Did they fix Nieuw Amsterdam's azipod or is she sailing with one operational?

[fatcat04]

2 hours ago, sp2 said:

Wesport, how was your night? Did you get any sleep? Will they move you to another cabin? 
 

We also were on the Dec 7-14 sailing, in 4166, which is on the port side near the back of the ship.  We experienced a LOT of vibration on the last night. It felt like driving on a washboard surface. We did not get much sleep and it did make me feel nauseous, sort of like you were in a paint shaker! so we were glad to disembark. I feel for you if you are experiencing that all the time. Hopefully they can find you a better cabin, or figure out a fix that will work for you.

 

Well darn. That is our cabin in just a little under 2 weeks. We will report on the issues when we get on and get to moving. Sounds I can handle better than bouncing and shaking. We have been in cabins in the aft section more often than not and usually have no issues with a some vibration or shimmy but "paint shaker", that has me worried. 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

The most serious and more fundamental issue regarding sailing with only the port azipod operational, is what would be the situation if, by chance, something happened to compromise that unit? A ship at sea without propulsion is a very serious issue for all aboard, guests and staff. I would like to see the "clearances" issued by the flag state, port state(s) and classification society.

A ship at sea without propulsion is safer than a ship near shore without propulsion.  Do you really believe that the cruise line would send you the condition of class documents?  Class issues a certificate of class, and then any damage to the ship is inspected by one of their surveyors, and he/she then adds observations to the certificate of class regarding the damage, detailing what needs to be done for the ship to continue to meet the certificate of class.  In this case, the surveyor most likely gave the ship 60 or 90 days to effect repairs, depending on when parts may be available, and they can get extensions beyond this.  Port states may make additional requirements such as using escort tugs going into/out of port.

 

There is nothing inherently unsafe about sailing with only one azipod, as 98% of the world's shipping goes blithely along with only one propeller at all times.  SOLAS does not require multiple propulsion systems, even the Safe Return to Port only requires that the ship be able to return to port with the loss of one propulsion system, not that the ship cannot operate with only one propulsion system.

 

 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, rafinmd said:

I have a feeling that it wouldn't be possible for a newer ship covered by "safe return to port" rules, but most requirements are not retroactive.  The odds of a total failure are very small and an azipod failure would not mean a loss of power on the ship.  Nothing is 100% save, and you would likely have a greater chance of a problem driving to the airport than embarking on a transatlantic with one good azipod.

 

Roy

As noted above, Safe Return to Port only requires that a ship be capable of returning to port with a failure of one propulsion system, not that the ship cannot operate without one propulsion system.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

The ship is fine under optimal conditions. The big problem is that we don't know how long HAL will run the ship with one pod.

 

The longer the ship runs with one pod, the bigger the risk that the sole pod will malfunction. Or, that the vessel will run into heavy seas. And, under worst case situation, a failure of the last pod in heavy seas.

 

One consideration is the nature of the pod's electrical-mechanical design. Mechanical systems tend to fail progressively. You get advance warning as the operating parameters deteriorate.

 

The prudent master will divert his single engine-propeller vessel to the nearest port with facilities. The master earns his pay whenever he makes such a decision.

 

On the other hand, electrical systems tend to fail suddenly and completely. On or off.

 

There is a wise old saying that goes something like this...

 

Two is One

One is None

When Murphy comes calling

His cousins too

 

To be fair, HAL and the Captain know all this too. That's why I was confident that HAL would be looking for a quick fix (if possible). IMO, HAL will repair the pod sooner rather than later. The ship won't run months with one pod.

 

To be fair to future passengers, HAL needs to be transparent. What is the timeline for the fix? Passengers who haven't made final payment have their decision to make.

 

 

Well, as I've said, Carnival (a sister line under the same corporate umbrella) ran a ship for almost two years on one pod.  RCI sailed a ship with two of three pods (only one steerable) for 6-8 months.  Of course they will fix it as soon as possible, but how soon that may be could be longer than your idea of "soon".

 

Why does it follow that the longer the ship operates on one pod, the bigger the risk that the other will fail?  What is making the risk of failure in the operable pod increase?  Nothing.  It has just as much chance of failure when operating alone as it does when operating with another pod.

