Britannia broke her lines

[sogne]

2 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Any opinion on the similar event with QM2 in Italy the other week, or is it only P&O who do it wrong?

There have been others recently as well.

 The MAIB will investigate this throughly without attributing blame. It is not a case of doing anything wrong. In 25 years of SAR I know how guickly weather events can change. I can remember 15 mile vis disappearing in minutes to virtually nil. did the wind come from landside or seaward? One is easier to forsee.

The force pressure exerted on the ship would have been enormous, no extra ropes would have made a difference.

 

 

.

 

[pete14]

Nobody seems to have mentioned that the port authority, relying on expert advice, especially from the highly trained pilot who boards the ship to provide expert guidance on the current situation, both at the time and the projected conditions during the stay, including the departure, was prepared to allow Britannia to dock and be berthed safely. Bunkering for fuel would not have been attempted if there was any projected risk. Were they to blame? Probably not, but if they were happy that it was safe, no blame should be attached to anyone apart from in the unlikely event that the ropes were in some way damaged. 
 

Several years ago, we were almost at the entrance to Olden harbour in Norway. The pilot had doubts about whether it would be safe to leave in the afternoon because of high winds and expressed his thoughts to the captain who dropped him off, turned round and sailed away. 

[david63]

One point that I cannot see mentioned and could be highly significant is "What advice was the Captain given by the port agent/port authorities". These are the people with the knowledge of the port 365 days a year - yes the advice may have been wrong but what else is the Captain supposed to do?

 

@pete14 same thoughts

Edited August 30, 2023 by david63

[Megabear2]

Just now, 9265359 said:

 

Did Cunard offload passengers and put them into manky hotels with dodgy food, as that was what P&O certainly did wrong.

 

If Cunard did not do that then I suggest you re-read my post because I made no comment on whether the captain and ship's crew had done anything wrong, but that the serious incident where P&O were lucky that nobody was killed or seriously injured will be investigated and not brushed under the carpet like some here are doing with a 'stuff happens' attitude.

Every day there are serious incidents at sea.  It's a very dangerous place to be.  I totally agree that an investigation will find the reasons and where necessary apportion blame if it is necessary.

 

Where you and I are in disagreement is that forums and social media should not be full of conjecture and opinions from people such as you and I.  It is unhelpful to the people actually caught up in the event as well as scaremongering for any other potential cruiser looking for advice who may visit the forum in times to come.

 

And no Cunard didn't unload their guests but they were fortunate in as much thankfully a collision was avoided.  However it remains ties snapped and gangways were dropped so from that point of view something similar.

 

[9265359]

Just now, Megabear2 said:

Every day there are serious incidents at sea.  It's a very dangerous place to be.  I totally agree that an investigation will find the reasons and where necessary apportion blame if it is necessary.

 

Good

 

1 minute ago, Megabear2 said:

Where you and I are in disagreement is that forums and social media should not be full of conjecture and opinions from people such as you and I.  

 

That's exactly what forums and social media consist of!

 

P&O's customers are not trained mariners so it is obviously a source of interest of quite how such a dangerous situation occurred and whether everything that should have been done to prevent it had been done.

 

2 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

It is unhelpful to the people actually caught up in the event as well as scaremongering for any other potential cruiser looking for advice who may visit the forum in times to come.

 

I disagree. I think it would be incredibly helpful to a potential cruiser to know how P&O treat their customers when something goes wrong.

 

3 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

And no Cunard didn't unload their guests but they were fortunate in as much thankfully a collision was avoided.  However it remains ties snapped and gangways were dropped so from that point of view something similar.

 

And so not relevant to my view about P&O's treatment of its customers.

[bobstheboy]

I'm certainly not going to pass judgement on whether the Captain should have docked or not. I have to say we have missed ports when there has been wind and weather conditions far less extreme.  Did the weather deteriorate that much without prior warning ?

 

An inquiry will establish facts known at the time, not what should have been done with benefit of hindsight.  

[Chrish2]

2 hours ago, 9265359 said:

As I posted before, I would want to know for absolute certain where I was staying, for how long, when I was flying, etc. so I could check out those places and make an informed decision before making any move out of the cabin - once you and your luggage are on the quayside you have lost any tactical advantage and if you volunteer / don't object before knowing those facts then you are a mug.

