Technical Fire Discussion

[spongerob]

I'm curious if the scenario witnessed on Star Princess is one that can be incorporated into standard training. My assumption is that the trained fire crews on board spend most of their time practicing for emergencies in contained, interior spaces such as lounges and cabins. An exterior fire, in a location as difficult to access such as balconies is (or was) probably considered a comparatively low risk. The efforts made to put out the fire probably relied on a lot of improvisation - something that would be challenging for professionals, and daunting for those whose firefighting duties are secondary to their usual employment on board.

[S&M in Pgh]

Just a few comments:

 

As to the fire fighting capabilities of the crew, several years ago my wife and I cruised with my brother and about 50 other people from his volunteer fire company. On the first night, one of the guys witnessed a woman putting her cigarette butt into a trash can in the casino. A fire quickely started. He grabbed the nearest fire extinguisher and put it out. As a thank you, RCCL allowed several of them to watch the next crew fire drill. Each member of our group who watched was duley impressed. They repeatedly said that the crew could work in any major city's fire department and that they were very well trained and very professional about what they were doing. I have witnessed drills on RCCL and Princess in the last 10 years, I have no doubt that they woujld stand their ground and do their job.

 

And while I am not a marine engineer, I do not think that the amount of water used to fight a fire would increase the risk of the ship sinking. There are pumps in the interior of the ship to drain away such water accumulation. At least I hope there are.

 

Mike

[spongerob]

Guess who ultimately pays for Star Princess damages?

 

Future Princess cruise passengers that's who. That's you and me brother.

As consumers, we end up paying for everything, or having to deal with reduction or removal of services. Which is why I can't understand why people are overjoyed when a big corporation is slapped with massive penalties. One needs look only at the mess our medical system is in due to massive legal fees and awards to see what the ultimate effect of such rewards can be.

[Capt_BJ]

"2 things stand out to me..

 

170 trained personnel (Translation: 170 staff trained in the use of portable fire extinguishers, evacuation proceedures etc.)"

 

translation - OK I may scare you but on a cruise ship you only have 170 'mariners' ... these are the actual licensed sailors...not the bar tenders and stewards and cooks but the tender driver, dude painting the hull and bridge watchstander/helmsman/lookout. The mariners have all been required to comply with STCW - Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping. http://www.stcw.org/index.htm http://mptusa.com/stcw/index.html

This relatively new international standard STCW 95) has really ramped up the training requirements for safety at sea. Minimum requirements include formal training in shipboard firefighting.

 

20 staff trained in advanced firefighting (Translation: 20 staff with structural and marine firefighting training, equivalent of firefighter II on land. Thats the level most probationary firefighters graduate with from career fire academies.) I can't compare training levels....but 5 days on a fire field every year is not unusual...in a specific shipboard fire simulator. (like http://www.portcanaveral.org/business/fire.htm {trivia, why does Canaveral have this? did you read the Scandanv' Sun NTSB report....})

 

On land, to meet all the benchmarks that modern standards suggest such as proper command staffing, accountability, 2 in 2 out etc, it takes 30 personnel to handle a room and contents fire by the book. hmmm....my observation is most fire units show up with 3, maybe ... these 20 form the core of say 10 hose teams, all of which are on scene in probably less than 2 minutes..... Granted, everyday, 99 out of 100 room and content fires are extinguished by alot fewer firefighters than that. I not saying it can't be done, just what the standard suggests. Don't flame me, I know marine firefighting is different!! Twenty trained firefighting personnel for this fire was not alot. like I say, there were probably 10 hose teams ready in a few minutes....but true, still had one hell of a hill to climbI am sure they had their backs against the wall for awhile. Also, on land, we just hit another alarm and bring more resources, you don't have that luxury at sea. The built in fire protection systems better work! yep....

note that the entire crew of a tanker is what? 25... prevention and rapid response are they key....then maximum containment.

