Venture stabilizer issues - now

[SLSD]

7 minutes ago, rallydave said:

All good points. Forgot another clause in the Ts&Cs. And that is about saying no class action law suits. This could mean each agreuved customer might need to file their own lawsuit and each go to separate arbitration. 
 

Not a lawyer but was a Contracts Manager writing negotiating etc many contracts in nine digits. 
 

perhaps your lawyer husband could look at the Ts&Cs and provide a professional legal opinion before some people spend large sums on cases with little chance of recovery??

I've already asked him and he immediately said that suing Seabourn is uneconomic.  I would like to know exactly how much more does the S. Georgia itinerary cost than the Antarctic itinerary without S. Georgia?  I seem to recall that SB is offering $1,000 obc that is refundable and a 15% cruise credit.  How would this stack up against the extra $$ paid for the S. Georgia itinerary?  I think that is where you will find your answer about whether it is worthwhile to pursue anything else.  

 

Like many, I have always recognized that there is no guarantee that a particular cruise will be able to make every port.  On most SB cruises we have taken, at least one port has been missed.  On one cruise, a port was added!  While people may be very very disappointed in missing S. Georgia and it is an unusual circumstance, SB has offered to let everyone rebook a different cruise.  

Edited January 2, 2023 by SLSD

[cruisr]

On 12/31/2022 at 6:07 AM, G Oliver said:

We are in the ship at the moment. We were told of the issue after we sailed- some passengers asked to go back to Ushuaia to disembark once it was clear South Georgia would be missed. Although the ship did return, they were told they would have to make their  arrangements from Buenos Aries home and there would be no refund of cruise fare. Not surprisingly, no one got off- we were held to ransom by Seabourn.

 

We are now returning to Ushuaia a day early to beat a storm in the Drake passage. 
 

The 7 days scheduled to/from/in South Georgia were spent going further in Antarctica- brilliant scenery, but did not come anywhere near compensating for what we missed.

 

Captain was virtually invisible- left Expedition team to explain issues whenever he could

 

Compensation of $1k each plus 15% is inadequate and we and others will be taking further action. 

Don’t know if it is the same Captain but friends on the Venture in September Iceland/Greenland said they didn’t ever see him at all.  Never doing a walk about, never anywhere.  

[njhorseman]

46 minutes ago, rallydave said:

All good points. Forgot another clause in the Ts&Cs. And that is about saying no class action law suits. This could mean each agreuved customer might need to file their own lawsuit and each go to separate arbitration. 
 

Not a lawyer but was a Contracts Manager writing negotiating etc many contracts in nine digits. 
 

perhaps your lawyer husband could look at the Ts&Cs and provide a professional legal opinion before some people spend large sums on cases with little chance of recovery??

 

There's a huge difference between the types of contracts you were responsible for during your business career and a cruise line's guest ticket contract. You used the magic word in your post..."negotiating". You and your company and the other parties to those contracts negotiated the terms, conditions and prices of those contracts, and presumably availed yourself of competent legal counsel prior to accepting and signing the contract.

 

A cruise line's guest ticket contract and its terms and conditions are what are called "adhesion contracts". There's no negotiation...the cruise line writes the contract and obviously writes it to benefit the cruise line. The passenger doesn't have a say in even one word of the contract . The passenger accepts the contract and all its terms and conditions upon paying their cruise fare. The same is true for most consumer contracts, including the type that I had experience writing, insurance contracts. (I am also not a lawyer.)

 

Because the consumer has no power to negotiate an adhesion contract, courts can intervene under certain circumstances and invalidate all or part of the contract if it's found to be unreasonable or unconscionable . As a result it's not a foregone conclusion that courts would uphold an arbitration mandate or a prohibition on class action suits. Of course it will not be an inexpensive process to attempt to invalidate one or more contract terms.