 

Gee, I guess that every ship in the world needs to divert to a safe port, since 98% of them only have a single propeller coupled to a single engine.  Even with one pod, the cruise ship has redundancy, in that it has multiple engine/generator sets so that a failure of one or more of them will not disable propulsion.

 

As to a ship's survivability without propulsion in heavy weather, one only needs to read the story of the SS Badger State.  Would it be hazardous and uncomfortable, yes, would it sink, most likely not.

 

The Master earns his pay when he makes a decision based on best industry practice and the ISM code as required by international requirements (IMO) and all flag states, and the conditions prevailing at the time.

[HappyInVan]

30 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

It may only require the change of 1 rpm up or down, to take the hull out of harmonic vibration, and for the vibration to reduce by orders of magnitude.  A ship's hull is like the soundbox of a musical instrument, when the right frequency of vibration strikes it, it magnifies the vibration in the structure.  And, as noted, a change in the environmental conditions changes the frequency of the input vibrations to take the section of hull out of harmonics.

 

 

How would the bridge know how to 'tune' out the vibration?

 

Would the bridge be able to avoid this rpm under changing conditions? Particularly with one pod in operation?

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

45 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Thanks for the explanation. 

 

 

QE2 had some major harmonic issues. She always vibrated at the stern, but some speeds were worse than others. At just the right speed, the vibrations matched the natural frequency of the shafts at the mid-aft  "E" elevators and those elevator cars really shook. Farther aft, "F" and "G" elevators didn't shake because the shafts weren't as long (didn't reach as many decks). Physics, it explains everything!! (almost)

 

I have stood on a deck in the engine room of a ship and not really felt any vibration out of the ordinary, but a free-standing tank about 2 feet in front of me was moving about 3-4 inches each way so violently I was sure it was going to tear itself off the deck.  Adding one brace bar changed it's harmonics.  And yet, the same ship in different environmental conditions, and the tank didn't vibrate as bad, and on "sister" ships, they have never reported the problem.  Shipbuilding is still more art than science, and no two ships are identical, particularly in their harmonic frequencies.

 

A lot of multiple screw ships will have the ability to change propeller rpms ever so slightly so that you can ensure that the blades of each propeller are "out of phase" from the other, meaning that not all the propellers will have a blade at the 12 o'clock position (closest to the hull), which is the position that causes the most vibration, so by taking the props out of "synch", you cancel out a lot of the vibration caused by propeller speed.

[NavArch64]

As a guest, I should be able to request the notation to class (if any) issued by Lloyds Register of Shipping for the Nieuw Amsterdam for this or any other deficiency in hull structure or propulsion (and power generation) machinery prior to sailing on this or any other passenger cruise vessel. I understand that the business policy and culture for HAL is to refuse to do that … however, I do not find that decision to be satisfactory. 

[NavArch64]

classed by LR

9378450

NIEUW AMSTERDAM

Passenger / Cruise

2010-06

Netherlands

HAL Antillen NV

[HappyInVan]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

What is making the risk of failure in the operable pod increase?  Nothing.  It has just as much chance of failure when operating alone as it does when operating with another pod.....

 

The Master earns his pay when he makes a decision based on best industry practice and the ISM code as required by international requirements (IMO) and all flag states, and the conditions prevailing at the time.

 

All parts are build with a risk rating. For example, a part might have a statistical risk of failing 1/500 in the first year. With use, it might have a risk of failing 1/200 in the fifth year, etc.

 

That's why OEM has a recommended schedule for parts replacement. For example, your car dealer might insist on replacing parts at certain service intervals.

 

In the real world, we know that even commercial-grade equipment can fail within the first year. That statistical 1/500.

 

My point is that a pod operating alone does not have the safety assurance of the second pod.

 

Even the RMS Titanic had a 3 engine-propeller design in 1911...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic

 

Every reasonable risk has been addressed. Except for the decision to run at speed into iceberg alley. Surely the lookouts would see the icebergs in time?

 

I have to disagree with you (the engineer's POV) on the role of the master. Any executive officer can make plans (and enforce regulations) with the help of staff officers. It is the task of the CO to own the risk decisions.

 

He's not doing his job if he's just copying what everyone else is doing. To achieve his tasks, should he take more risks or less?

 

Sometimes, chance favours you. Sometimes it doesn't. The master has to make the decision and own the consequences.

