Royal Princess - Alaska suitability being questioned

[Redwing55]

It may be apples to oranges, but I recall the controversy before the new locks were opening on the Panama canal.  The tests/trials stories were that the ability to control a ship through the locks was difficult and dangerous.  Maybe incidents happened upon opening, but I don't recall many, if any, stories about them in the new Panama lock.  So yes, I'm curious as to the level of "danger" the Royal is bringing to AK.

 

Safe sailing.

[PrincessLuver]

1 hour ago, txjim09 said:

Well, you must be the ultimate authority, then!  Thread over, PL has spoken!

 

Hey......thanks for the nice compliment!!!

[kennicott]

8 hours ago, fishywood said:

I've no reason to question you or the Captain on the facts. But based on the verbiage from the Southeastern Alaska Pilots' Association exchange card they must share with the Master of each ship they board, their interpretation of the statues is a bit different.

While Chengkp75 has adequately explained the over riding rules here, in short, State policy does not trump federal authority. However, I might point out you have quoted the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) here, not Alaska State Statutes (ASS). Huge difference. I'm not privy to the history behind these marine rules, however having written AACs and helped write ASSs in a past life, I'm pretty familiar with both. For one, AACs are written by State agencies or Departments, not subject to hearings or public scrutiny and are signed into law by just the Lieutenant Governor. If the Alaska Legislature should find fault with an AAC they can have it removed, but they normally don't pay attention to them unless a constituent squawks. In the case of ASSs they are subject to public opinion, have to be passed into law by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Often the ASS or referred to as the enabling statutes for creation of the AACs.

 

Now what does that mean here? I'm not certain. But I do know that the lack of due diligence when creating ACCs has resulted in many sections to be replete with error. To the point that the Attorney Generals Office has declared many of them "unenforceable". To emphasize my point, one time I was tasked to research both ACCs and ASSs that were applicable to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. I worked in concert with the Alaska Department of Law to accomplish this. When finished, huge amounts of both regulation and statute needed to be revised or eliminated. Long story short, the funds weren't available or appropriated to engage in such an expensive re-write of law.

 

I would suggest, similar problems may be in play in this case. If for whatever rationale, the marine pilots do pursue a litigious posture here, then, if they haven't done so already, a request to the Alaska Attorney General for a pertinent legal opinion is in order.   

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, Redwing55 said:

It may be apples to oranges, but I recall the controversy before the new locks were opening on the Panama canal.  The tests/trials stories were that the ability to control a ship through the locks was difficult and dangerous.  Maybe incidents happened upon opening, but I don't recall many, if any, stories about them in the new Panama lock.  So yes, I'm curious as to the level of "danger" the Royal is bringing to AK.

 

Safe sailing.

There were 3 or 4 ships damaged, a couple seriously, during the initial period of locking through the new Panama Locks, and the pilots and tug skippers still feel that the operation is unnecessarily dangerous and they feel more accidents are just waiting to happen.

[wolfie11]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While the pilots may feel that the Alaska Administrative Code gives them unconditional control of the vessel while they are onboard, in fact, the international ISM (International Safety Management) convention, to which the US is signatory and therefore has passed enabling legislation embodying the wording of the ISM, gives the Master the "overriding authority" to make decisions regarding the safety of the vessel, passengers, crew, cargo, and environment, meaning that no one can question his decision at the time (not a state agency, not the federal government, not corporate headquarters), as he is the owner's representative on the scene.  So, whatever the Captain calls, "for cause" cannot be disputed when he relieves a pilot in Alaska.  The Master/Pilot relationship is not simplistic, it is a very complex legal relationship, but the ultimate fact is the Captain's "overriding authority".

 

I can't imagine (at least in SE Alaska) that a pilot would say it's unsafe to enter an area, be it a port, Tracy Arm, etc. and the captain would override, take over navigation and proceed.  The liability should something go wrong would be huge.  The simulations in the SEAPA report are quite interesting.  Current seems to be a big factor as well.  

 

Chengkp75, where are you in Maine?  I'm in Castine. 

[chengkp75]

10 minutes ago, wolfie11 said:

 

I can't imagine (at least in SE Alaska) that a pilot would say it's unsafe to enter an area, be it a port, Tracy Arm, etc. and the captain would override, take over navigation and proceed.  The liability should something go wrong would be huge.  The simulations in the SEAPA report are quite interesting.  Current seems to be a big factor as well.  

 

Chengkp75, where are you in Maine?  I'm in Castine. 