 

Here's an understandable explanation of adhesions contracts from Cornell Law School:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)

Edited January 2, 2023 by njhorseman

[SLSD]

21 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

 

There's a huge difference between the types of contracts you were responsible for during your business career and a cruise line's guest ticket contract. You used the magic word in your post..."negotiating". You and your company and the other parties to those contracts negotiated the terms, conditions and prices of those contracts, and presumably availed yourself of competent legal counsel prior to accepting and signing the contract.

 

A cruise line's guest ticket contract and its terms and conditions are what are called "adhesion contracts". There's no negotiation...the cruise line writes the contract and obviously writes it to benefit the cruise line. The passenger doesn't have a say in even one word of the contract . The passenger accepts the contract and all its terms and conditions upon paying their cruise fare. The same is true for most consumer contracts, including the type that I had experience writing, insurance contracts. (I am also not a lawyer.)

 

Because the consumer has no power to negotiate an adhesion contract, courts can intervene under certain circumstances and invalidate all or part of the contract if it's found to be unreasonable or unconscionable . As a result it's not a foregone conclusion that courts would uphold an arbitration mandate or a prohibition on class action suits. Of course it will not be an inexpensive process to attempt to invalidate one or more contract terms.

 

Here's an understandable explanation of adhesions contracts from Cornell Law School:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)

My lawyer husband is on a road trip with one of our sons right now, but I sent him the link from Cornell Law School.  He will read it and hopefully comment later.  

Edited January 2, 2023 by SLSD

[rallydave]

26 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

 

There's a huge difference between the types of contracts you were responsible for during your business career and a cruise line's guest ticket contract. You used the magic word in your post..."negotiating". You and your company and the other parties to those contracts negotiated the terms, conditions and prices of those contracts, and presumably availed yourself of competent legal counsel prior to accepting and signing the contract.

Thanks for the education njnorseman.  Guess where I worked we had a kind of hybrid of what you described.  Guess was a kind of adhesion contract even thoush it was company to company.

 

You see we were a Government Prime Contractor where the Ts and Cs were non-negotiable including the flow dows of the Ts and Cs to our Subs.  I was both a Prime Contracts Contract Manager and a Subcontract Subcontracts Manager so I saw it both ways.  We has no say in the Ts and Cs in our Prime Contracts and the same in our negotiated subcontracts.  So while I used the term negotiations it only applied to the Statement of Work and pricing.  Can't even include schedule as while that was in the Contracts, it was extremely fluid depending on the Agency, weather, etc.

 

And in our case the Ts and Cs had been in existence for many years  and trying to go to court to challenge them would have been a great way to cause our company to deciare bankruptcy and even winning would have ended our contract with the Government

 

This is all why I asd SLSD for his opinion as was not as familiar with the Seabourn Ts and Cs.  

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, SLSD said:

  Heidi's suggestion of obtaining the services of a good Admiralty lawyer with exemplary expert witnesses is good advice.  Of course that costs money unless a lawyer will take the case of contingency--which is not likely.  The amount of damages becomes an issue.  In other words, pursuing this legally will be uneconomic.  Seabourn probably has a cause of action against the providers/manufacturers. 

 

My  attorney husband says that the arbitration clause will not be broken.  

 

 

Affirmative, a quality Admiralty Lawyer and multiple SME's are not cheap, so if they are limited to individual claims, you probably would have no return on investment.

 

However, I don't suggest current and future pax disregard this option, as based on how Seabourn market their "Luxury" cruises, coupled with the potentially erroneous information provided, a competent lawyer with a marine background may be able to work around the T&C.

 

All shipping lines are required to ensure the vessel is seaworthy at all times. This includes the crew being well rested. If prolonged heavy weather was experienced, the potential for crew fatigue increases significantly. Therefore, the potential for crew fatigue is another option for the lawyers to explore, as it then becomes an operational safety issue.

 

Had Seabourn stated the stabilisers were non-statutory equipment, I'll suggest they would be in a better position, than stating they are "non-essential". Non-Statutory is factual, whereas non-essential is wide open for interpretation. As these are marketed as "Luxury" cruises, this potentially contradictory statement could also be another avenue for the lawyers to explore. 