 

 

 

[sp2]

53 minutes ago, fatcat04 said:

Well darn. That is our cabin in just a little under 2 weeks. We will report on the issues when we get on and get to moving. Sounds I can handle better than bouncing and shaking. We have been in cabins in the aft section more often than not and usually have no issues with a some vibration or shimmy but "paint shaker", that has me worried. 

I would not get too concerned at this point; I’m sure it will be fine. Keep in mind, our experience was on the morning when it first happened. I believe the captain may have been “holding the ship in place” somehow while we waiting on the tugs to help us into Port Everglades.  It seemed like we spent some time just sitting with Port Everglades in view. No repairs had been done yet and perhaps they didn’t yet know the exact cause. Just speculating but they must have done something as far as repairs when the ship was in Freeport (besides just inspections?).  It is a great cabin otherwise with a huge double balcony. We had a lounger as well as the chairs, footstools and table and plenty of room. I’m sure they will try to make the ride as comfortable for you as possible. It was a great cruise, great service and food. I hope you have a great time!

Edited December 23, 2019 by sp2

[HappyInVan]

33 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

A lot of multiple screw ships will have the ability to change propeller rpms ever so slightly so that you can ensure that the blades of each propeller are "out of phase" from the other, meaning that not all the propellers will have a blade at the 12 o'clock position (closest to the hull), which is the position that causes the most vibration, so by taking the props out of "synch", you cancel out a lot of the vibration caused by propeller speed.

 

 

Surely the officers of the QE2 know that? Yet, harsh vibration cannot be avoided all the time. 

 

I presume that under certain sea/wind conditions, ships have to deal with pitch, roll and yew? Adding vibration 'management' makes the job more difficult.

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

39 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

How would the bridge know how to 'tune' out the vibration?

 

Would the bridge be able to avoid this rpm under changing conditions? Particularly with one pod in operation?

 

 

 

 

They can have someone standing at the area involved, and in radio communication with the bridge.  Yes, they can do this under changing conditions, mainly because the changing conditions may remove the harmonic completely.  And the change of an rpm or two would result in a change of less than a tenth of a knot of speed.

[NavArch64]

As I understand it, risk management includes not only the probability of failure, but also includes the magnitude of the consequences resulting from such failure. In this case, the probability of failure of the port azipod may or may not have increased, but the magnitude of the consequences of such a failure (with a nonoperational starboard azipod) certainly has increased dramatically. In fact, the magnitude of the consequences here would be an inability to achieve Safe Return to Port  without the intervention of oceangoing tugs. 

[chengkp75]

Just now, HappyInVan said:

 

 

Surely the officers of the QE2 know that? Yet, harsh vibration cannot be avoided all the time. 

 

I presume that under certain sea/wind conditions, ships have to deal with pitch, roll and yew? Adding vibration 'management' makes the job more difficult.

 

 

 

 

If the ship is not fitted with a "synchro control", there is no way to know where the blades of different props are in relation to each other.  And, some harmonic vibrations are not caused by the interrelationship between two propellers, but by outside factors.  Not sure what pitch, roll, and yaw have to do with vibration?

[chengkp75]

37 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

As a guest, I should be able to request the notation to class (if any) issued by Lloyds Register of Shipping for the Nieuw Amsterdam for this or any other deficiency in hull structure or propulsion (and power generation) machinery prior to sailing on this or any other passenger cruise vessel. I understand that the business policy and culture for HAL is to refuse to do that … however, I do not find that decision to be satisfactory. 

Do you think that you are entitled to the details of inspection reports that are done on buses or trains that you use?  How about elevator certificates?  Do you demand to see the report before you use the elevator?  Or, do you just assume that because the certificate was issued, the elevator, bus or train is safe?  Why is a ship any different?  Usually, the certificate of class, and/or the flag state "document of inspection" is posted in a public place (you just have to find it), just like a bus or elevator certificate. 

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

As I understand it, risk management includes not only the probability of failure, but also includes the magnitude of the consequences resulting from such failure. In this case, the probability of failure of the port azipod may or may not have increased, but the magnitude of the consequences of such a failure (with a nonoperational starboard azipod) certainly has increased dramatically. In fact, the magnitude of the consequences here would be an inability to achieve Safe Return to Port  without the intervention of oceangoing tugs. 

