Interesting Article on Viking’s Lifeboats

[duquephart]

12 minutes ago, MarkTapley said:

Great movie, and very creative Hitchcock cameo appearance.

 

And Bankhead with no underwear.

[formernuke]

23 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

The Viking Ocean ships have 3 lifeboats on each side. Boats # 1,2,5 and 6 are tenders, while boats # 3 and 4 are standard lifeboats.

 

On the tenders, if memory is correct they hold about 90 - 95 for tender ops, but I can't remember the number on the capacity plaque. The regular lifeboats are most likely 150 person capacity.

 

Regardless, the ship must have lifeboat capacity for at least 75% of the compliment, with 37.5% on each side.

Per the the label in theJupiter tender today, 220 as tender, 235 as lifeboat 

[Haworth]

On 10/14/2021 at 6:13 PM, Heidi13 said:

 

The Captain made a very wise decision, as launching lifeboats in those conditions carries an extremely high risk.

My wife and I were on that trip, it was obvious to me that the options were helicopter or the ship staying afloat, we all came though it thankfully but in those conditions the life boats would have been dashed on the rocks or the ship. 

[cruiselvr04]

I watched the demo and thought “ wow, I sure I hope I never have to use one of those”.  I’d be terrified at the thought of going down a chute like that.  I don’t like amusement rides that include height.  3 or 4 stories down,  I think I’d need a push.    But it’s better then drowning.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence in them and more explanation. 

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, cruiselvr04 said:

I watched the demo and thought “ wow, I sure I hope I never have to use one of those”.  I’d be terrified at the thought of going down a chute like that.  I don’t like amusement rides that include height.  3 or 4 stories down,  I think I’d need a push.    But it’s better then drowning.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence in them and more explanation. 

 

So true, when the ship is sinking, most pax would probably take the plunge, if required. The descent only takes a few seconds and the first time is the worst😁😁 I did my first descent about 22 yrs ago and took our son (14 at the time) with me. After everyone went down, he wanted to go again, head first. They did let him go, but only feet first.

 

Once you have done a few descents it's like a walk in the park.

[KBs mum]

A question cropped up in the pub this evening, part of aircraft certification is 'passengers' using the slides to evacuate in a certain time limit in a supposed emergency scenario. 

Do cruise ships similarly have to do a drill whereby 'passengers' actually get Into the lifeboats and are launched before certification is issued?

Somebody had watched a programme about the Royal Caribbean resort ships and wondered how they could get 6000, some possibly tipsy, passengers down 10 decks to the boats and on to them quickly. 

(apologies to nautical and aviation specialists if I have used incorrect terminology to give the gist of the query) 

[Heidi13]

36 minutes ago, KBs mum said:

A question cropped up in the pub this evening, part of aircraft certification is 'passengers' using the slides to evacuate in a certain time limit in a supposed emergency scenario. 

Do cruise ships similarly have to do a drill whereby 'passengers' actually get Into the lifeboats and are launched before certification is issued?

Somebody had watched a programme about the Royal Caribbean resort ships and wondered how they could get 6000, some possibly tipsy, passengers down 10 decks to the boats and on to them quickly. 

(apologies to nautical and aviation specialists if I have used incorrect terminology to give the gist of the query) 

 

Unlike the airline industry, the marine industry does not normally have to prove they can evacuate the ship within the permitted 30 mins. In many cases, they don't even have to prove they can get the number of people physically into a lifeboat.

 

About 20 - 25 yrs ago, I recall the local Transport Canada Inspectors requesting one of the cruise ships to demonstrate how they would get 150 pax, with lifejackets into a lifeboat. They used crew members, who are generally smaller than pax (on average) and I believe it took them 5 or 6 attempts to get 150 people in. This exercise lasted a number of hours.

 

I haven't used lifeboats in about 30 yrs, so haven't been involved in their approval process. Except in an emergency, having given the order to "Abandon Ship", I would not permit fully laden lifeboats to be lowered to the water.

 

With respect to Marine Evacuation Systems (MES), when the manufacturer goes through Flag/Class type approval, in addition to a heavy weather test, cold weather test, they must also do a timed evacuation test, proving they can attain the requested capacity. They will often charter a ferry type vessel, install their system for the test and crop/remove upon completion.