 

As a mariner, I am clearly not a lawyer, so I look forward to your husband's opinion

[15Day+]

6 hours ago, cruisr said:

Don’t know if it is the same Captain but friends on the Venture in September Iceland/Greenland said they didn’t ever see him at all.  Never doing a walk about, never anywhere.  

I’m not sure what cruise your friends were on but we saw Captain Stig Betten almost every day on deck, in the Colonnade or in the corridors on the Sept 4th Iceland/Greenland sailing. We enjoyed conversations with him at dinner in the Colonnade and he made a point of wishing my wife a Happy Birthday as we disembarked from a kayak excursion in Skjoldungen Fjord.

[Fletcher]

I see the Venture arrived back in Ushuaia 24-36 hours ahead of schedule and is currently moored in the bay, presumably awaiting its scheduled berth alongside on the 4th. 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Fletcher

[Seaquestions]

Hi everyone. My mom and my aunt are scheduled to travel on the Seabourne on January 16. We are concerned about the stabilizer issue and how it will impact them. If anyone currently on the ship can share what their experience was like without the stabilizers working that would be so helpful. Thank you! 

[Fletcher]

Something interesting this way comes . . . ?  The Venture gets back to Ushuaia a day early because they wanted to avoid a storm.  So they anchor in the bay.  Fair enough?  The Silver Cloud is right behind them on the Drake crossing and instead of just killing time in port they sailed on and up a deep Chilean fjord to admire the Garibaldi glacier and now they are approaching Puerto Williams on schedule.  

[PARKCITYCruiser]

I have been following this issue with respect to the Venture stabilizers since it started.  I am scheduled for the Antarctica/South Georgia trip in December, 2023, so ample time (hopefully) to resolve this issue.   Had I been scheduled this season, I would surely cancel and either reschedule or demand refund of all deposits.

 

It is one thing when weather and sea conditions make schedule adjustments necessary;  quite a different story when a mechanical issue develops (especially on a brand new ship).  The “right thing” for Seabourn to do is admit the truth and offer the appropriate compensation/refund/future cruise credit to its paying passengers.

 

This is not a 7 day Caribbean Cruise that is relatively easily rescheduled.  Most people plan their Antarctica Cruise many months if not a year in advance give the logistics of what many consider a “once in a lifetime “ trip.

 

So, why not make this issue more “public”?   Seabourn is not the only luxury cruise line in the Antarctica “theater”, ergo Silversea, Scenic, Ponant, Atlas, etc.  We all have choices, and the last thing Seabourn wants is this issue out there for the general traveling public, especially given their poor and inadequate response.  Certainly, the high end Travel Agents need to be aware of this as they would have the potential of directing their clients to other lines.  Just the fact that Seabourn considers the stabilizers a “comfort” addition (I.e. not needed) for the Drake Passage is absurd.  As others above have mentioned, ships have been sailing these waters for years with stabilizers for a reason!

 

Happy New Year.
 

 

 

 

 

[Covepointcruiser]

Of course none of those other lines have ever had issues in the Antarctic!   Things break on ships, nothing is guaranteed to run perfectly, just ask the ships engineer.    At least Seabourn hasn’t had an accident this season, look at Viking, Silverseas and Quark.    I am glad they are being safe and have not killed any passengers.    We were on the Venture in September and saw the Captain every day.    The ship was run in a safe manner.

[diebroke]

The question of whether to go or not to go & what’s fair compensation for a shortened itinerary is an interesting dilemma.

 

It seems the lack of stabilizers has 4 implications:

• If the itinerary included South Georgia, it seems almost certain to be eliminated.
• The chance of a late departure from Ushuaia & an early return to Ushuaia are increased, thereby increasing the odds that the time in Antarctica will be shortened. I would assume the odds of shortened time in Antarctica are high assuming that they can’t depart Ushuaia early & they won’t return late since another cruise starts the same day they are scheduled to arrive.
• It is increasingly likely that passengers will suffer sea sickness during the crossing.