 

CW

[Joedog]

I have been looking at the photos of the fire damage and I have to say I am amazed that all this damage could be the result of cigarette on the balcony. I think there has to be more involved here.

 

What exactly is there out on a balcony that a cigarette would ignite? Certainly not the furniture or deck. And even if there was a towel of some clothes out there, how big of a fire would they create? I would think not big enough to move off the balcony into the cabin unless, maybe, the door was open, and that's a big maybe.

 

I would not be surprised to find out that this fire was deliberately set, maybe involving some alcohol as an accelerant.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion and as I was not there I cannot say what really happened. I can say however that this is an "educated" opinion in that I do have some experience in marine fire fighting including 2 years as a marine fire fighting instructor for both Navy & Coast Guard ships, 3 years as the Damage Control Assistant on a Navy LPH (helicoptor assault carrier) and 3 years as the Ship's Fire Marshal on a Navy CVN (nuclear air craft carrier) where I trained and supervised a 100 man "volunteer" fire fighting team.

 

One thing is for certain, the crew should be commended for controlling and extinquishing this fire. All the more so because they are not "professional" fire fighters.

[donnaw]

First, just a bit of an aside. At least one couple/family from Wisconsin was not home as of yesterday afternoon. My limo driver is waiting from a call from them when they get back. She called to say that they weren't injured and she was upset since she was supposed to be back at work but they weren't sure when they would get back. I find this curious and will find out more this afternoon.

 

Have to say a great big Thank You yet again to all the posters on this thread for the information being posted in terms that laymen can understand and for keeping the tone as informative.

 

Expanding on these discussions and maybe I should summarize what I have gotten so far. No matter what started the fire, the vulnerability was in the balcony structure. I have to admit that I looked twice when it was first introduced but finally sailed on Grand after years of no issues reported.

 

Now for my question and just looking for conjecture and a point of discussion at this point: Are the older and more traditional balcony structures (Regal) as vulnerable or does their design/structure give them a bit of protection from the rapid spread of fire?

[captlou]

This is a pretty long thread, so I don't know if any of this has been brought up. Most of the superstructure of the Princess Grand class ships is contructed using aluminum alloys. From what I've read, the bridge did stop engines when the fire was discovered. However, ships don't have brakes, and it takes at least a mile (probably more) for a ship to come to a stop from cruising speed. More than enough time to fan the blaze.

 

Anyway, in the interest of the technical discussion, these are some factoids that I posted in another thread. No conclusions, just the facts. The fire would have to be pretty hot to ignite aluminum, but it could happen:

 

While solid bulk aluminum is a safe and noncombustible material, molten aluminum can be reactive.

Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong. Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships. However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water or regular fire extinguishers. In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel.

The US Army learned this when it tested early versions of the aluminum Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. In the Bradley tests, small RPG explosions caused only minor damage, but ignited the aluminum body and caused most vehicles to literally burn to the ground. Even worse, burning aluminum produces deadly fumes which instantly kill anyone inside.

The Israelis learned that aluminum armor can ignite during their 1982 invasion of Lebanon. According to one account, "PLO ambushes of Israeli columns with RPGs caused extensive casualties, in part because of the tendency of the M113’s aluminum armor to catch on fire after being hit by anti-tank weapons.

The only real difference between aluminum and steel (other than weight) is that aluminum loses its strength at a much lower temperature, meaning that an aluminum vehicle that has burnt will generally collapse. Also to explain the HMS Sheffield situation. The Sheffield was hit by an Exocet missile, the warhead did not detonate, and damage was relatively light. However the fuel from the missile set fire to the ships wiring. The ships wiring was a product of cost cutting and burned very well. However in the impact the missile knocked out the ship’s single water line, meaning that the crew could not put out the fire. Had the lines been working they would have controlled the fire and put it out. There are two reasons why the aluminum was changed for steel in ships. The first reason is that aluminum warships suffered cracks from metal fatigue; the second is that should the ship burn the aluminum melts at a lower temperature and suffers structural collapse, it also conducts heat well and this helps spread the blaze.