 

When I was purchasing and installing MES, every time we purchased and installed a new type of system, or installed a system on a new class of ship, Transport Canada (TC) required that I conduct a timed evacuation trial. Not aware that any other Flag States had similar requirements. Even though a ship had 6 MES, we only had to prove 1 system.

 

For Davit-Launched Liferafts, again for TC, we have had to prove the system - crew positions the raft, make the connections, inflate and prepare for boarding. As a Master, I would decline to send any crew down in a D/L raft for an exercise, so we would load the raft with water and lower it to the water. So with D/L rafts, we have proved they work, but not the capacity.

 

Hope that answers your question sufficiently.

[KBs mum]

28 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Unlike the airline industry, the marine industry does not normally have to prove they can evacuate the ship within the permitted 30 mins. In many cases, they don't even have to prove they can get the number of people physically into a lifeboat.

 

About 20 - 25 yrs ago, I recall the local Transport Canada Inspectors requesting one of the cruise ships to demonstrate how they would get 150 pax, with lifejackets into a lifeboat. They used crew members, who are generally smaller than pax (on average) and I believe it took them 5 or 6 attempts to get 150 people in. This exercise lasted a number of hours.

 

I haven't used lifeboats in about 30 yrs, so haven't been involved in their approval process. Except in an emergency, having given the order to "Abandon Ship", I would not permit fully laden lifeboats to be lowered to the water.

 

With respect to Marine Evacuation Systems (MES), when the manufacturer goes through Flag/Class type approval, in addition to a heavy weather test, cold weather test, they must also do a timed evacuation test, proving they can attain the requested capacity. They will often charter a ferry type vessel, install their system for the test and crop/remove upon completion.

 

When I was purchasing and installing MES, every time we purchased and installed a new type of system, or installed a system on a new class of ship, Transport Canada (TC) required that I conduct a timed evacuation trial. Not aware that any other Flag States had similar requirements. Even though a ship had 6 MES, we only had to prove 1 system.

 

For Davit-Launched Liferafts, again for TC, we have had to prove the system - crew positions the raft, make the connections, inflate and prepare for boarding. As a Master, I would decline to send any crew down in a D/L raft for an exercise, so we would load the raft with water and lower it to the water. So with D/L rafts, we have proved they work, but not the capacity.

 

Hope that answers your question sufficiently.

Thank you for taking the trouble to answer our question, I will report back to the early doors population of the Peacock tommorow.

If you'r ever in South Warwickshire give us a shout, we'll get a round in 🍺

[Jim Avery]

20 minutes ago, KBs mum said:

Thank you for taking the trouble to answer our question, I will report back to the early doors population of the Peacock tommorow.

If you'r ever in South Warwickshire give us a shout, we'll get a round in 🍺

If you are referring to the Peacock Oxhill, what a lovely pub.🍺  Saw the website.  I have traveled the Cotswold area with relatives all my life but have missed the Peacock.  It is certainly now on the list...🍺

[Jim Avery]

Andy, you tell the truth.  I had only to worry about a couple of dozen trained crew getting off my old rust buckets but we trained "by the book" rigorously.  I don't even want to think about 6,000 passengers and maybe 4,000 crew, most not trained sailors.  The 1,500 or so full complement on Viking is still a lot to manage in an emergency situation but I feel a much lesser risk than some of the behemoths.

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, KBs mum said:

Thank you for taking the trouble to answer our question, I will report back to the early doors population of the Peacock tommorow.

If you'r ever in South Warwickshire give us a shout, we'll get a round in 🍺

 

Thanks for the offer. Haha, if you believe Jim's rumours, I've never been known to decline a visit to a village pub.

 

Similar to Jim, we have visited the Cotswolds many times, as DW's aunt and uncle lived close to Chiiping Norton and I have a friend from my P&O days from Bishop's Cleeve. We spent a week down there in 2017.

 

However, with my dad gone, our visits to UK will be less frequent and mostly to the St Andrews area.