 

If any of these things happen, is it a weather issue or a ship equipment issue? What is fair compensation or change policy?

 

I assume the primary reason to go on an expedition cruise like this is the time spent in Antarctica. These potentially shortened number of days in Antarctica could produce a scary (for me) cost per day if you divide the total cruise cost by the number of days in Antarctica.

I massively enjoyed every day I spent in Antarctica. The days spent on the crossing, not so much.

It would be a tough choice for me to decide whether to go or postpone until after the stabilizers have been made operational. There is no single answer for everyone.

[Heidi13]

On 1/3/2023 at 3:17 PM, Covepointcruiser said:

Of course none of those other lines have ever had issues in the Antarctic!   Things break on ships, nothing is guaranteed to run perfectly, just ask the ships engineer.    At least Seabourn hasn’t had an accident this season, look at Viking, Silverseas and Quark.    I am glad they are being safe and have not killed any passengers.    We were on the Venture in September and saw the Captain every day.    The ship was run in a safe manner.

 

You are correct in that every Shipping Line can and does experience incidents. Incorporating risk analysis into operational procedures can't totally eliminate incidents, it only reduces the frequency and severity. What is at question on this thread is how Seabourn are responding to the customers. You noted three incidents in Antarctica:

 

Viking Polaris - vessel was impacted by a rogue wave, which damaged the shell plating, resulting in the failure of multiple windows. The vessel was returning to Ushuaia early to provide medical attention to a pax. Viking arranged return flights and provided compensation of 50% cash back and a FCV for all monies paid. Rather generous compared to what Seabourn notified pax in Ushuaia who wanted to disembark - arrange/pay for own flights home and no refund/FCV. Pax onboard got $1,000 OBC (which doesn't help much on all-inclusive cruises) and a 15% FCV.

 

Note - I certainly wouldn't wish to have experienced the rogue wave on a vessel without operational stabilisers.

 

Silversea - The only Silversea incidents in Antarctica I am aware of date back to 2013 and a mechanical issue in 2017. Were any this year? What was the cause and how did the cruise line compensate the pax?

 

Quark - this year experienced a RHIB overturn with pax onboard. While tragic result, it is hardly comparable to Seabourn's current issue.

 

Since Seabourn currently are operating a vessel without operational stabalisers, they have experienced an incident. Whether this incident was caused by human factors or mechanical failure, which may also include human factors, is unknown, as the cruise line did not specify the cause. I'll note 80% of incidents are as a result of human factors, so this could very well be deemed an "Accident"

 

Whether the ship is safe to sail is a highly complex subject that require a knowledge of marine regulations, and most importantly, the company's Safety Management System (SMS), which I expect requires operational standards well above regulatory minimums. As I posted previously, the vessel has no statutory requirement to install, or if installed, to operate the stabalisers. However, as noted previously, deeming ship operations as being "Safe" goes well beyond the minimum statutory requirements. Carnival brands have incorporated Human Factors and Risk Analysis into the Bridge and Engineering Operations for 15+ years, and since the Costa Concordia incident, all brands must comply. Therefore, without having read copies of their procedures, for a number of years, I have no doubt Human Factors are a key component in the SMS. I can support statement this since my company contracted with the same company that provided the initial training to Carnival brands, so I received comparable training.  One of the key Human Factors taught is "fatigue" and the implications, none of which are good.

 

If the vessel continues to operate under these conditions, crew fatigue is an increasing probability and if present, the Master must address the issue, possibly delaying sailings to ensure the crew get quality rest. This just 1 component of the SMS, which the Master must adhere to, there will be a number of others.

 

Without knowing the current conditions onboard and the contents of the SMS I have no idea how you can state, "I am glad they are being safe"

 

With many years at sea and having knowledge of their Bridge Procedures from 10 - 15 yrs ago, I don't have the knowledge to make that definitive statement. I also wouldn't state they are not operating safely, but from a passenger and crew comfort perspective, I question why a luxury cruise line would not remove the ship from service for repairs, as did Viking and Silversea. If repairs aren't immediately possible, surely pax should have the option to not sail, receiving full refunds.