Aluminum lacks strength without a small amount of magnesium, copper, silicon, and manganese. While aluminum alloys melt at temperatures typically over 1000°F, their properties can change significantly at much lower temperatures. As a rough rule of thumb, aluminum alloys do not show significant property changes at temperature below 200, but will lose strength with time at higher temperatures.

Used in the marine industry for more than 100 years, aluminum combines light weight and ease of fabrication with corrosion and fatigue resistance. Aluminum's unique characteristics allow vessel volume and height to be increased without loss of stability. Passenger compartments can be larger and more cabins can be located above sea level. Cruise ships gain increased maneuverability and access to shallow draft ports using aluminum.

Since 1900, the size and weight of ships have grown at a dramatic pace. Built in 1910 and weighing 46,328 tons, the White Star line’s RMS Titanic was the largest movable object of its time. The Titanic, perhaps the most famous ship to ever set sail, was impressive because of its sheer size. A more modern example of the enormity of ships is the Queen Elizabeth 2, built in 1969. The Queen Elizabeth 2 weighs 70,327 tons. Built in 1997 by Princess Cruises, The Grand Princess is one of the largest non-military ocean-going vessels in the world [evidently "old news"]. With 14 decks and a capacity of 2600 passengers, The Grand Princess weighs 109,000 tons, more than twice the weight of the Titanic. Since 1910 the maximum weight of ships has more than doubled. Increasing demands for size have forced ship designers to search for alternative materials to reduce the weight of the ship without compromising strength.

When properly designed, aluminum typically saves over 50% of the weight required by low-carbon steel in small structures [ASM: Corrosion, 1994]. Aluminum has a density of only 2.7 g/cm3, approximately one-third as much as steel (7.83 g/cm3). This means that one cubic foot of steel weighs about 490 lbs where as one cubic foot of aluminum weighs only 170 lbs. Because aluminum’s low density corresponds to light weight, it has been used for marine structures such as navigation buoys, lifeboats, motor launches, cabin cruisers, patrol boats, barges, and larger vessels since 1930. In 1960, Rogers summarized the experience of the Canadian Navy in part as follows: [Hatch, 1984]

'It cannot be emphasized too strongly that aluminum as a new shipbuilding material needs treating as such. It has its own design problems, its own maintenance problems, and its own repair problems. It cannot be used everywhere as a substitute for steel or any other alloy, but if the contractors, naval architects, shipwrights, and shipbuilders, and of course suppliers will treat it as something that requires a new approach they will find they have a very fine metal for use in seawater and marine atmospheres.'

Aluminum is commonly used in other marine applications as well. These structures include main strength members such as hulls, deckhouses, and other applications such as stack enclosures, hatch covers, windows, air ports, accommodation ladders, gangways, bulkheads, deck plates, ventilation equipment, lifesaving equipment, furniture, hardware, fuel tanks, and bright trim [ASM: Aluminum, 1993]. Aluminum-manganese (5xxx), and aluminum manganese-silicon (6xxx) alloys have been widely used for ship superstructures [Hatch, 1984]. High strength aluminum-copper (2xxx) and aluminum-zinc-manganese (7xxx) alloys can also be used in marine atmospheres, but they must be protected by cladding or painting. Properly designed aluminum structures can reduce the weight of the superstructure and hull of a ship by 67%. In other words, one kilogram of weight saved by the use of the lighter aluminum structures often leads to an overall decrease in displaced weight of three kilograms [ASM: Aluminum, 1994].

[fireofficer5]

A small portion of the crew go through advanced shipboard firefighting training. Very small. The rest have basic training.

[JohnCW]

This is a pretty long thread, so I don't know if any of this has been brought up. Most of the superstructure of the Princess Grand class ships is contructed using aluminum alloys. From what I've read, the bridge did stop engines when the fire was discovered. However, ships don't have brakes, and it takes at least a mile (probably more) for a ship to come to a stop from cruising speed. More than enough time to fan the blaze.