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

Andy, you tell the truth.  I had only to worry about a couple of dozen trained crew getting off my old rust buckets but we trained "by the book" rigorously.  I don't even want to think about 6,000 passengers and maybe 4,000 crew, most not trained sailors.  The 1,500 or so full complement on Viking is still a lot to manage in an emergency situation but I feel a much lesser risk than some of the behemoths.

 

Jim - so true, I just can't image managing an evacuation with over 6,000 pax, especially after some of our human factors training and the human response modelling we did on some of our ships.

 

How about my last command - 2,052 pax and only 48 crew. At that time we had the old DBC (Zodiac) MES, but now she has the modern LSA Slide MES. Each crew member received about 1 month training before signing-on and we did drills every 4 to 5 days. Even the rescue boat was launched and taken away by Seamen every morning, with my Seamen so competent, I had no issue launching them at sea with a couple of knots of way.

 

I also hired one of our local mariners, who operated a fire training school. Brought him onboard once per year to provide fire training for our hotel crew.

[KBs mum]

7 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

If you are referring to the Peacock Oxhill, what a lovely pub.🍺  Saw the website.  I have traveled the Cotswold area with relatives all my life but have missed the Peacock.  It is certainly now on the list...🍺

 

4 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Thanks for the offer. Haha, if you believe Jim's rumours, I've never been known to decline a visit to a village pub.

 

Similar to Jim, we have visited the Cotswolds many times, as DW's aunt and uncle lived close to Chiiping Norton and I have a friend from my P&O days from Bishop's Cleeve. We spent a week down there in 2017.

 

However, with my dad gone, our visits to UK will be less frequent and mostly to the St Andrews area.

Sorry chaps, the pub isn't that one, the one we go to is a dogs and wellies no website establishment. Jim, you're invited as well, but as Heidi13 got his answer in first you'r buying your own. The pub in Oxhill looks a bit too posh for us professional drinkers! 

We are some distance from the start of the Cotswolds, we have just worked out that we've been to Ullapool more often than Chipping Norton! Highly entertaining overhearing two of The World's officers complaining about having to wait for a Cal Mac ferry to dock first. 

Until Viking Sky the only sizeable ships I'd been on were car ferries in the North Sea, Channel and Hebrides. I was slightly surprised to find the furniture wasn't bolted to the deck.🤦‍♀️

 

[KBs mum]

The comments from the experts reinforce my view that in the event of something going wrong those on the behemoths will struggle to get off them. As they're our idea of hell anyway, we'll be avoiding them. 

Thought occurred while Sky was in trouble, had she had to be abandoned out at sea, say due to fire mid Atlantic, passengers and crew could have physically fitted onto nearby ships after being picked up from boats/transferred. 

How many ships can fit an extra 7-8 thousand people, at short notice, other than the deck on a bulk tanker? Might make for an uncomfortably long wait to be rescued from a lifeboat?

 

[chengkp75]

I'll add my experience to Andy's comments.  Marine evacuation systems (boats, rafts, MES), like those on airplanes are tested by the manufacturer in "simulated" conditions (no actual fire, no actual sinking, no one drunk, typically no truly disabled people), to determine that the system is capable of evacuating the required number in the required time.  Once the system has been accredited, there does not need to be periodic testing on the ship or aircraft.

 

Lifeboats and rafts are meant to be used once, one way, getting people off the ship.  Recovery of boats is a dangerous procedure, one of the highest accident rates in the maritime industry, caused by designing the systems so that launching the boat is as simple and failsafe as possible, but those measures make retrieving difficult and dangerous.  Take the "free-fall" boats used on commercial ships.  A hook is released by hydraulics, and the boat slides down a ramp and falls into the water.  By law, the release method was required to be tested quarterly, and for years we dutifully put two or three guys in the boat, and released it into the water, whenever we were in a protected anchorage, so that recovery would be as easy as possible.  Then we start noticing stress fractures in the fiberglass of the boats, and the manufacturer tells us the boat is only rated for a limited number of drops into the water.  We find out there is a testing device that allows the hook to release, but stops the boat from moving more than a couple inches down the track, removing the stress of hitting the water from the statutory testing.

