Faulty panels declared a fire hazard for 45 ships.

[Hlitner]

We have been following this issue (through several sources) since we are booked on a late September Explora Journeys cruise.  So, this is what we have learned.  These panels/tiles, that are installed in various places on at least 45 cruise ships, failed a recent fire resistance test.  What this means for the ships currently sailing is still a question mark.  Worst case seems to be that the impacted panels/tiles will need to be replaced at some point in the future.  Since several different authorities, ports, flag countries, and insurance companies are involved, it is complicated. The interested parties are currently working their way through the situation and will need to come up with some kind of corrective action plan.  With the exception of the Explora I, the necessary correction plan (if any) has yet to be determined.  At the moment, the effected ships continue to operate.

 

As to the Explora I, MSC (who wholly owns Explora Journeys) has been saying they intend to start sailing the new ship on August 1...after making "enhancements" to the ship to correct the problem.  They have not specifically said what enhancements, but simply say they are working with Fincantieri to get the ship prepared and obtain all the necessary safety certifications.  Whether they will have all this done by the end of July is a question...and different folks have heard different answers.  Explora Journeys has been very slowly notifying passengers on effected sailings of cancelations.  One poster just received an e-mail, today, telling him that his cruise scheduled for next week has been cancelled (he got 7 days notice).  Some of the early cruisers (that have already been cancelled) have been told they will get their money returned as well as getting a voucher good for 30% off a future cruise.  This is not acceptable to some, since the vouchers have been reported to only be good for 1 year!  Explora Journeys only has a single built ship (Explora I) and their 2nd ship (Explora 2) will not be sailing until the 2nd half of 2024.  A true mess for the new luxury cruise line.

 

Hank

[Destiny0315]

11 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

A true mess for the new luxury cruise line.

https://cruise-arabia.com/2020/04/25/the-worlds-oldest-cruise-lines/

Most of these are still around and can probably say been there done that when they welcome you back!🙂

[AllTheSun]

1 hour ago, VMax1700 said:

How do you think that any problem is solved?

Maybe just ask social media 'experts' for the best options?

Or analyze the problem and develop an action and recovery plan?

Sarcasm is hard on the internet lol

[Heidi13]

9 hours ago, AllTheSun said:

Sarcasm aside, is this an issue that can’t be fixed while guests are on board? Or does that depend on how many panels would need replacement?

 

If other ships are involved, the outcome will depend on why the type approval was rescinded and is entirely at the discretion of the attending Flag/Class Surveyor. It is predominantly based on risk assessments.

[Heidi13]

8 hours ago, ldtr said:

Since this is CC I am sure some think that any cruises on ships that might have impacted should be refunded in total due to increased risk.

 

Joking aside I expect for any ship already delivered and in service I expect no immediate impact and that the corrective action plan will involve no or very little impact noticeable by passengers. For those under construction there is the potential for a delay depending upon the exact details which none of us have.

 

 

 

If you expect no immediate impact to operations and corrective action will have no/little impact on pax, you must know considerably more than I have read. Having experienced these situations multiple time with Flag and Class, I'll suggest we currently have no idea how this will play out.

 

I am not aware of any information currently in the public domain that can lead anyone to make an informed opinion that there will be no impact to existing ships. Without knowing why the type approval was rescinded, we are unable to conduct the required risk assessment.

 

Personally, in dealing with Flag Inspectors over expired type approvals, I have received options to produce valid certification, conduct type approval testing, or remove the ship from service and replace the products. In this situation, each of these options is a potential, as are other options, but without knowing facts we cannot have an informed opinion.

 

[Destiny0315]

The refurbished (by Fincantieri) Crystal Serenity has completed its sea trials and "ensured the fire-resistant panels were properly certified and not defective" according to this article.

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/refurb-interiors/crystal-serenity-completes-sea-trials-ahead-planned-july-31-debut

[BermudaBound2014]

Cruise critic article- 

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/will-fire-panel-safety-issues-affecting-explora-i-affect-other-cruise-ships-too

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by BermudaBound2014

[mcrcruiser]

3 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

Cruise critic article- 

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/will-fire-panel-safety-issues-affecting-explora-i-affect-other-cruise-ships-too

 

Then perhaps the effected panels could be replaced on those ships while they are in port?

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, mcrcruiser said:

Then perhaps the effected panels could be replaced on those ships while they are in port?

 

If any Condition of Class issued to the Master requires replacement of panels, the work can, in all probability, be completed by contractors assisting the vessel Engineering Officers while vessels remain operational.

 

However, before requiring replacement, I expect they would perform the required type approval tests on samples of the as fitted panels. Based on the testing results, the Surveyor will issue guidelines.