 

Anyway, in the interest of the technical discussion, these are some factoids that I posted in another thread. No conclusions, just the facts. The fire would have to be pretty hot to ignite aluminum, but it could happen:

 

While solid bulk aluminum is a safe and noncombustible material, molten aluminum can be reactive.

 

Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong. Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships. However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water or regular fire extinguishers. In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel.

 

The US Army learned this when it tested early versions of the aluminum Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. In the Bradley tests, small RPG explosions caused only minor damage, but ignited the aluminum body and caused most vehicles to literally burn to the ground. Even worse, burning aluminum produces deadly fumes which instantly kill anyone inside.

 

The Israelis learned that aluminum armor can ignite during their 1982 invasion of Lebanon. According to one account, "PLO ambushes of Israeli columns with RPGs caused extensive casualties, in part because of the tendency of the M113’s aluminum armor to catch on fire after being hit by anti-tank weapons.

 

The only real difference between aluminum and steel (other than weight) is that aluminum loses its strength at a much lower temperature, meaning that an aluminum vehicle that has burnt will generally collapse. Also to explain the HMS Sheffield situation. The Sheffield was hit by an Exocet missile, the warhead did not detonate, and damage was relatively light. However the fuel from the missile set fire to the ships wiring. The ships wiring was a product of cost cutting and burned very well. However in the impact the missile knocked out the ship’s single water line, meaning that the crew could not put out the fire. Had the lines been working they would have controlled the fire and put it out. There are two reasons why the aluminum was changed for steel in ships. The first reason is that aluminum warships suffered cracks from metal fatigue; the second is that should the ship burn the aluminum melts at a lower temperature and suffers structural collapse, it also conducts heat well and this helps spread the blaze.

 

Aluminum lacks strength without a small amount of magnesium, copper, silicon, and manganese. While aluminum alloys melt at temperatures typically over 1000°F, their properties can change significantly at much lower temperatures. As a rough rule of thumb, aluminum alloys do not show significant property changes at temperature below 200, but will lose strength with time at higher temperatures.

 

Used in the marine industry for more than 100 years, aluminum combines light weight and ease of fabrication with corrosion and fatigue resistance. Aluminum's unique characteristics allow vessel volume and height to be increased without loss of stability. Passenger compartments can be larger and more cabins can be located above sea level. Cruise ships gain increased maneuverability and access to shallow draft ports using aluminum.

 

Since 1900, the size and weight of ships have grown at a dramatic pace. Built in 1910 and weighing 46,328 tons, the White Star line’s RMS Titanic was the largest movable object of its time. The Titanic, perhaps the most famous ship to ever set sail, was impressive because of its sheer size. A more modern example of the enormity of ships is the Queen Elizabeth 2, built in 1969. The Queen Elizabeth 2 weighs 70,327 tons. Built in 1997 by Princess Cruises, The Grand Princess is one of the largest non-military ocean-going vessels in the world [evidently "old news"]. With 14 decks and a capacity of 2600 passengers, The Grand Princess weighs 109,000 tons, more than twice the weight of the Titanic. Since 1910 the maximum weight of ships has more than doubled. Increasing demands for size have forced ship designers to search for alternative materials to reduce the weight of the ship without compromising strength.