 

Also, due to the nature of the marine environment, failures of even emergency equipment can happen, and so, as Andy says, you never load a lifeboat fully with people for testing, you only send the minimum number needed to handle the boat, to limit potential casualties.

 

As Andy and Jim have said, it will be difficult to get large numbers of passengers into boats and away from the ship in an actual emergency.  What folks don't understand is that the "30 minute" rule is not that everyone is off the ship in 30 minutes after the alarm is sounded.  It means that each boat can be loaded and launched in 30 minutes, from the time the Captain orders the boats loaded (which is not the same as when the alarm sounds).

 

This is why the passenger muster is so important, and why it needs to be announced in a timely fashion in an emergency.  The passenger muster is not about getting into the boats, it is about accountability.  It is designed to get all passengers into known, controlled, limited locations, and not only counted, but accounted for by name.  Once there, it is fine from an emergency response viewpoint to have the passengers sit there for hours if need be, until it is determined whether evacuation is required or not.  If it is, then multiple small groups will be led to their embarkation stations (those places actually at the boats) where they will be loaded and launched.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, KBs mum said:

The comments from the experts reinforce my view that in the event of something going wrong those on the behemoths will struggle to get off them. As they're our idea of hell anyway, we'll be avoiding them. 

Thought occurred while Sky was in trouble, had she had to be abandoned out at sea, say due to fire mid Atlantic, passengers and crew could have physically fitted onto nearby ships after being picked up from boats/transferred. 

How many ships can fit an extra 7-8 thousand people, at short notice, other than the deck on a bulk tanker? Might make for an uncomfortably long wait to be rescued from a lifeboat?

 

Much of this is why the IMO has mandated the "Safe Return to Port" design for passenger ships, making the ship its own best lifeboat.  If the ship ain't sinking, or burning out of control, you don't get off, and the ship can bring you back to land, albeit likely limping back.

 

I hate to say it to non-mariners, because I don't want to discourage anyone from cruising, and because abandonments are so rare, but once you get into a lifeboat, prepare yourself for a long time in it.  While everyone knows that "nearby ships are required by law to aid another ship in distress", what they don't know is that the Captain of that nearby ship is also required by law to not place his ship, cargo, crew, or the environment in danger attempting to assist.  Most ships these days have virtually no means of taking people off lifeboats at sea.  For nearly every cargo ship out there, it would require bringing a fiberglass boat alongside a steel ship in a seaway (so the boat bumping and sliding against the ship all the time), and getting passengers who are not necessarily fit, or actually elderly or disabled, to either climb a pilot ladder (what you see the pilot climb when getting on the cruise ship, but about 3-4 times higher), or jumping from the boat onto a 2 foot square platform at the bottom of the accommodation ladder, while that platform attempts to poke holes in the lifeboat.  The vessels best able to take people off lifeboats would be naval and coast guard vessels (lower decks, more crew, more equipment for rescue), offshore supply vessels, and the like.  If you are in a lifeboat, and there is a raging storm, you will be in the boats until the storm passes.  If the weather is clear (but even then there are seas), you will likely be in the boats until those types of vessels can get geared up and get to your location, perhaps a day or two.  Boats have rations and water for 3 days, and if you ever have to get into one, it is most likely that you will need all of those for the time you are in the boats.  And, this has nothing to do with the number of passengers, or boats, even getting one or two boats evacuated to another ship at sea is an extremely risky operation, and will only be done as a last resort.

[KBs mum]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Much of this is why the IMO has mandated the "Safe Return to Port" design for passenger ships, making the ship its own best lifeboat.  If the ship ain't sinking, or burning out of control, you don't get off, and the ship can bring you back to land, albeit likely limping back.