Probably not for entering port, but he may override and dock in weather the pilot feels is unsuitable.  But, regardless of whether the pilot takes the ship in and there is an incident, or whether the Captain overrides and takes the ship in and there is an incident, the liability is the same.  The pilots have very little liability in these cases, unless you can show negligence or substance abuse.

 

I'm in Portland.

[AL3XCruise]

I found it interesting that Carnival Corp did not want to provide operational data on Royal unless an NDA was in place.  Is that a common practice in the industry?  I've heard of aircraft and locomotive manufactures not wanting to provide data because they want to make it more difficult for third parties to sell simulators for their products, but in those cases production runs are in the hundreds or thousands.  A handful of ships operated by a single parent company doesn't seem like a lucrative opportunity in that regard.

 

Based on the summary of the report, it sounds like they used a simple rudder design that provides minimal steering at low speeds, and differential power also has a limited impact.  That means the ship relies heavily on its thrusters.  Obviously I can't compare stern thrusters to an azipod ship, but the bow thrusters on Royal seem to have ratings 10% to 40% lower than those on other 140gt to 170gt ships.  I don't know if this is due to a design consideration on azipod ships or an effort to reduce costs.

 

One other question, probably for @chengkp75 or @Heidi13: what speed do the thrusters become effective at?  The report seemed to imply that thrusters could be used to augment rudder authority at 7 or 8 knots, which seemed pretty speedy to me.

 

[Heidi13]

On 4/20/2019 at 12:06 AM, fishywood said:

Alaskan waterways are one of the very few jurisdictions where the law gives the pilot precedence over the Master of the ship. If an incident occurs it would be due to either the pilot relinquishing that authority inappropriately or just plain ignoring their own advice. Princess does not have the privilege of disregarding the pilot--or ordering them to stand down--when in Alaskan waters, but that does place the responsibility solely on the pilot's shoulders.

 

 

A similar thread is running on the Alaska Board and a very similar statement was posted. I am copying my post from that thread, which provides information on the Master/Deck Officer & Pilot Relationship.

 

Sorry, but you are incorrect. While SE Alaska waters are compulsory pilotage waters and the pilot normally has conduct (con) of the vessel, the Master remains in command and the Deck Officer in charge of the watch is responsible to the Master for the safe navigation, with advice from the pilot. The correct term we used is courses and speeds to Master's orders & pilot's advice.

 

When the Captain or Deck Officers, agree with the pilot's orders they are followed without question. When they don't agree, the pilot is challenged and if unable to justify their intended action, the Captain and/or Deck Officer may take any action they believe is required to ensure the safe conduct of the vessel. As a Deck Officer in Alaska, I countered a pilot's orders on a couple of occasions. Mostly with respect to the amount of helm they requested.

 

This is consistent with any compulsory pilotage area I have worked, except the Panama Canal, where the pilots assume complete responsibility for the navigation.

 

It is also noted in the Alaska Marine Pilot Statutes & Regulations.

[Heidi13]

16 hours ago, fishywood said:

I've no reason to question you or the Captain on the facts. But based on the verbiage from the Southeastern Alaska Pilots' Association exchange card they must share with the Master of each ship they board, their interpretation of the statues is a bit different.

http://seapa.com/MPXcard.pdf

In quite terse language they make a very strong point that per the regulations cited the only way the pilot can be relieved of the conn is "for cause...due to incompetence or misconduct". And making such an allegation constitutes (in their minds) a failure "to treat this regulation with the highest professionalism and regard".

So on the couple of occasions recalled above where the pilot's orders were countered, in the eyes of the SEAPA either there was a declaration by the Captain or Officer of the Watch that only an incompetent pilot would have made that order, or the expected "adherence [to the regulations] by the Master and Deck Officers" was violated. 

So am I reading the Pilot's inflated opinion of themselves correctly?

 

 

 

The pilot card is quoting from the Pilot Regulations, which states the pilot has the "Con", which only means he/she is issuing the helm/throttle requests. As is normal in every multi-person Bridge environment, these are reviewed by another person - Master or Deck Officer.

 

If the Master or Deck Officer believe the pilot's request endangers the ship, the pilot is queried and if the Master/Deck Officer believes the ship is endangered, the pilot is relieved.

 

I also note that many of the old time P&O/Princess Masters have more seatime in Alaska than the pilot. Back in the 70's/80's, even as a 2nd season Deck Officer, I had more Alaska seatime than some of our Junior Pilots.

[Heidi13]

14 hours ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Based on our travels with Princess all over the world I am in the camp of this is much to do about nothing!!!!  Read on....

You may have cruised with them, but I have both worked for them and cruised with them around the World and I can assure you this is not a trivial manner.