[chengkp75]

30 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

If any Condition of Class issued to the Master requires replacement of panels, the work can, in all probability, be completed by contractors assisting the vessel Engineering Officers while vessels remain operational.

 

However, before requiring replacement, I expect they would perform the required type approval tests on samples of the as fitted panels. Based on the testing results, the Surveyor will issue guidelines.

When I first saw this brought up on other forums here, the word "panel" threw me.  I assumed this was the cabin wall panels, which are two thin metal layers with a hard insulating material between.  If these needed to be replaced, this is a major job (I've had to take cabins apart for plumbing repairs, and it definitely ain't easy.  I looked at Paroc's marine products, and this is the type of fiber insulation, what I call "sheets" or "blankets" that are attached to things like the metal overhead panels, or studded to the steel bulkheads.  While still a major job to renew, it is magnitudes less than the wall panels.

 

As you say, class may simply require the addition of another layer of fire protection, leaving the original in place, but I think that wholesale renewal is not likely, and like you I think they will need to do tests on each vessel, unless they know when and why the certification failure happened, to narrow down the list of ships.

[BermudaBound2014]

17 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

When I first saw this brought up on other forums here, the word "panel" threw me.  I assumed this was the cabin wall panels, which are two thin metal layers with a hard insulating material between.  If these needed to be replaced, this is a major job (I've had to take cabins apart for plumbing repairs, and it definitely ain't easy.

The initial report in the financial times description says “fitted to the floors and walls”- could that be anything other than wall panels? 

[chengkp75]

Just now, BermudaBound2014 said:

The initial report in the financial times description says “fitted to the floors and walls”- could that be anything other than wall panels? 

This is "external" fire insulation, the cabin wall panels use poured calcium silicate to fill the void between the metal skins, which forms a solid "rock-like" material.  These are more like the Owens Corning "pink" insulation batts that you have in your house.  On a ship, small wires are welded to the structural steel bulkheads (as opposed to the non-structural cabin walls), the insulation is placed over these wires which project through the insulation, and then a washer-like clip is pushed over the wire to hold the insulation in place.  This is used, as I say, on the structural bulkheads and the structural overhead (the deck above), not in the cabin panels.  This Paroc material is also used under some floating flooring applications on ships.

 

The stuff on the overhead could be taken out by simply removing the cabin ceiling, which is relatively easy to do.  The bulkheads are another matter.  While there is always some space between a bulkhead and a cabin wall, how much space depends on the ship, and where on the ship, so access could be a problem.

[Heidi13]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

When I first saw this brought up on other forums here, the word "panel" threw me.  I assumed this was the cabin wall panels, which are two thin metal layers with a hard insulating material between.  If these needed to be replaced, this is a major job (I've had to take cabins apart for plumbing repairs, and it definitely ain't easy.  I looked at Paroc's marine products, and this is the type of fiber insulation, what I call "sheets" or "blankets" that are attached to things like the metal overhead panels, or studded to the steel bulkheads.  While still a major job to renew, it is magnitudes less than the wall panels.

 

As you say, class may simply require the addition of another layer of fire protection, leaving the original in place, but I think that wholesale renewal is not likely, and like you I think they will need to do tests on each vessel, unless they know when and why the certification failure happened, to narrow down the list of ships.

 

Chief,

 

We used them mainly as bulkhead panels in lounges and alleyways. Insulated panels with the outer face having the desired pattern, with the inner face being secured to the steel bulkheads.

 

My similar dealings with Flag/Class over type approvals was 20-yrs ago, but I doubt they have changed much. If I couldn't produce a valid type approval certificate, we had to schedule the required burn tests. Provided we passed the test, I received an updated type approval. I had to schedule over 1/2 dozen tests on various products.

 

Had we failed any of the tests, they would have looked at the test data and product use aboard to conduct a risk assessment, to determine how long we had to replace the products and any special operating conditions. My Flag State was fairly intense in those days, so doubt we would have got the status quo option.

 

The other key factor that we don't know is why the type approvals were rescinded. Most are assuming they failed a subsequent test, but could just as easily be as a result of an administration error or procedural error conducting the tests. The testing lab could have equipment that was found to be incorrectly calibrated - lots of potential reasons that has nothing to do with the actual product.

 

I will be watching closely to see how it plays out and being very happy that I'm not involved in the process or negotiations.