 

 

[Jarick100]

Hi

We are on the February sailing and have decided not to sail, we got Seabourn's email on Tuesday and, whilst disappointed about South Georgia, there's no way we would do the Drake Passage without stabilizers.

 

We are looking at alternatives for this year and have one, the question now is do we go, bearing in mind we have lost our cruise credits and no discount is being offered, or do we go legal?

 

As we paid by American Express I phoned them yesterday to ask their view on whether a lack of stablizers and the ommision of a third of the itinerary was a 'significant' change? 

 

A 'significant' change is listed in Seabourn's terms and conditions as a reason for a cash refund.  The person I spoke to said that in his view it is and if I asked for a charge back against Seabourn then they would apply it.  The process is that I would have to write giving my reasons for the charge back, after they received my reasons they would put these to Seabourn, Seabourn would reply and then I would have a second chance to put my reasons before AMEX made their decision. 

 

I'm quite minded to do this, has anyone any thoughts or experience of this?

[traveler_64]

My wife and I just got off the Venture and are headed back home after the 2022-2023 holiday Antarctica cruise. While disappointed about the South Georgia cancellation, we treasured the extra time in Antarctica. We went waaay south, all the way to 68 degrees, 15 minutes, which was an incredible adventure. I came away feeling like we had a rare opportunity and wound up trading one amazing experience (South Georgia) for another (spending 10+ days in Antarctica and going far off the beaten path there).

We did feel the lack of stabilizers - Venture rolled noticeably whenever we were in open ocean with swells over 2-3 meters, especially when coming in perpendicular to the ship (broadside) - but it wasn't a huge deal to us. We experienced worse when we visited Antarctica on Quest in 2015 and encountered 20 foot seas off Patagonia and again in the Drake. Our Drake crossings on this trip were a little bouncy but not bad.

As explained by the officers and the expedition team, the decision to cancel South Georgia was made because the passage from South Georgia to Antarctica would be made at a shallow, unfavorable angle and would be long enough to be outside a highly reliable 3-day weather forecasting window. The decision was made on the basis of comfort. The ship is perfectly seaworthy.

Going back north to Ushuaia a day and a half early was a smart call given the nasty weather that swirled south of the Horn for the next few days. The captain of the Venture took us between two storms and the trip was fine. 

FWIW, my wife and I talked to passengers from a number of different ships while waiting at the airport and there were issues all around during this season - various ships either missed ports of call (e.g. Stanley), encountered very rough weather in the Drake, or had their Antarctic itineraries curtailed by the need to head back to Ushuaia early to avoid 50 knot winds and heavy swells. Our extra day in Ushuaia saw 30kt winds in the lee of the mountains, so I can only imagine what it was like down south. Bottom line, I think the captain and crew made lemonade out of some lemons and gave all of us memories that we'll never forget.

I don't post a ton but I feel an obligation to help those who are struggling with the decision to keep a booking or make one - or are feeling some angst about an upcoming cruise on Venture. If you're interested, here's my "Seabourn Sailors" review of the recent cruise (made in the same spirit):
 

Hello from the Venture on the last night of the 2022-2023 holiday Antarctica cruise. I’ve read a lot of questions from members of this group about this and future trips, so I thought I’d share my experience and some thoughts.
 

Bottom line, my wife and I felt like we had an amazing adventure and came away with incredible memories that we will treasure forever. I saw such beauty that my heart actually… ached. This is a harsh place but it is breathtakingly beautiful, and it will haunt you, seeping deep into your soul. Venture took us there in style. The voyage was not without problems, but we wouldn’t trade a minute of it.
 

While the cancellation of South Georgia was a disappointment, the extra time meant we were able to go well beyond the Antarctic Circle, all the way down to 68 degrees, 15 minutes south. At one point we were the southernmost passenger vessel on the peninsula, with only one other expedition ship within 200 miles.
 