[Heidi13]

6 hours ago, wolfie11 said:

 

I can't imagine (at least in SE Alaska) that a pilot would say it's unsafe to enter an area, be it a port, Tracy Arm, etc. and the captain would override, take over navigation and proceed.  The liability should something go wrong would be huge.  The simulations in the SEAPA report are quite interesting.  Current seems to be a big factor as well.  

 

 

Although I have spend many years as Master, I have very limited experience working with pilots - basically entering the drydocks in Vancouver or Victoria and they never actually got the con. However, in my years as a Deck Officer, I have seen many Masters remove the con from a pilot and safely handle the vessel. As a Deck Officer, without the Master on the Bridge, I have also over-ruled a pilot, with no incident.

 

The Alaska pilots have minimal liability, I believe the Alaska Regs state $250K. They are also private contractors, so SE Pilot Assoc probably has no liability. However, the Master remains fully liable for the safety of the vessel. If the pilot makes a mistake and the Master/Deck Officer doesn't counter the orders, the Master is liable.

 

If the Pilot is overly cautious and the Master accepts cancelling a port, the Master is accountable to the passengers and the company.

 

While I only know the UK/Canadian and a very few of the Italian Masters, many of the Princess Masters know the Alaska waters as well as, if not better, than some of the pilots. For sure, they know the ship better than the pilot.

[txjim09]

9 hours ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Hey......thanks for the nice compliment!!!

Actually, I was pointing out that anecdotal evidence such as yours was nonsense compared to the experts who posted on this subject but, Hey!, take it any way you wish!

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, AL3XCruise said:

One other question, probably for @chengkp75 or @Heidi13: what speed do the thrusters become effective at?  The report seemed to imply that thrusters could be used to augment rudder authority at 7 or 8 knots, which seemed pretty speedy to me.

 

The effectiveness of the thrusters is dependent on the power and hull design.

 

On most ships I have commanded, with bow thrusters, they start to provide some effect below 4 kts.

 

My last ship - 20,000 ton Ro/Pax with 470 vehicles & 2,050 pax had 2,000 HP bow thrusters. At full power, I could get a very small movement of the bow at 7 kts, but had to be below 4 kts to become reasonably effective.

 

With way, the movement through the water creates almost a venturi affect and sucks the water out of the thruster tubes. When used at too high of a speed, we got lots of vibration, as the thruster was basically pushing air. 

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

I found it interesting that Carnival Corp did not want to provide operational data on Royal unless an NDA was in place.  Is that a common practice in the industry?  I've heard of aircraft and locomotive manufactures not wanting to provide data because they want to make it more difficult for third parties to sell simulators for their products, but in those cases production runs are in the hundreds or thousands.  A handful of ships operated by a single parent company doesn't seem like a lucrative opportunity in that regard.

 

Based on the summary of the report, it sounds like they used a simple rudder design that provides minimal steering at low speeds, and differential power also has a limited impact.  That means the ship relies heavily on its thrusters.  Obviously I can't compare stern thrusters to an azipod ship, but the bow thrusters on Royal seem to have ratings 10% to 40% lower than those on other 140gt to 170gt ships.  I don't know if this is due to a design consideration on azipod ships or an effort to reduce costs.

 

One other question, probably for @chengkp75 or @Heidi13: what speed do the thrusters become effective at?  The report seemed to imply that thrusters could be used to augment rudder authority at 7 or 8 knots, which seemed pretty speedy to me.

 

I will reinforce what Andy (if I may be free to use his name) says.

 

With thrusters, as he says, with way on the ship, the waterflow is at 90* to the thruster tunnel, and that flow reduces the pressure of the water at the tunnel mouth through the venturi effect, which reduces the thruster's ability to suck in water and push it out the other side, which is what its designed to do, and which creates the force to move the ship.  5 knots is what I've always seen as the speed at which your thrusters are essentially useless.  Another fact about thrusters that may seem counter-intuitive to many, and that many Captains and pilots forget, is that when a ship has forward way on, the stern thrusters are more effective at turning the bow than the bow thrusters.  Why?  Because, only when stopped does a ship rotate around the center of the ship (midway between bow and stern).  With forward way on, the rotation point moves forward to 1/3 of the ship's length back from the bow, so with equal power bow and stern thrusters, the bow thruster has 1/2 of the lever arm to act on to turn the ship (1/3 of ship length, vs. 2/3 of ship length), so the stern thruster will have more turning force.  The opposite applies when the ship has stern way on.

