Faulty fire resistant panels found in new build ship

[topnole]

31 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

When an article starts out with strong words like "shockwaves" then has absolutely zero detail or specificity to the problem and uses "unnamed sources" well, I'd like something a bit more specific.

FT definitely uses a lot of click bait type headlines and language in their “reporting”.  

[smokeybandit]

Cruisehive picked up the FT story, but also offered nothing additional. They too have become more clickbaity lately.

[barbeyg]

6 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Cruisehive picked up the FT story, but also offered nothing additional. They too have become more clickbaity lately.

Agree. Most news sources are clickbait these days. It has gotten ridiculous. 🙄

 

It would be nice if one of the stories actually provided some additional info, wouldn’t it? 

[twangster]

53 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Cruisehive picked up the FT story, but also offered nothing additional. They too have become more clickbaity lately.

 

Wait for it.  The regular cast of Youtubers are all preparing their shocked face thumbnails for their latest videos featuring the "breaking news".  

[Charles4515]

34 minutes ago, twangster said:

 

Wait for it.  The regular cast of Youtubers are all preparing their shocked face thumbnails for their latest videos featuring the "breaking news".  

It is for sure that since it is on Hives the influencers are hard at work on clickbait videos. 

[crazyank]

16 hours ago, CJANDH said:

Imagine the lawsuits if a fire breaks out and they know they have faulty panels. There is going to be a scramble to get in line for replacements and we could see a bunch of cancelled cruises coming up.

The sky is falling!

[steamboats]

The FT article has been updated with the Meyer Werft statement. They said that they didn´t use the two types of panels which now lost their certificates.

 

Regarding the fact that the certificates were issued in 2020 Wonder of the Seas might have those panels as well as all Celebrity Apex and Celebrity Beyond. Of course that´s pure speculation. Paroc has only released the names MSC Euribia and Explora I plus that 45 vessels in operation are affected (which can be also ferries, cargo vessels or private yachts...).

 

steamboats

[smokeybandit]

Still no one else reporting this other than FT or outlets referencing the FT article.

 

Tells me all I need to know. The issue is purely a certification one for a new build, not an actual safety issue.

[CJANDH]

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

Still no one else reporting this other than FT or outlets referencing the FT article.

 

Tells me all I need to know. The issue is purely a certification one for a new build, not an actual safety issue.

Hope that you are right. However, your conclusion is based on very little confirmed information. I would expect some clarification once businesses reopen after the weekend.

[steamboats]

Seatrade Cruise News has a little more details.

 

steamboats

[smokeybandit]

13 minutes ago, steamboats said:

Seatrade Cruise News has a little more details.

 

steamboats

Still no true detail on what the issue is. But it sure doesn't sound like it's an issue of any concern for vessels currently sailing.

[chengkp75]

If it is indeed a failure of the material to meet the fire code requirements, there would be a minute possibility that the affected ships would need to remove one panel for testing, and go from there.  Even if the panels failed a fire test, unless it was by a significant amount, the only result would be a notation on the ship's class that the panels need to be renewed "as soon as practicable", usually mentioning during scheduled dry dock periods.

[gumshoe958]

18 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

If it is indeed a failure of the material to meet the fire code requirements, there would be a minute possibility that the affected ships would need to remove one panel for testing, and go from there.  Even if the panels failed a fire test, unless it was by a significant amount, the only result would be a notation on the ship's class that the panels need to be renewed "as soon as practicable", usually mentioning during scheduled dry dock periods.

That’s encouraging. What about ships that are yet to enter service?

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, gumshoe958 said:

That’s encouraging. What about ships that are yet to enter service?

Those panels would need to be replaced.  If these are cabin wall panels, that would be a massive job.

[smokeybandit]

We still don't know the context of the failure. It may well be purely administrative from a paperwork perspective. It could just be a trivial thing, but not technically to spec, so it failed certification.

A real PITA for new ship certification though.

[jwlane]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 If these are cabin wall panels,

Not likely.  Cabins are typically modular systems built by outside providers.  Meyer Werft just plugs them into place.

[chengkp75]

13 hours ago, jwlane said:

Not likely.  Cabins are typically modular systems built by outside providers.  Meyer Werft just plugs them into place.

Trust me, I know how the cabins are put together, and have dismantled them to make repairs behind the walls.  The cabin wall panels are what they are almost assuredly talking about, as these are the only fire rated panels used on ships.  Whether the shipyard assembled the cabin (which as you say they don't), or whether a sub-contractor builds the cabins for delivery to the shipyard, makes no difference if the materials do not meet the requirements.