never been in a helicopter before. There were a lot of high winds, hovering overhead and the winchman came down and we were then collected up and so I shut my eyes as we arrived into the helicopter and there were 15 of us for about a 20-minute ride.'  Some 200 Britons were among 915 passengers and 458 crew aboard the two-year-old luxury ship. About 20 injured passengers were taken to hospital while others suffered minor injuries, mainly caused by loose furniture and fittings which careened across the decks as the vessel rolled violently in waves up to 25 feet high. There were many Americans and Australians among the passengers.”

 

Here is more on the history with these Viking ships:  "The cruise line, which was arranging for passengers’ homeward flights, has suffered other recent engine failures. The Viking Sea, one of six identical ships, suffered an engine problem in December of 2016 which kept her stuck in Barcelona. In 2016 she temporarily lost power in Malta. In August of 2015, the Viking Star lost power in an engine after leaving Tallinn and the cruise was cancelled."

 

Full story at:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/britons-winched-to-safety-from-stricken-cruise-ship-in-norway-rjg9mrjs8

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

AFRICA?!!?: Fun, interesting visuals, plus travel details from this early 2016 live/blog. At 44,629 views. Featuring Cape Town, South Africa’s coast, Mozambique, Victoria Falls/Zambia and Botswana's famed Okavango Delta. 

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2310337

 

From the UK Times, here is their visual of ship being docked in Norway.:

(Open your screen/viewer wider to see these pictures larger/better!)

1244065499_ScreenShot2019-03-24at7_18_34PM.thumb.png.32c572a457e88d7769387ae45a4e9754.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SeaDog-46 said:

he failure of all 4? generators cannot be an engine failure.  More likely a fault common to all those that were running.

 

Surely don't have an engineering degree, John, but the generators are separate from the engines, I think.  Given the redundancy of systems that are supposed to be installed on these modern ships, Viking Sky's and Nieuw Statendam's issues are not easy to understand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob - No engineering certificates for me - just the basics we had to know & experience over 40+ years.

Missed the Ch.Eng on the Sky Viking page - but he is now on that forum.

Blackouts are something you learn to live with but having one in a storm on a lee shore is not funny.

My first recent cruise in 2008 on Pacific Dawn ex Sitmar built Regal Princess - had a blackout in mid Pacific day before Tonga.

Captain told a few of us later that due to common cooling water line, 1 generator that was overheating caused all 3 to go off line due to overheat. 

Remember approaching Singapore eastern pilot station one night - suddenly lost all power. Lukely there was no wind & pilot said if it persisted would get us a tug. By the time he boarded we were back in action.

Brand new tanker - Chief Engineer opened a watertight door & stopped the main engine!

Leaving a port on a loaded bulk carrier - still with pilot onboard - blackout.  We had bunkered that day & it turned out the mixed fuel "curdled" & clogged the filters.  Chief changed over to marine diesel - restarted engine & we departed without having to take a line from a tug [salvage claim].  Engine room were kept busy cleaning filters every watch.

A similar sort of thing in same area as Viking Sky happened to a steam tanker of dubious national flag. Sailing from Norway with crude for Halifax.  Severe gale between Orkney & Shetland caused ship to roll heavily & unlashed steel on deck wiped out bunker tank vent.  This caused water to get into bunker tank feeding boiler. Boiler went out - engine stopped - ship went ashore on Shetland.  Over 100,000 tons of crude spilled & "blew away". 

I had done the exact same voyage a few years before but we went 25 miles off north Shetland. Bad & good seamanship.

 

Recently over several months back & into last year there has been a problem with bunker fuel in various places that has caused problems.  This is one possible cause.  Another could be design of system causing the power to trip off.   Common supply of lube oil or cooling water but this seems unlikely.  Extreme ship motion could have interupted supply of fuel oil, lube or cooling water causing a trip.

 

Norway's Viking Ocean is one of only a few cruise lines that register there ships in there home country.  HAL in Rotterdam & Princess / P&O in UK or offshore territory of Burmuda. There maybe others.