Highlights from our time below the polar circle: We broke through the fast ice in front of a glacier off Marguerite Bay and then “parked”, which gave us a chance to get off the ship and walk around it on the ice. We saw a super rare Ross Seal, colonies of Adelie Penguins, and an Emperor Penguin. We visited two abandoned bases that are well off the beaten path. We traversed the Gullet on a perfectly still morning where you could see reflections of icebergs and mountains in the sea, creating a stunning mirror-scape all around us. We saw icebergs in all shapes and sizes, each individually sculpted.
 

Back on the normal expedition circuit - up north - we dived 360 feet in a submersible in a place that nobody has ever dived before. After going deep down, we ascended next to a rock wall leading up to Cuverville Island and saw sponges, starfish, krill, and strange jelly-fish like creatures with rippling surfaces.

In Paradise Bay a humpback whale surfaced about 20 feet from our Zodiac, and then we cruised along the face of a gnarled glacier.
 

There was one magical night when the ship traveled along the Bransfield Strait in the golden hour of a late sunset, with the mountains radiant on every side and whales feeding all around us.
 

There was so much else to see as well… albatrosses and rockhoppers on the Falkland Islands, Gentoo and Chinstrap penguins, lots of seals, many types of whales, and so, so many birds.
 

The expedition team was great and the captain was clearly a good sailor.
 

On the not so good side, one of my bags got lost in transit from Buenos Aires to Ushuaia and didn’t turn up until 30 minutes before sailing, giving me a panic attack. The news of the South Georgia cancellation came late (after we had sailed). The ship has teething pains beyond the stabilizers - some of the lights and switches didn’t work in our cabin, there were some fit and finish issues around the vessel, and one bank of elevators was out of service quite a bit. The crew was also settling in and the rhythm just wasn’t right yet.
 

On the topic of stabilizers, the ship definitely rolled a bit when we were in open water, including the Drake - but we had worse during our first trip to Antarctica in 2015 on the Quest where we encountered some 20 foot seas.
 

The captain of the Venture was careful about comfort and the decision to cancel South Georgia came from the need to make a long passage at an unfavorable angle from South Georgia to Antarctica, which would take us out of the highly predictable 3-day weather forecasting window. Comfort was the issue, not seaworthiness.

The captain did take us back to Ushuaia a day and a half early, threading the needle between two storm systems. Seeing the current weather south of the Horn, it seems like a smart decision.
 

So, there were issues… but also magic and wonder.
 

I’d recommend the longer Antarctic cruise without South Georgia in a heartbeat to those who thirst for adventure, assuming you get to go south. If you do have your heart set on South Georgia and you’re only ever going to make one trip, then yes, probably worth finding an alternative. But the longer Antarctic experience is not “less than”, it’s just different and marvelous in its own way.
 

And the Venture is a fine vessel for the standard Falklands -> Antarctica circuit.
 

One person’s opinion of course.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by traveler_64

[trips_ahoy]

We are in a similar situation. We have been fortunate to have done this trip on  Seabourn Quest in 2016-2017 season. We missed landings, including Salisbury Plain in South Georgia. These were due to weather which we understand can happen.

 

The current situation is different. We have a damaged ship and an entire destination has been removed from the voyage as a result. There is a real possibility of an uncomfortable shortened trip. As South Georgia was a key reason for booking the trip we have decided not to go.

 

The only option offered is a Feb 2024 trip of 36 days which ends up on Cape Verde off the coast of Africa.

 

This is our third try at a Venture trip. Seabourn cancelled Svalbard in 2022 and 2023, and now this.

 

We are somewhat frustrated and our TA is working on a resolution.

[jjs217]

On 1/2/2023 at 9:04 AM, toseaornottosea said:

Passengers who were on the 12/15 to 1/4 cruise please share your experiences on the cruise for those of us who are booked on one of the remaining Antarctica cruises on Venture.