[chengkp75]

18 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Insulated panels with the outer face having the desired pattern, with the inner face being secured to the steel bulkheads

Yeah, if the cabins are integral with the ship, I can see using this type of "panel".  But, the cruise ship modular cabins, and by extension they use the same panels for public spaces, are not structural, and really not attached to the ship by much, so the structural fire protection is sandwiched in the panel.  Didn't see that Puroc offered anything other than a fibrous cover or aluminum foil type cover.  But, then the panel manufacturer could add the steel/aluminum cover prior to delivery.

 

I've gone through a lot of type approval "conversations", most recently with a rubber flooring tile that is used in the ECR in front of the main switchboard.  USCG kept insisting that we add a di-electric rubber mat on top, until I got the type approval, and testing results from the manufacturer.  Also ran into having our explosion-proof motors on a tanker that were CE approved, which does not meet USCG approval, and ended up changing out all the motors.

[Destiny0315]

Never a friend of the cruise ship industry but at least this site's just published article gives more insight into what ships might possibly have issues on this matter.

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2023/07/articles/fires/which-cruise-ships-are-equipped-with-faulty-paroc-fire-resistant-panels-the-cruise-lines-product-supplier-shipyards-and-clia-wont-say/

[JRG]

It sounds like a vendor certification issue and we don't yet know the scope.  It can be anything from a formality to a recall for repair.   I think Heidi13 has it right and there is no breaking news right now so it is very hush hush.

 

It depends on the nature of the test failures.  

 

No drama here.

Edited July 12, 2023 by JRG

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yeah, if the cabins are integral with the ship, I can see using this type of "panel".  But, the cruise ship modular cabins, and by extension they use the same panels for public spaces, are not structural, and really not attached to the ship by much, so the structural fire protection is sandwiched in the panel.  Didn't see that Puroc offered anything other than a fibrous cover or aluminum foil type cover.  But, then the panel manufacturer could add the steel/aluminum cover prior to delivery.

 

I've gone through a lot of type approval "conversations", most recently with a rubber flooring tile that is used in the ECR in front of the main switchboard.  USCG kept insisting that we add a di-electric rubber mat on top, until I got the type approval, and testing results from the manufacturer.  Also ran into having our explosion-proof motors on a tanker that were CE approved, which does not meet USCG approval, and ended up changing out all the motors.

 

Affirmative, we didn't have any modular cabins, as most of our ships were non-live aboard. Therefore, we used 2" rockwool panels held in place with pins attached using a Hilti type gun, then secured with washers/clip. We then constructed metal studs to secure the insulated panels, with finished side out.

 

Didn't get much tanker time, as I only spent 4-months on a Pan Ocean chemical tanker, when they didn't have any 3rd Officer berths on Passenger Division.

 

In retirement, I don't miss dealing with Flag/Class. Would be entertaining to swap stories some time.

 

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, Destiny0315 said:

Never a friend of the cruise ship industry but at least this site's just published article gives more insight into what ships might possibly have issues on this matter.

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2023/07/articles/fires/which-cruise-ships-are-equipped-with-faulty-paroc-fire-resistant-panels-the-cruise-lines-product-supplier-shipyards-and-clia-wont-say/

 

This is a typical report from this type of website. They must have more information than I have read in the public domain, as they allege 15% of the global cruise industry may be sailing with defective fire panels.

 

All I have read to date is that a manufacturer has had the type approval rescinded on 2 products. I am not aware why the type approval was rescinded, which can be caused by numerous reasons, many of which are unrelated to the product quality. 

[mcrcruiser]

This seems to be a serious fe safety issue  doe those impacted cruise ships ,so one we are glad not to be cruising  until end ofJanuary 2024 .Hoping by then the issue is resolved or the ships are definitely know . Gores at sea are far worse than those on land because of the lacking added fire fighting units on land 

[Heidi13]

9 hours ago, mcrcruiser said:

This seems to be a serious fe safety issue  doe those impacted cruise ships ,so one we are glad not to be cruising  until end ofJanuary 2024 .Hoping by then the issue is resolved or the ships are definitely know . Gores at sea are far worse than those on land because of the lacking added fire fighting units on land 

 

Without knowing why the products had their type approval rescinded, it is impossible to speculate if this is a safety or administrative issue. Even if the panels did fail a burn test, it could result from the temperature increased by as little as 1 C above the requirements - still a fail, but hardly a serious safety issue.

 

Structural fire protection also consists of layers, so these panels are only a single layer in the entire protection package. If the panels don't meet type approval, considering we don't know the reason why and that they are part of multiple layers of protection, we have no way of knowing the risks, to determine whether this is a serious safety issue.

 

With respect to fires at sea and fires on land, as a mariner, yes fires at sea are a concern. However, ships have significantly better structural fire protection than most facilities on shore. The ships also have detectors and manual alarms that are connected directly to the onboard emergency team. On shore, while you are dialing 911, the ship's emergency response team is already being deployed and arrives on scene well before any shore based firemen. The early response times on ships are critical in containing any fire.