You are correct, but the statement was that the probability would increase with only one pod and time.

 

Safe Return to Port only requires that the loss of one propulsion system still allows the ship to return to safe port.  This is a simplification of the "casualty threshold" called out by SRtP, but will do for this discussion.  If this "casualty threshold" is exceeded (i.e. the second propulsion system fails), it only requires that some "essential systems" be operational for a 3 hour period, to "allow for an orderly evacuation".  As a note, even ships designed to SRtP standards, could capsize and sink if more than 2 adjacent watertight compartments are breached in a below the waterline opening, as the Concordia did.

[fatcat04]

39 minutes ago, sp2 said:

I would not get too concerned at this point; I’m sure it will be fine. Keep in mind, our experience was on the morning when it first happened. I believe the captain may have been “holding the ship in place” somehow while we waiting on the tugs to help us into Port Everglades.  It seemed like we spent some time just sitting with Port Everglades in view. No repairs had been done yet and perhaps they didn’t yet know the exact cause. Just speculating but they must have done something as far as repairs when the ship was in Freeport (besides just inspections?).  It is a great cabin otherwise with a huge double balcony. We had a lounger as well as the chairs, footstools and table and plenty of room. I’m sure they will try to make the ride as comfortable for you as possible. It was a great cruise, great service and food. I hope you have a great time!

Thank you for the reassurance.

[HappyInVan]

9 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

As I understand it, risk management includes not only the probability of failure, but also includes the magnitude of the consequences resulting from such failure. In this case, the probability of failure of the port azipod may or may not have increased, but the magnitude of the consequences of such a failure (with a nonoperational starboard azipod) certainly has increased dramatically. In fact, the magnitude of the consequences here would be an inability to achieve Safe Return to Port  without the intervention of oceangoing tugs. 

 

You're absolutely correct.

 

I'm not particularly worried if a naval vessel sinks quickly. The crew are professional seamen, and fit. They will do what they need to do.

 

I was very distressed by the wreck of the Costa Concordia within sight of the town. There were 4k people on board. Maybe just 300 were professional seamen. Many elderly. Numbers of mobility challenged.

 

Heck! I don't want to ever be in that situation. To stay with those unable to get out. Or to go.

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, HappyInVan said:

 

You're absolutely correct.

 

I'm not particularly worried if a naval vessel sinks quickly. The crew are professional seamen, and fit. They will do what they need to do.

 

I was very distressed by the wreck of the Costa Concordia within sight of the town. There were 4k people on board. Maybe just 300 were professional seamen. Many elderly. Numbers of mobility challenged.

 

Heck! I don't want to ever be in that situation. To stay with those unable to get out. Or to go.

 

 

 

And the difference between the Concordia and the NA if she were in a situation with no propulsion and intact stability is vast.  Once the ship breached 3 adjacent watertight compartments (it actually breached 4), which exceeds the ship's designed damage stability, there was no force on this earth that was going to keep that ship afloat.  Had Schettino sounded the muster as soon as he heard the report of 3 compartments flooding (about 10 minutes after the grounding), the passengers could have been mustered, loaded in the boats, and away long before the ship sank.  And, the only reason the ship capsized (it was afloat for more than an hour with less than a 10* list) was that it grounded a second time, and the free-surface of the water in the hull when the hull is fixed at one point (where it had grounded), caused it to roll over.  Had the ship not drifted back to Giglio, it would have sunk eventually upright, but down by the stern.

[SumoCitrus]

This discussion is amusing. Kind of off into outer space if you ask me.

 

Could the following scenario be possible?

 

1. NA experiences a problem with azipod on its way back to PE. (Maybe a whale, maybe not. Lol.)

2. Get to PE and request technical assistance. Divers & engineers determine azipod cannot be fixed at dock in PE.

3. HAL gets to work accommodating NA passengers who will be affected. Some moved to NS and K-Dam and others offered compensation.

4. HAL also promptly arranges for two things: (i) inspection/repair attempt at Freeport; and (ii) sea trials to get approval for sailing with one azipod.

5. NA off to Freeport for more thorough repair attempt.

6. Damage/failure so significant that new azipod is needed. Since these are not just stored on the shelf, Fincantieri gets to work. It will need to be shipped from Italy.