When properly designed, aluminum typically saves over 50% of the weight required by low-carbon steel in small structures [ASM: Corrosion, 1994]. Aluminum has a density of only 2.7 g/cm3, approximately one-third as much as steel (7.83 g/cm3). This means that one cubic foot of steel weighs about 490 lbs where as one cubic foot of aluminum weighs only 170 lbs. Because aluminum’s low density corresponds to light weight, it has been used for marine structures such as navigation buoys, lifeboats, motor launches, cabin cruisers, patrol boats, barges, and larger vessels since 1930. In 1960, Rogers summarized the experience of the Canadian Navy in part as follows: [Hatch, 1984]

'It cannot be emphasized too strongly that aluminum as a new shipbuilding material needs treating as such. It has its own design problems, its own maintenance problems, and its own repair problems. It cannot be used everywhere as a substitute for steel or any other alloy, but if the contractors, naval architects, shipwrights, and shipbuilders, and of course suppliers will treat it as something that requires a new approach they will find they have a very fine metal for use in seawater and marine atmospheres.'

Aluminum is commonly used in other marine applications as well. These structures include main strength members such as hulls, deckhouses, and other applications such as stack enclosures, hatch covers, windows, air ports, accommodation ladders, gangways, bulkheads, deck plates, ventilation equipment, lifesaving equipment, furniture, hardware, fuel tanks, and bright trim [ASM: Aluminum, 1993]. Aluminum-manganese (5xxx), and aluminum manganese-silicon (6xxx) alloys have been widely used for ship superstructures [Hatch, 1984]. High strength aluminum-copper (2xxx) and aluminum-zinc-manganese (7xxx) alloys can also be used in marine atmospheres, but they must be protected by cladding or painting. Properly designed aluminum structures can reduce the weight of the superstructure and hull of a ship by 67%. In other words, one kilogram of weight saved by the use of the lighter aluminum structures often leads to an overall decrease in displaced weight of three kilograms [ASM: Aluminum, 1994].

 

Young modulus (modulus of elasticity) for aluminum is 10E6 for steel it is 30E6, the density ratios you quoted are correct. Aluminum derives its higher strength to weight ratio from geometric(mass moments of inertia) considerations.

[captlou]

Young modulus (modulus of elasticity) for aluminum is 10E6 for steel it is 30E6, the density ratios you quoted are correct. Aluminum derives its higher strength to weight ratio from geometric(mass moments of inertia) considerations.

Professor, will that be on the test? :D

[zackiedawg]

"It all started around 2:00 am...

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=54555

 

This is a perfect example of why investigations take so long, and why any rumors, statements, ‘facts’, eyewitness reports, and accusations cannot be taken at face value until everyone has looked at the big picture. Too often, media grabs the first report and runs with it, or people put too much faith in a trusted friend’s or relative’s statement and lock their mind to other possibilities. So many of the debates, and in some cases insults, are the result of people who have already made up their mind based on what they saw or were told. Investigators must look at hundreds or thousands of eyewitness reports, statements, pictures, videos, as well as evidence at hand, and filter out the inconsistencies. It doesn’t make someone a bad person because they made a statement that ends up incorrect – observations in a state of panic, under stress, and relying on recall are all subject to error, even by the smartest and nicest people.

 

For example:

 

"It all started around 2:00 am last Thursday morning. Richard Aldridge was out on the balcony." ""I look over and I see one cabin on fire. The fire was so small I said 'they'll put it out.'

 

Virtually every other eyewitness report, including Sunshine426’s here on the boards, mention the initial fire being a small single-cabin fire at around 3AM. But Mr. Aldridge’s article mentions it as 2AM.

 

Then a ding, ding, ding went out over the intercom and they said all hands to deck," says Aldridge.

 

Mr. Aldridge notes the first notification to crew to report to an incident was just minutes after 2AM. IOWATED and IslandMan here on these forums both recall this initial crew announcement just after 3AM, as do virtually all other eyewitness reports.

 

He says he went back inside his room, but minutes later the fire had spread. I walk back out ten minutes later. The fire had made it from probably the 11th deck to the 5th."

 

We can see clearly from the burn pattern that the fire burned on 3 decks, with minor falling debris burning a few balconies on a 4th deck. Mr. Aldridge recalls the fire burning on 7 decks (5th through 11th). Eyewitness reports, photographs, and videos all show 3 decks involved (and burning debris damaging a few balconies on Dolphin). And note that he is saying these 7 decks were involved and burning at 2:10AM...an hour before any alarm was issued?!