 

All conventional rudders lose steering effectiveness below 3-4 knots, or just about where the thrusters become useful.  It is common on cargo ships to relieve the helmsman and send him to assist in tying up and turning off the steering when the ship is close to the dock, and almost stopped.  I believe that Royal Princess has Becker or "flap rudders", which are designed to reduce this loss of steering by using a "trim tab" on the end of the rudder.  The further the rudder is turned, the more the trim tab creates an airfoil shape to the rudder.  This airfoil uses the water passing the rudder from the propeller, whether the ship is moving through the water or not, and the airfoil shape creates a low pressure on the convex side of the rudder, creating "lift" to that side, like an airplane wing does.

 

I know Captains who would call down to the engine room upon arrival in a port, and with the pilot's okay, would have us not start one or more stern thrusters, to practice docking using "split screws" (one prop going ahead, and the other going astern) and the Becker rudders to take the thrusters' place.  While more demanding on the Captain's part, performance was only minimally affected.  What I am saying is that with multiple propellers, multiple Becker rudders, and bow and stern thrusters (and I don't know the power of the Royal's thrusters), you have many options and a whole lot of ability to maneuver.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I will reinforce what Andy (if I may be free to use his name) says.

 

With thrusters, as he says, with way on the ship, the waterflow is at 90* to the thruster tunnel, and that flow reduces the pressure of the water at the tunnel mouth through the venturi effect, which reduces the thruster's ability to suck in water and push it out the other side, which is what its designed to do, and which creates the force to move the ship.  5 knots is what I've always seen as the speed at which your thrusters are essentially useless.  Another fact about thrusters that may seem counter-intuitive to many, and that many Captains and pilots forget, is that when a ship has forward way on, the stern thrusters are more effective at turning the bow than the bow thrusters.  Why?  Because, only when stopped does a ship rotate around the center of the ship (midway between bow and stern).  With forward way on, the rotation point moves forward to 1/3 of the ship's length back from the bow, so with equal power bow and stern thrusters, the bow thruster has 1/2 of the lever arm to act on to turn the ship (1/3 of ship length, vs. 2/3 of ship length), so the stern thruster will have more turning force.  The opposite applies when the ship has stern way on.

 

All conventional rudders lose steering effectiveness below 3-4 knots, or just about where the thrusters become useful.  It is common on cargo ships to relieve the helmsman and send him to assist in tying up and turning off the steering when the ship is close to the dock, and almost stopped.  I believe that Royal Princess has Becker or "flap rudders", which are designed to reduce this loss of steering by using a "trim tab" on the end of the rudder.  The further the rudder is turned, the more the trim tab creates an airfoil shape to the rudder.  This airfoil uses the water passing the rudder from the propeller, whether the ship is moving through the water or not, and the airfoil shape creates a low pressure on the convex side of the rudder, creating "lift" to that side, like an airplane wing does.

 

I know Captains who would call down to the engine room upon arrival in a port, and with the pilot's okay, would have us not start one or more stern thrusters, to practice docking using "split screws" (one prop going ahead, and the other going astern) and the Becker rudders to take the thrusters' place.  While more demanding on the Captain's part, performance was only minimally affected.  What I am saying is that with multiple propellers, multiple Becker rudders, and bow and stern thrusters (and I don't know the power of the Royal's thrusters), you have many options and a whole lot of ability to maneuver.

Hi Chief - Concur with the relative benefit of stern v's bow thrusters when the v/l has ahead way. In that situation, stern thrusters, if fitted, would be more effective. Remember noting this on SS Oriana, when still a cadet.

 

Doing a web search I couldn't find any details on the Royal Class propulsion system, other than twin fixed pitch props and rudders. However, a poster on the Alaska Board provided a copy of the entire simulation report. It stated the vessel only has conventional spade rudders, which I find astounding.

 

All my conventional single-ended ships for the past 20-years have been fitted with twin CP props, twin Becker high lift rudders and no stern thrusters. Also had the ability to split the rudders and control them individually. We did all dockings with 1 engine ahead & the other astern. With Becker rudder, I had a 10,000 HP stern thruster. In the simulation report, while poor response to helm is noted at slow speed, they also noted the vessel does not respond to a kick ahead, comparing the response to the old ships with twin screws & single conventional rudder.

 

The simulation report also noted that the vessel will steer, by rudder, when moving astern. This tends to confirm she has conventional rudders, as i have tried many times, but could never get Becker rudder ships to respond to the helm, when moving astern. 

 

Based on the simulation report, it appears that Princess went cheap with the propulsion system. I just can't imagine with the technology available today, they would build such a poor handling cruise ship. Hope they have some big tractor tugs stationed in Alaska, with the simulation report recommending 70 ton bollard pull.