I didn't read Cruise Critic while on board, so just now catching up.  Some one on this thread said that Seabourn held the passengers hostage - NO - those few selfish passengers who made the Captain turn around and return to Ushuaia held the rest of us passengers hostage.  I was so disappointed that we wouldn't be going to South Georgia, but I signed a contract that said itineraries are subject to change.  That is where my beef with Seabourn lies.  Why did Seabourn succumb to the few?  Then, I was livid when nobody was required to leave the ship once it turned around.  Why were unruly passengers allowed to stay on board?  Those passengers who had their panties in a twist - seemed to end up having a wonderful time and Seabourn seemed to treat them extraordinarily well.  I wouldn't have been so kind.

[jjs217]

 

The Captain was present at disembarkation.  I thought he did a great job considering all the problems.

 

 I asked one of the ships officers about when the stabilizers would be fixed, and he said it would require a dry dock fix.

[Covepointcruiser]

Heidi13, Silverseas flipped a Zodiac this year with a full passenger load on board.   Luckily no one drowned.    Viking was returning to Ushuaia because one of their Zodiacs experienced an explosion and badly broke a passenger’s leg.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, Covepointcruiser said:

Heidi13, Silverseas flipped a Zodiac this year with a full passenger load on board.   Luckily no one drowned.    Viking was returning to Ushuaia because one of their Zodiacs experienced an explosion and badly broke a passenger’s leg.

 

As was discussed extensively on the Viking Board, the allegation of a RHIB explosion on the Polaris, was from a passenger, who clearly has no knowledge of RHIB construction and operation.

 

Even if the buoyancy tube was punctured, which I note is tough to accomplish, the working pressure in the tubes is low. Even a rapid deflation does not equate to anything considered as potentially explosive. The only other potentials are the pyrotechnics and fuel system, but with no clear evidence of an explosion, these are highly unlikely.

 

Based upon the observations of those onboard and those of us that have actually operated and/or serviced RHIB's, the most likely cause is from an underwater strike by a marine mammal.

[cruiseej]

On 1/3/2023 at 11:53 AM, Fletcher said:

Something interesting this way comes . . . ?  The Venture gets back to Ushuaia a day early because they wanted to avoid a storm.  So they anchor in the bay.  Fair enough?  The Silver Cloud is right behind them on the Drake crossing and instead of just killing time in port they sailed on and up a deep Chilean fjord to admire the Garibaldi glacier and now they are approaching Puerto Williams on schedule.  

 

Good tracking @Fletcher 😉  We were on that Cloud cruise which ended Wednesday. The ship's captain and expedition leader made several weather-driven decisions which affected our schedules — and all worked out favorably for us. Going to South Georgia Island, there were some forecasted heavy winds and swells, and so they put the ship on full speed as soon as we left the Falklands, and got us to South Georgia in one day instead of the normal two. After three great days in South Georgia, we weren't sure whether our "extra" day would be spent there, and again, the winds drove the decision: a big storm was headed for South Georgia, so we left after our scheduled three days and headed for the Antarctic peninsula. We assumed we'd then spend our extra day in Antarctica, but the weather forecast for the Drake drove the decision to leave in order to thread our way between two systems of high winds, resulting in an only slightly bumpy crossing.

 

But that brought us back to the Beagle Channel a day early, and I was hoping that didn't mean we'd just sit there for another day waiting to disembark. I was impressed to learn what the leadership had to do in order to make that a useful day: cruising up the Beagle Channel into the Chilean fjords required a local pilot for that region, and they were able to arrange for one to fly in (I believe from Punta Arenas) and pick him up so we could spend our extra day cruising this region instead of sitting at anchor off Puerto Williams. The weather wasn't great that day, but it was calm enough in the morning to get zodiacs in the water and take a nice 90-minute zodiac cruise along the shore viewing sea lions and the Garibaldi glacier (from a bit of distance due to ice). I don't know what it cost Silversea to pull off those machinations, but everyone aboard appreciated the efforts to deliver us a unique bonus experience. It was a fine end to a cruise which had an unusual 100% success rate with two landings/zodiac cruises per day for each of our days in the Falklands, South Georgia, and Antartica. 