 

Due to a ship's structural fire protection, we use an entirely different approach to firefighting than shorebased firemen. In high risk areas such as the engine room, we have fixed systems that knock a fire down in seconds. In galleys, we also have fixed systems. If areas of the ship don't have fixed systems, in my experience, containment is the best option, containing the fire, cooling all 6 sides and letting it burn itself out. 

 

I see way more shore side fires on the news, where entire structures are lost, compared to cruise ships, especially modern ships with the latest structural fire protection and fixed extinguishing systems.

 

Comparing sprinkler systems. Many building on shore are now being fitted with fixed sprinkler systems, which have been fitted on ships since at least the 1950/60's. Modern ships now have vastly improved Hi-Fog systems, at least in the high risk areas. How many shore structures have Hi-Fog?

[chengkp75]

To amplify Andy's comments.

 

Virtually every space on a cruise ship has some form of fixed fire suppression system, either sprinklers (cabins, crew and public spaces), Hi-fog (engineering spaces), liquid refrigerant (galley hoods), steam (incinerator  silos, laundry exhausts), or CO2 (engine spaces).  Some of these are fire suppression (like sprinklers) and some are fire extinguishing systems.  Having the fire suppression ability of an automatic sprinkler system (when the room gets to 135-165*F, the pellet melts, the water starts to flow, and there is no stopping it), allows for the response time of the firefighting crews.  My teams, when I was working cruise ships, had about a 10 minute response time (alerted of the fire, race to their emergency gear locker, suit up in full gear including respirator, and report to on-scene command).  Can most land fire services meet this, simply from a time and distance standpoint?

 

To further explain what Hi-Fog (trade name, there are others), think of a drop of water that comes from your standard sprinkler head in a building (or in the cabin of a cruise ship), take that drop and divide it into 3000 droplets, and you have Hi-Fog.  Think of the arches you walk through at sporting events or amusement parks, where a water mist is sprayed on you to cool you off.  Again, Hi-Fog.  Has the same effect on a fire, it cools it down by absorbing heat to boil the droplets to steam, and the mist does not interfere with firefighters or running electrical equipment.  For the maritime industry, probably the greatest invention since canned Coke.

[JRG]

20 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

This is a typical report from this type of website. They must have more information than I have read in the public domain, as they allege 15% of the global cruise industry may be sailing with defective fire panels.

 

Not really.  I think they are estimating that there are 320 ships operating globally.

 

and therefore:

 

45 divided by 320 = 14 percent,  when rounded down,   so the estimate may be close to 15% if their estimate of 320 ships is accurate.    

[chengkp75]

25 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Not really.  I think they are estimating that there are 320 ships operating globally.

 

and therefore:

 

45 divided by 320 = 14 percent,  when rounded down,   so the estimate may be close to 15% if their estimate of 320 ships is accurate.    

Nowhere have I seen that the potential 45 vessels are all cruise ships.  The shipyards build more than that, and the supplier supplies panels for  all kinds of ships.  Cruise ships account for about 5% of the world's ocean-going tonnage.  Seatrade Cruise News states that the actual number of affected cruise ships is unknown.

[mcrcruiser]

Like some bad dream we wish this would be over & fixed but ,I assume it will take time one ro ID the correct shios & the 2 to fix the problem panels 

[JRG]

30 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

Like some bad dream we wish this would be over & fixed but ,I assume it will take time one ro ID the correct shios & the 2 to fix the problem panels 

 

You raised a valid point but you lost me at &.  I too though am hoping this is minor and we will soon hear something more.  Maybe they just have to re-step thru the certification process and find something that was overlooked or omitted and it can be rectified appropriately and a communication plan to fix the problem be shared with stakeholders.

 

For cruiselines, the problem is magnified if one particular cruiseline is hit harder than another and that seems likely given the uniformity of cabin panels within a given ship or class.  So while some lines may be worried is this is a bigger problem; some lines like HAL and NCL may be dancing in the boardrooms,   because it would be a significant OPPORTUNITY for those lines to pickup share.

 

For cruisers,  the problem is that we could get another kick in the gut if you are holding cruise and airline and hotel tickets and all the planning and research time. 

 

So the distribution of which lines are affected could be figured out by finding out from the vendors who have the 'uncertified' panels in place.   (i,.e, who were their customers at the time of the cert)

Hopefully it is not major because then it becomes a rush on the bank as soon as people start finding out  and nobody wants to see that. (again)

 

Its a holding pattern but really hoping its minor.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by JRG