Far too many use Flag of Conveinience [FOC] nations.

The above companies have some of the best senior officers & are overseen by organisations as good as USCG.

The facts so often overlooked by some on cc because they jump in & do not read from first post.

Viking Sky sailed from Northern Norway into normal weather.

Missed 1 port due to high winds & no tugs available.

Suddenly the ship blacks out.

Lowered 1 or both anchors to stop ship going ashore.

Declared Mayday to evacuate some passengers.

Got some power back & moved offshore.

Took line from Norwegian deep sea rescue vessel Ocean Response with harbour tug Vivax "steering".

In the calm inshore waters Viking Sky used here own power to berth at Molde.

See pics of similar deep sea rescue with ocean going tugs / rig tenders.

Shinyo Sawako is the same vessel as my avetar - Golden Stream.

John

 

 

Salvage  222gb.jpg

Tow in storm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    

Chengkp75  "Well, I will leave it to our former Captains Heidi13 and SeaDog 42 for actual experience with this, but this is pretty much the "shipping lane" in the area, and where the Gulf Stream, having crossed the Atlantic will sweep down the Norwegian coast to give the ships a boost in speed.  Everyone keeps going on about the storm, but I haven't seen anything that says this was a storm out of normal proportions, or that other ships (other than the one freighter) had any difficulties in the area.  Surely the fact that much smaller offshore supply and salvage tugs got to the Sky in the same weather indicates to me that the weather, per se, was not that intense.  I also haven't tracked how close offshore she was before losing power, but to blame it on sailing too close to shore is somewhat like me saying I'll avoid half the roads in town because there might be black ice, or that my truck might break down while on that black ice.

But, yes, the proximity to the shore was a major factor in deciding to evacuate the passengers, but also the fact that the ship was broadside to the seas and rolling heavily, which if the passengers stayed onboard and the engines could not be started soon, may have resulted in more injuries."

 
There is another good conversation over on the Viking Ocean boards.
Barbara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Surely don't have an engineering degree, John, but the generators are separate from the engines, I think.  Given the redundancy of systems that are supposed to be installed on these modern ships, Viking Sky's and Nieuw Statendam's issues are not easy to understand.  

Actually  ships are diesel-electric.   or Turbine -electric.     Steam turbine     The engines turn the generators which produce voltage.    The generators provide power to  electric engines.   There is no direct shaft from a engine    I worked in an engineering division in the US NAVY on Destroyers    We had twin  General Electric  60,000 shaft HP electric motors..... the powered  twin reduction gears  adding 3 times the  torque/power to the ships propeller shafts..... at 2100 tons we could make 34kts !!!

Ships now, more and more are using AZAPOD self contained motor propeller    Like an outboard motor  they act as both screw and rudder .   I suspect Viking had Azapods not shaft propulsion. 

If the engine on Viking Sea failed It could have been an electrical short at what is called  "main control" where the generators shuttle electric current to the electric motors.   The winds blowing seawater could have caused this.

  That amigos and shipmates is the  snipe scoop. 

I understand  the Norway maritime authority  is taking the Captain to task  for  incompetent actions of leaving the prior port, and advised not to because of heavy weather....  There is going to be a board of inquiry and the skipper may loose his Masters.

 

        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bcummin said:

    

Chengkp75  "Well, I will leave it to our former Captains Heidi13 and SeaDog 42 for actual experience with this, but this is pretty much the "shipping lane" in the area, and where the Gulf Stream, having crossed the Atlantic will sweep down the Norwegian coast to give the ships a boost in speed.  Everyone keeps going on about the storm, but I haven't seen anything that says this was a storm out of normal proportions, or that other ships (other than the one freighter) had any difficulties in the area.  Surely the fact that much smaller offshore supply and salvage tugs got to the Sky in the same weather indicates to me that the weather, per se, was not that intense.  I also haven't tracked how close offshore she was before losing power, but to blame it on sailing too close to shore is somewhat like me saying I'll avoid half the roads in town because there might be black ice, or that my truck might break down while on that black ice.