 

I hate to say it to non-mariners, because I don't want to discourage anyone from cruising, and because abandonments are so rare, but once you get into a lifeboat, prepare yourself for a long time in it.  While everyone knows that "nearby ships are required by law to aid another ship in distress", what they don't know is that the Captain of that nearby ship is also required by law to not place his ship, cargo, crew, or the environment in danger attempting to assist.  Most ships these days have virtually no means of taking people off lifeboats at sea.  For nearly every cargo ship out there, it would require bringing a fiberglass boat alongside a steel ship in a seaway (so the boat bumping and sliding against the ship all the time), and getting passengers who are not necessarily fit, or actually elderly or disabled, to either climb a pilot ladder (what you see the pilot climb when getting on the cruise ship, but about 3-4 times higher), or jumping from the boat onto a 2 foot square platform at the bottom of the accommodation ladder, while that platform attempts to poke holes in the lifeboat.  The vessels best able to take people off lifeboats would be naval and coast guard vessels (lower decks, more crew, more equipment for rescue), offshore supply vessels, and the like.  If you are in a lifeboat, and there is a raging storm, you will be in the boats until the storm passes.  If the weather is clear (but even then there are seas), you will likely be in the boats until those types of vessels can get geared up and get to your location, perhaps a day or two.  Boats have rations and water for 3 days, and if you ever have to get into one, it is most likely that you will need all of those for the time you are in the boats.  And, this has nothing to do with the number of passengers, or boats, even getting one or two boats evacuated to another ship at sea is an extremely risky operation, and will only be done as a last resort.

Thank you, you are also invited to the pub. 

I put the question out of curiosity, as a 'what if'. I like learning about this sort of thing.

I have no issue with the muster procedures, the concept of having to use the boats in an emergency doesn't worry me in a way that would put me off cruising, they are there, and if it comes to it there is a plan in place for their use. 

 

 

[Heidi13]

6 hours ago, KBs mum said:

The comments from the experts reinforce my view that in the event of something going wrong those on the behemoths will struggle to get off them. As they're our idea of hell anyway, we'll be avoiding them. 

Thought occurred while Sky was in trouble, had she had to be abandoned out at sea, say due to fire mid Atlantic, passengers and crew could have physically fitted onto nearby ships after being picked up from boats/transferred. 

How many ships can fit an extra 7-8 thousand people, at short notice, other than the deck on a bulk tanker? Might make for an uncomfortably long wait to be rescued from a lifeboat?

 

 

Fire is still a huge concern at sea, but with design changes and technlogy, in the greatest majority of situations the Master will keep the pax and crew aboard the ship, which is considered the best lifeboat. The pax might be at "Assembly Stations" for many hours, but in the big picture, that is a rather minor inconvenience.

 

Human factors can never be discounted, but with the containment and extinguishing/cooling options available on modern ships, most fires in critical areas are knocked down almost instantly or adequately contained and cooled. The Hi-fog systems installed on modern cruise ships are simply amazing.

 

The SOLAS safe return to port requirements will ensure that unless a fire is out of control and cannot be contained, the ship can at least limp to the closest suitable port. Life on board may not be pleasant, but it will still be better than life in a fully loaded lifeboat or liferaft.

 

Edit - just noticed the Chief had already replied and this is almost duplication.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Heidi13

[KBs mum]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

 

 

Edit - just noticed the Chief had already replied and this is almost duplication.

Don't worry, have invited him to the pub as well, the more the merrier😁

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, KBs mum said:

Don't worry, have invited him to the pub as well, the more the merrier😁

 

Sound like my type of pub. Wellies, dogs and no doubt a roaring fire and reekin' lum. Probably hand-pulled pints at proper cellar temperature.

[FlyerTalker]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Fire is still a huge concern at sea, but with design changes and technlogy, in the greatest majority of situations the Master will keep the pax and crew aboard the ship, which is considered the best lifeboat. The pax might be at "Assembly Stations" for many hours, but in the big picture, that is a rather minor inconvenience.

 

Slightly off topic, but thought that you and the Chief might appreciate this news story.  Truly highlights the importance of proper training and procedures.  And it might help to "explain" to the guests why there's the need for the regular crew drills to keep training standards high and procedures drilled into everyone's consciousness.

 

https://news.usni.org/2021/10/19/long-chain-of-failures-left-sailors-unprepared-to-fight-uss-bonhomme-richard-investigation-finds

[chengkp75]

Flyertalker;

 

Unfortunately, this does not surprise me with today's Navy, as witnessed by the two collisions in the Pacific over the last couple of years.  A two year shipyard period is bound to breed complacency, but the lack of training of crew is worrisome, as is the lack of training with other assets like the shipyard fire department.