If asked to step off-board in an non-emergency situation I would want firm plans that I considered adequate. In my mind "emergency" generally means there is no time to pack bags and/or accommodation is uninhabitable.

 

 

37 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

Should P&O have treated the paying passengers that they removed from the ship better - quite probably, but their 'emergency planning' seems to focus on minimising costs (cheap hotels and getting the ship back so it doesn't have to refund the next cruise) rather than keeping the paying customers happy.

I have a feeling they have first focused on minimising the number of people disrupted, and then been tight with money. The latter part sadly just how P&O operates now but my take is given the likely cost of this incident anyway it will turn out to be a false economy long term (passenger retention, bad publicity etc.).

 

Arvia maiden comes mind, late delivery of ship resulted in maiden been the high expectation Christmas/New Years cruise. No doubt they knew it was fully booked with staff going to struggle far beyond usual. They also knew they had high staff isolation due to covid. They could have pre-empt the situation by pre-refunding a percentage of fare, or even given refunds (can you imagine the publicity "Christmas comes early for thousands of P&O passengers with a free luxury cruise"). The inbuilt good would have alleviated most of the complaints before they started. Instead they delayed addressing passengers for quite some time, dropping OBS compensation quite late into the cruise etc.

[Son of Bare]

22 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Any opinion on the similar event with QM2 in Italy the other week, or is it only P&O who do it wrong?

Equally culpable, equally at fault.

The fact that this type if incident apparently happens regularly should also be viewed as disconcerting at best.

Steps should already have been put in place to eradicate the problem, and if mega cruise ships regularly break their lines and literally nothing can be done to prevent this from continuing to happen, its obvious that they have been built too big for purpose.

[jeanlyon]

I was on Aurora when it happened  She's hardly mega.

[Son of Bare]

Just now, jeanlyon said:

I was on Aurora when it happened  She's hardly mega.

That fact simply strengthens my point and weakens any argument that it should be put down to an 'accident'.

[Megabear2]

12 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

I disagree. I think it would be incredibly helpful to a potential cruiser to know how P&O treat their customers when something goes wrong.

Excellent. Next time someone writes about an issue that's caused them a problem or worry, big or small, perhaps you might remind those that post sarcastic and nasty comments of the fact its helpful for prospective and current customers to know.  A problem shared and all that.

 

Certainly agree forums are for discussion, however when facts are available surely that would be the best time.

[jeanlyon]

for those who didn't think the ship was moored up when this happened, loads of the passengers were ashore when this happened, so she had been moored up for some considerable time.

[scooby1]

48 minutes ago, majortom10 said:

Please enlighten everyone of your superior knowledge and how you know these "facts". Were you onboard were you on the bridge when Captain was given weather reports before docking. I very much doubt it you are more than likely the usual keyboard warrior who was thousands of miles away but think you are an expert. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and can be very different from what  usually happens when it happens. Having been in an emergency service for over 30 years hindsight can be very different from what really happens in serious fires and accidents which I have been involved.

If a captain or one of his team of any vessel doesn't check the weather multiple times a day especially one looking after a cruise ship it would be negligence plain and simple. 

 

The facts of what the weather was predicting is irrefutable multiple sources have shown this clear of day, I'm staggered why or how anyone could defend that to be honest, more myopic view points I guess. 

[Megabear2]

3 minutes ago, jeanlyon said:

for those who didn't think the ship was moored up when this happened, loads of the passengers were ashore when this happened, so she had been moored up for some considerable time.

It was an overnight stay.  What is the exact time the storm hit, assumedly all those people ashore, not just the cruise passengers, were going about their normal business which seems to indicate to me it must have been pretty sudden. All those newspaper picture of wrecked hotels, roofs off and trees down don't tie in with people being warned of danger to life and ignoring it.

[molecrochip]

Correct @Megabear2. There are officials from the island quoted as being surprised at the way the weather formation gathered quickly and blew in and across Palma. They are quoted as saying it did not match the forecast.