But, yes, the proximity to the shore was a major factor in deciding to evacuate the passengers, but also the fact that the ship was broadside to the seas and rolling heavily, which if the passengers stayed onboard and the engines could not be started soon, may have resulted in more injuries."

 
There is another good conversation over on the Viking Ocean boards.
Barbara

...  a cruise ship has a very high center of gravity and superstructure  that winds can blow like a sail.     The seagoing tugs and supply ships are very low center of gravity and very little  super structure.....  Totaly built  WAY different because of their necessity to operate in very heavy sea.      The Cruise ship is not !!!    

THE SKIPPER on Viking  was advised by Norwegian  authorities   of the storm and NOT  to try it.....   Company pressures over came  logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hawaiidan said:

..........................

Ships now, more and more are using AZAPOD self contained motor propeller    Like an outboard motor  they act as both screw and rudder .   I suspect Viking had Azapods not shaft propulsion. 

.....................

 

You mean "Azipod" propulsion and Viking Sky does not have pods; she has four 7,250 KW diesel-electric engines with two shafts driving two six-bladed fixed-pitch propellers 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawaiidan said:

...  a cruise ship has a very high center of gravity and superstructure  that winds can blow like a sail.     The seagoing tugs and supply ships are very low center of gravity and very little  super structure.....  Totaly built  WAY different because of their necessity to operate in very heavy sea.      The Cruise ship is not !!!    

THE SKIPPER on Viking  was advised by Norwegian  authorities   of the storm and NOT  to try it.....   Company pressures over came  logic.

Please link me to where it was stated that the Norwegian authorities advised the Captain not to sail, I haven't seen that, and would be very surprised if it was released to the public if factual.

 

Second, it is the relationship between the center of gravity and the metacenter (the center of the arc that the center of buoyancy rotates around) that affects stability, not merely the height of the center of gravity.  Offshore supply vessels have relatively narrow hulls and very shallow drafts, meaning their metacenter is relatively low, and therefore more liable to rolling than a ship with a wide hull and deeper draft, even with a high center of gravity.  Yes, there is a difference in sail area between the two, but offshore supply vessels have blunt bows and tend to plow through seas rather than ride them like a cruise ship does, and I've seen them many times (work on more than a few) with the entire deck awash, bow to stern, where any little problem with watertight integrity could spell disaster for the boat.

 

And, if the company's ISM code was followed by both the company (in making their decision to allow the ship to sail) and the Captain (making the same decision), then there will be no fault assigned to the Captain by the Norwegian authorities, regardless of whether there was a "warning" or not.  ISM promotes an environment where blame is not apportioned for incidents, instead they are studied to learn what went wrong, what could be done better, and implementing any changes required.

 

And I don't believe there are any steam turbine cruise ships, or even many cargo ships (except LNG tankers) in the world anymore, since they are so incredibly fuel inefficient.  If not diesel electric, they are gas turbine electric.

 

So, your destroyer used 120,000 HP (twin 60k you said, but I think that may be high, only remember seeing about 20-30k motors, but tell me the class) to push 2100 tons at 34 knots.  The SS United States used twice that horsepower (240k) to push 47000 displacement tons (22 times the weight) at 35-38 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Please link me to where it was stated that the Norwegian authorities advised the Captain not to sail, I haven't seen that, and would be very surprised if it was released to the public if factual.

 

Second, it is the relationship between the center of gravity and the metacenter (the center of the arc that the center of buoyancy rotates around) that affects stability, not merely the height of the center of gravity.  Offshore supply vessels have relatively narrow hulls and very shallow drafts, meaning their metacenter is relatively low, and therefore more liable to rolling than a ship with a wide hull and deeper draft, even with a high center of gravity.  Yes, there is a difference in sail area between the two, but offshore supply vessels have blunt bows and tend to plow through seas rather than ride them like a cruise ship does, and I've seen them many times (work on more than a few) with the entire deck awash, bow to stern, where any little problem with watertight integrity could spell disaster for the boat.