 

"He says it was what happened next that the Aldridge's did not expect.

Just doors down from their room, a blazing fire and everyone around them, they say, had no idea of the danger. "No fire alarm was sounding. Everyone was sleeping on our floor. So we woke everyone up that we could get to, banging on their doors." "They know the general fire alarm sounded around 3:10am"

 

After which they went to the mess hall (I assume Mr. Aldridge is ex-military, as cruise ships don’t really have a mess hall) – Hopefully that was his muster station as that should have been where he went.

 

Again, this is making a fairly large leap – from a 2AM fire start to a 3:10AM general alarm, which would be a horrible response time. All of the other eyewitness statements indicate a much more timely sequence – fire first noticed on a single balcony around 3AM, first call to respond for crew at just after 3am, fire not controllable on one balcony and beginning to spread to other balconies, crew preparing and getting to their stations for the passenger mustering, and at 3:10AM the general alarm, with fire doors secured, crew stationed for proper evac and panic control, and firefighting efforts already underway.

 

What’s worse isn’t that Mr. Aldridge may have made a mistake in his timeline, or that all of the other eyewitnesses are wrong instead – but that a newspaper printed this article without counterpoint…the article was simply put out there into the public as fact. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But certainly, many other reports exist with very different information. People who read only his report in that paper will make all their assumptions based on that one account.

 

Also consider that eyewitnesses on the ship had no way of knowing that the fire was only on a balcony. Many who saw the fire may have assumed it was eminating from the whole cabin. At the time when the initial involved balcony collapsed, the burning debris would have fallen 1-2 decks below. If someone was observing the fire at 3:05AM on one balcony, stepped inside for a camera, the balcony collpased and rained flaming debris down 2 decks, then the person stepped outside 2 minutes later, they would now be witnessing what appears to be a fire which has spread in mere minutes to 3 decks. Without knowing the fire was restricted to balconies, and without knowing they were looking at the burning debris from the first deck, they might leap to the conclusion that the inferno was chewing through the whole midship at an astounding speed.

 

Just an example of why we need to wait for the investigation before we come to final conclusions!

[captlou]

"It all started around 2:00 am last Thursday morning. Richard Aldridge was out on the balcony." ""I look over and I see one cabin on fire. The fire was so small I said 'they'll put it out.'

 

Maybe he forgot to set his watch ahead one hour, and based his observations on EST. :rolleyes:

[Saga Ruby]

We should note the difference between hotel staff and crew staff on a cruise ship. "Crew staff" is comprised of Deck, Bridge and Engineering and their subdivisions - I always think of them as the sailors. My educated guess is that the crew staff are solely responsible for firefighting.

 

On some flagged ships, the Purser is the ranking officer, in many ships, it is the Hotel Director who has administrative oversight of most of the staff we deal with as passengers. The Master, the Captain, has command control over the entire ship. "Weary lies the head that wears the crown."

 

Hotel divisions include dining room, bars, pools, personal care like massages and hair salon services, photographers, etc., some divisions of which are subcontracted out. The hotel staff do train extensively for ship evacuations but I hope I never see my dining room waiter holding a fire hose in an emergency.

 

Justin, thanks for the comments about eyewitnesses. It interests me to watch perception become reality which by dint of the Web, many times becomes Urban Myth. As CW says, I'm on tenterhooks to hear the professionals' reports about the fire.

 

Ruby

[Princess Chatterer]

"The Associated Press reported that Bermuda officials were going to Jamaica to assist with the investigation into the fire that broke out on the Star Princess cruise ship last week, but local safety investigators are not aware of the trip." "Neither the Bermuda Fire Department nor the Bermuda Police Service have heard of anyone going to assist the investigation."