[molecrochip]

Also on the Cunard ship, there was no collision, no damage therefore no need to offload passengers. A tug responded quick enough.

 

I gather from talking to people that a tug was on its way to intercept Britannia but didn’t get there in time. So action WAS being taken.

[zap99]

3 hours ago, Snow Hill said:

On of the funniest headlines I have seen on the incident is from a little watched so called News Channel which reports Britannia as colliding with a Petrol Tanker in Palma. 🤣

Grown up reporters may be on holiday.🤣

[Megabear2]

2 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Grown up reporters may be on holiday.🤣

Probably enjoying a nice Mediterranean cruise.

[FannyLiz]

We have twice been on a December crossing of the Bay of Biscay in horrible conditions when the captain came on to order us all to stay in our cabins. He stated, quite clearly, that if there were any accidents then Brittany Ferries would not be held responsible. We wondered if this was a fact and if it applied to all ships or only French registered ones.

 

re the hotels in which P&O put up the Britannia passengers, it seems to me that given the speed with which this happened and the circumstances on the island due to the ATC fiasco, then they were quite lucky to get somewhere to sleep at all. Clearly passengers flying with many airlines were not so fortunate and had to sleep on the airport floor. I’m surprised, if the hotel they were billeted in was so bad, that it is still functioning as a resort hotel and has not been struck off by the Spanish authorities.

[zap99]

2 hours ago, Windsurfboy said:

Firstly P&O are responsible for the incident. Police stopped talking about road traffic accidents years ago. The is  no such thing as an accident.  There is an incident that happened because of decisions and actions taken or not taken. Starting with the decision to enter port, and many afterwards. These were taken by P&O. This does not mean the captain acted unprofessionally or irresponsibility. However the weather was not out of the blue very bad weather was predicted,  warnings were in place. In the end P&O were responsible, for the consequences of what may have been very sensible actions. 

 

As to the accommodation,  I find it unbelievable that yesterday there were pages and pages of 5 and 4 star hotels available on booking.com but not the day before most people with cancelled flights are stuck for a few days not 1. Yes they were all circa £200, a night. Taking the cheap and easy way out to put everyone in a dump is unacceptable.  Easier to manage but bad consumer service. £15 pp for food indicates P&O see themselves as a cheap holiday camp on sea , not a quality cruise line.

There are a number of things the police stopped doing. Woke perhaps?.  Accidents happen.

[zap99]

2 hours ago, 9265359 said:

 

Are you going to tell the Comisión Permanente de Investigación de Accidentes e Incidentes Marítimos that they should not carry out the investigation they are required to do because "they were not there"?

Earlier it was said that there are no such things as accidents. Perhaps the permanente people need a name change🤣?.

[cruising.mark.uk]

1 minute ago, zap99 said:

Earlier it was said that there are no such things as accidents. Perhaps the permanente people need a name change🤣?.

The UK's Marine Accident Investigation Branch might have the same problem 🤣

[zap99]

2 hours ago, kalos said:

No I will tell them nothing as I was not there . 

It's too late anyway. Britannia is past Lisbon now. Left the scene of the acciddentee.

 

[zap99]

1 hour ago, Son of Bare said:

I have to agree with this.

I doubt anyone would be excusing PO/the captain if for whatever reason one of the fleet went down. That's an extreme example, but I doubt there would be any mitigating factors in the minds of observers allowing those responsible for that event off the hook, so why is it any different for this incident?

Because this is a 'minor event' which allows the observer to retain the 'accidents happen' mentality...

Royal Society for the prevention of Accidents say there is no such thing as an Accident !!!!!.why are the called that then ?. Their mission statement is that they work tirelessly to prevent accidents. Sounds like mission completed.🤔

[Windsurfboy]

The question have you ever tried to book hotel rooms for 321 people as a defence of the poor hotel is irrelevant.  Whether it's easy or difficult it's P&Os responsibility to find decent accommodation,  not the easiest and cheapest. Spreading people across hotels is more effort , but that's the job of customer service.  The current dump should only be looked at if every decent hotel was full and  absolutely no alternative.  Worry that P&O made that the criteria ie cheap as possible and as easy as possible.

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Windsurfboy