[highplanesdrifters]

Just now, cruiseej said:

 

Good tracking @Fletcher 😉  We were on that Cloud cruise which ended Wednesday. The ship's captain and expedition leader made several weather-driven decisions which affected our schedules — and all worked out favorably for us. Going to South Georgia Island, there were some forecasted heavy winds and swells, and so they put the ship on full speed as soon as we left the Falklands, and got us to South Georgia in one day instead of the normal two. After three great days in South Georgia, we weren't sure whether our "extra" day would be spent there, and again, the winds drove the decision: a big storm was headed for South Georgia, so we left after our scheduled three days and headed for the Antarctic peninsula. We assumed we'd then spend our extra day in Antarctica, but the weather forecast for the Drake drove the decision to leave in order to thread our way between two systems of high winds, resulting in an only slightly bumpy crossing.

 

But that brought us back to the Beagle Channel a day early, and I was hoping that didn't mean we'd just sit there for another day waiting to disembark. I was impressed to learn what the leadership had to do in order to make that a useful day: cruising up the Beagle Channel into the Chilean fjords required a local pilot for that region, and they were able to arrange for one to fly in (I believe from Punta Arenas) and pick him up so we could spend our extra day cruising this region instead of sitting at anchor off Puerto Williams. The weather wasn't great that day, but it was calm enough in the morning to get zodiacs in the water and take a nice 90-minute zodiac cruise along the shore viewing sea lions and the Garibaldi glacier (from a bit of distance due to ice). I don't know what it cost Silversea to pull off those machinations, but everyone aboard appreciated the efforts to deliver us a unique bonus experience. It was a fine end to a cruise which had an unusual 100% success rate with two landings/zodiac cruises per day for each of our days in the Falklands, South Georgia, and Antartica. 

Thanks for that interesting report.

[Fletcher]

11 hours ago, cruiseej said:

 

Good tracking @Fletcher 😉  We were on that Cloud cruise which ended Wednesday . . . I don't know what it cost Silversea to pull off those machinations, but everyone aboard appreciated the efforts to deliver us a unique bonus experience. It was a fine end to a cruise which had an unusual 100% success rate with two landings/zodiac cruises per day for each of our days in the Falklands, South Georgia, and Antartica. 

Many thanks for that report.  Seems like the very definition of expedition cruising.  How was the Cloud itself?  Heard reports it's showing its age a bit.  We are aboard in April. 

[cruiseej]

14 hours ago, Fletcher said:

Many thanks for that report.  Seems like the very definition of expedition cruising.  How was the Cloud itself?  Heard reports it's showing its age a bit.  We are aboard in April. 

 

I found it to be in fine form. For starters, the crew was excellent, from the expedition team to the restaurant teams to the housekeeping teams. Although the Cloud lacks a large atrium or central lobby, the ship was nicely decorated for Christmas. The was some rust below the anchor and chipped paint on the hull around the water line (likely due to rubbing along ice at times), so one could say there was some wear and tear, but it didn't detract in any way. There may have been a few areas of carpeting showing a little wear; I didn't notice, but a few of my traveling companions mentioned it when we were trying to assess if the ship was showing its age. Our veranda suite was in fine shape. Of course, the ship lacks the extra restaurants that the newer ships have, but it's hard to hold that against her. I will say that the lack of an all-day drink/snack venue like the Arts Cafe on the newer SS ships (or Seabourn Square on the Seabourn ships) is something we noticed. The lack of a bar in the forward Observation Lounge is a big design miss, in my opinion, but that's the way she's built. I've seen people say the ship is drafty; I didn't find that to be the case. There were no sewage smells or water/sewage problems that we saw/heard about from anyone on board. All in all, I felt the ship was in fine shape… for what it is: an older, smaller, expedition ship.