7. Not wanting to interrupt the busy winter sailing season, HAL gets approval for single azipod sailing and the itineraries are kept intact. Screw removed from inop azipod to minimize drag.

8. When new azipod arrives, it will be installed at the nearest convenient port.

 

 

If this is what happened, what's the big deal? Surely there is no safety risk. This isn't an airplane. Tugs can be arranged where necessary. HAL is doing what it can to make the best of an unfortunate situation. Why all the debate and monday-morning quarterbacking?

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by SumoCitrus

[lizinvan]

On 12/22/2019 at 1:47 PM, Hlitner said:

I was hoping you would spot this thread a comment :).  We bow to your expertise and thank you for correcting my post.  I used to think that the "shimmy" was more my imagination then fact, but then we met others who had the same complaint.  I once mentioned this to a Celebrity Cruises Captain and his quick response was "why do you think my cabin is near the bow?"  This Captain is known for his great sense of humor :).

 

Hank

Hank would that be Tasos?:)

[HappyInVan]

30 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And the difference between the Concordia and the NA if she were in a situation with no propulsion and intact stability is vast.  Once the ship breached 3 adjacent watertight compartments (it actually breached 4), which exceeds the ship's designed damage stability, there was no force on this earth that was going to keep that ship afloat.  Had Schettino sounded the muster as soon as he heard the report of 3 compartments flooding (about 10 minutes after the grounding), the passengers could have been mustered, loaded in the boats, and away long before the ship sank.  And, the only reason the ship capsized (it was afloat for more than an hour with less than a 10* list) was that it grounded a second time, and the free-surface of the water in the hull when the hull is fixed at one point (where it had grounded), caused it to roll over.  Had the ship not drifted back to Giglio, it would have sunk eventually upright, but down by the stern.

 

There is a wise old saying that goes something like this...

 

Two is One

One is None

When Murphy comes calling

His cousins too

 

 

[3rdGenCunarder]

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

Surely the officers of the QE2 know that? Yet, harsh vibration cannot be avoided all the time. 

 

I presume that under certain sea/wind conditions, ships have to deal with pitch, roll and yew? Adding vibration 'management' makes the job more difficult.

 

 

 

 

 

Because of harmonics, it was only the elevator that was affected. Nothing else had that same fundamental frequency, so nothing else had that effect. QE2 was converted from steam to diesel-electric after her time in the Falklands. I was told that the E vibrations didn't happen until then. 

 

People are so used to the "floating hotel" concept that they forget that this is one huge machine. Machines vibrate and they make noise. I suppose I'm a ship geek, but I loved the aft cabin we used to book on QE2. When she cranked those engines going out of port, there were vibrations--not terribly strong, just enough to remind us of her power. She could leave modern cruise ships looking at her stern without even going full power. And on QM2, there's a spot in one of the public hallways where you can feel the thrum of the engines If you stand quietly and listen. I once told her designer that it's one of my favorite things on the ship. He said Cunard were worried people would be annoyed by it (I've never heard that anyone was) and asked for extra insulation. 

 

[MisterBill99]

41 minutes ago, SumoCitrus said:

 

2. Get to PE and request technical assistance. Divers & engineers determine azipod cannot be fixed at dock in PE.

3. HAL gets to work accommodating NA passengers who will be affected. Some moved to NS and K-Dam and others offered compensation.

 

 

 

I would add

 

2.5 HAL attempts to get government approval to sail with one azipod but does not receive it in time for the 12/14 sailing so that cruise is cancelled.

 

Might even be before #2.

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by MisterBill99

[Hlitner]

34 minutes ago, lizinvan said:

On 12/22/2019 at 11:47 AM, Hlitner said:

I was hoping you would spot this thread a comment :).  We bow to your expertise and thank you for correcting my post.  I used to think that the "shimmy" was more my imagination then fact, but then we met others who had the same complaint.  I once mentioned this to a Celebrity Cruises Captain and his quick response was "why do you think my cabin is near the bow?"  This Captain is known for his great sense of humor :).

 

Hank

Hank would that be Tasos?:)

No, I was referring to ChengKP who did respond.  Many years here on CC have taught me to rely on his first hand expertise on Mariner/Engineering issues.

 

Hank