 

 

[chengkp75]

Wow, didn't know any cruise ship hadn't had Becker rudders in the last 20 years.   Once you've decided on the higher cost of the shafted prop/rudder configuration, the cost of two Becker upgrades would be minimal.

 

Question for you, on your twin screw, twin rudder ships, were they "inboard" or "outboard" turning wheels?

[AL3XCruise]

Thanks for the information guys.  It sounds like there are some narrow channels that require the ship to operate at speeds around 7 knots, putting it in a position where rudders are starting to become ineffective but the thrusters are still marginal.  Throw in some wind or current and it gets very tricky.

 

I have no idea how common those kind of constraints are.  Has Royal not previously been subject to arrivals and departures with speed restricted narrow channels, or is there something else that makes Alaska more challenging?  As mentioned, she seems to have operated safely (and without public comment) elsewhere despite her limitations.

 

BTW, in case anyone missed it, this is the report link.  It also has info about Anthem at the end, which seems to be regarded more favorably.  I'm attaching the section devoted to technical specs for rudder/thrusters/propellers.

 

[chengkp75]

Quick review of the report, but find that they recommend nearly the same tug escort options for both Royal and Ovation, and interestingly, given the "azipod hype", that Ovation loses steering effectiveness at about 7 knots, right about where Ovation does.  The pods also add the problem of "swept track", which I hadn't thought about before, where the pods actually push the stern outside the track line to make the turn.  This kind of study confirms my belief that the main advantage of azipods, aside from the 8-10% increase in efficiency due to the leading propellers, is capital cost.  Instead of two propulsion motors, two sets of shafting and bearings, two propellers, two rudders, four sets of steering motors, and three stern thrusters, you only need to buy two azipods.

[Heidi13]

On 4/26/2019 at 8:38 AM, chengkp75 said:

Wow, didn't know any cruise ship hadn't had Becker rudders in the last 20 years.   Once you've decided on the higher cost of the shafted prop/rudder configuration, the cost of two Becker upgrades would be minimal.

 

Question for you, on your twin screw, twin rudder ships, were they "inboard" or "outboard" turning wheels?

Chief,

 

We had a few twin screw configurations, both conventional single ended and double ended ships with a single prop at each end. The conventional twin screw ships had one class with outward and another with inward turning. If memory is correct my last ship, with CPP & twin Beckers was inward turning.

 

For the doubled ended ships, the older ones were opposing, so when using both props the transverse thrust was cancelled, however they recently built 3 double ended ships with both props turning same direction. When using both shafts the ship walks sideways.

[Heidi13]

14 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

Thanks for the information guys.  It sounds like there are some narrow channels that require the ship to operate at speeds around 7 knots, putting it in a position where rudders are starting to become ineffective but the thrusters are still marginal.  Throw in some wind or current and it gets very tricky.

 

I have no idea how common those kind of constraints are.  Has Royal not previously been subject to arrivals and departures with speed restricted narrow channels, or is there something else that makes Alaska more challenging?  As mentioned, she seems to have operated safely (and without public comment) elsewhere despite her limitations.

 

BTW, in case anyone missed it, this is the report link.  It also has info about Anthem at the end, which seems to be regarded more favorably.  I'm attaching the section devoted to technical specs for rudder/thrusters/propellers.

 

 

OMG - almost 4 minutes to go from full ahead to full astern. When needing a crash stop that would feel like a lifetime.

 

On a constant speed ship with shaft generators, we complained when it took about 40 secs from full ahead to full astern. From full speed, we could have the ship stopped & moving astern in under 2 minutes.

[AKfamily]

The pilots are the experts. If they won’t do it, it’s definitely not safe. Ketchikan is routinely windy, and Juneau can easily be windy as well. 

[kennicott]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 7:38 PM, Heidi13 said:

While I only know the UK/Canadian and a very few of the Italian Masters, many of the Princess Masters know the Alaska waters as well as, if not better, than some of the pilots. For sure, they know the ship better than the pilot.

It's difficult to glean info on what is materializing on this issue right now. It appears neither side is lacking in arrogance and self importance.  On one hand the pilots may be onto something here in that there is a pervilously unnoticed major deficiency with the Royal Class ships. In two more years they will have seven of these in service. Difficult to understand why all the drama now though, with over a half dozen years of marine operational experience. It does get windy in other parts of the world.

 

On the other hand, if the Southeast Marine Pilots have ulterior motives here, a bias or reasons other than safety in order to distort the facts, then they better watch out as they will be playing hardball with some of the toughest and meanest executives on earth. If one has doubts, just read about the tenacity and years long efforts Micky Arison displayed back when he defeated RCCL and RCCL's  back room orchestrated deal with P&O and Princess Cruise Line for a merger.