 

And, if the company's ISM code was followed by both the company (in making their decision to allow the ship to sail) and the Captain (making the same decision), then there will be no fault assigned to the Captain by the Norwegian authorities, regardless of whether there was a "warning" or not.  ISM promotes an environment where blame is not apportioned for incidents, instead they are studied to learn what went wrong, what could be done better, and implementing any changes required.

 

And I don't believe there are any steam turbine cruise ships, or even many cargo ships (except LNG tankers) in the world anymore, since they are so incredibly fuel inefficient.  If not diesel electric, they are gas turbine electric.

 

So, your destroyer used 120,000 HP (twin 60k you said, but I think that may be high, only remember seeing about 20-30k motors, but tell me the class) to push 2100 tons at 34 knots.  The SS United States used twice that horsepower (240k) to push 47000 displacement tons (22 times the weight) at 35-38 knots.

 

ABC  news said an inquiry is opened and that the ship left against advice.    Thats all I know

 

Fletcher class DD    steam/ electric/ type D boiler.     The engines GE

electric said 60,000....  in main control. by the throttle board....   I forget how many turns we could do. 

There is a hull speed 2x square rt of the water line that determines top speed.    The Fletcher  was the finest total warship in  the navy,   383 ft  as I recall.    I have seen her do 34 kts,  Arliegh Burke   Sp   was called 31 Kt Burke  as he sailed  his DES/RON 8  Black cats,  If I recall     I was a navigator back in 64/68     USS Trathen DD530

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Copper10-8 said:

 

You mean "Azipod" propulsion and Viking Sky does not have pods; she has four 7,250 KW diesel-electric engines with two shafts driving two six-bladed fixed-pitch propellers 

 

 

 

 

BUT..... her shafts were reduction geared then to the electric motor powered by the diesel....   The recip steam engines were  through a reduction gear but no  electric.   If you saw Titanic  the cheif engineer has to stop the engine and put in reverse jacking gear to back down.....   

Ya Azipod...  So viking cheaped out  and went  prop shafts ?    Costs less...  but Viking is building a ton of new ships... cutting costs as much as possible...  Wonder what else the cheeped out on.

Makes you wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawaiidan said:

BUT..... her shafts were reduction geared then to the electric motor powered by the diesel....   The recip steam engines were  through a reduction gear but no  electric.   If you saw Titanic  the cheif engineer has to stop the engine and put in reverse jacking gear to back down.....   

Ya Azipod...  So viking cheaped out  and went  prop shafts ?    Costs less...  but Viking is building a ton of new ships... cutting costs as much as possible...  Wonder what else the cheeped out on.

Makes you wonder.

 

So, you're saying this incident with Viking Sky occurred because Viking Ocean Cruises "cheaped out" on her mechanical design and construction??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Copper10-8 said:

 

So, you're saying this incident with Viking Sky occurred because Viking Ocean Cruises "cheaped out" on her mechanical design and construction??????

 

12 minutes ago, Copper10-8 said:

 

So, you're saying this incident with Viking Sky occurred because Viking Ocean Cruises "cheaped out" on her mechanical design and construction??????

No..... I am not a naval architect...  However  direct shaft is cheaper I was told   has a lot of parasitic friction in the  main brgs   that the Azipod dosent. but cost more.    Main shaft screws are prone to a lot of problems because of all the extra junk..... old school junk       I think the resemblance between a Oceania and  Viking ship is scary close....    and Viking  was trying to look like them.... but  from what I have seen, cut a lot of stuff and made her  Nordic  minimalist.   in my opinion

By the way the Fletcher has 60K SHp  total....   Birthday disease must have kicked in.

11037762_1381255342192357_4634204293509341552_n.jpg

images (2).jpg

Edited by Hawaiidan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • 2019 Cruisers' Choice Awards
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...