 

http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060329/NEWS/103290118

[judyzoo]

Carnival said the canceled trips and the cost of repairs to the ship, expected back into service on May 15, would cut earnings per share by about 4 cents to 5 cents for the second quarter as well as for the full year. On March 23, it lowered its full-year forecast, citing higher fuel costs.

 

An article in the Miami Herald today said the cost to repair and compensate passengers for cancelled cruises would be between $33 and $44 million.

[alibail]

They also have the fact that the British goverment team will be assisting the US coast guard incorrect.

 

The investigation will be completed by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (UK Goverment), with the assistance of the US Coast Guard and Princess cruises.

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

This is a perfect example of why investigations take so long, and why any rumors, statements, ‘facts’, eyewitness reports, and accusations cannot be taken at face value until everyone has looked at the big picture. Too often, media grabs the first report and runs with it, or people put too much faith in a trusted friend’s or relative’s statement and lock their mind to other possibilities.

Virtually every other eyewitness report, including Sunshine426’s here on the boards, mention the initial fire being a small single-cabin fire at around 3AM. But Mr. Aldridge’s article mentions it as 2AM.

 

 

 

What’s worse isn’t that Mr. Aldridge may have made a mistake in his timeline, or that all of the other eyewitnesses are wrong instead – but that a newspaper printed this article without counterpoint…the article was simply put out there into the public as fact. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But certainly, many other reports exist with very different information. People who read only his report in that paper will make all their assumptions based on that one account.

 

Just an example of why we need to wait for the investigation before we come to final conclusions!

 

There's an element of accuracy to this criticism, but only a mild one.

Note that the news story absolutely did provide a counterpoint, and one that calls into question Mr. Aldridge's timeline and emphasizes the "ongoing investigation" nature of this situation:

"A company spokesperson said Monday Princess Cruises was still trying to figure out what exactly happened.

 

They know the general fire alarm sounded around 3:10am. As for when and how the fire started, the company says it is still looking into that."

With that said, a more thorough account could have pulled together information from AP, CNN and elsewhere. But realistically, that is often far beyond the range of reporters at small media who juggle a series of assignments with minimal resources.

The only real problem with this story is the second paragraph: It appears to state flat-out that the fire started at 2. Reread it (particularly with a TV reporter's voice in mind), and you may realize that it eliminated the attribution to make the story "flow" more smoothly ... but I agree it was a poor choice. Deadlines have a way of making poor choices happen, of course.

News is ... news. It isn't "let's say nothing until the report comes out in the third quarter of '06, or maybe early '07." Following a major incident like this, people turn to the media for news -- right away. If they want "we have no details at this time," they can just dial up the cruiseline's Web site. That's the nature of the beast.

(And, by the way, if nobody reports anything for months and months, you can bet the conspiracy theorists would flat-out dismantle anything the NTSB, Coast Guard, British authorities or other agencies would conclude).

 

Also, let's recall that the chief reason we have more reliable info than Mr. Aldridge's is because of the news media, by the way.

What is useful from the analysis, though, is how frequently witnesses -- and participants -- in stressful/traumatic events can be wrong about the details. This can extent to professionals, too, by the way. If you've ever been in one, you'll understand that this, too, is the nature of the beast.

Safe cruising.

 

 

 

[zackiedawg]

The only real problem with this story is the second paragraph: It appears to state flat-out that the fire started at 2. Reread it (particularly with a TV reporter's voice in mind), and you may realize that it eliminated the attribution to make the story "flow" more smoothly ... but I agree it was a poor choice. Deadlines have a way of making poor choices happen, of course.

 

That's pretty much what my point is - not that anyone is wrong, but that no conclusions should be drawn due to the myriad of variables in the eyewitness accounts that if taken verbatim can lead to misreporting or at least misleading thousands of people.

 

 

News is ... news. Following a major incident like this, people turn to the media for news -- right away. If they want "we have no details at this time," they can just dial up the cruiseline's Web site. That's the nature of the beast.

 

I fully agree - the news should deliver the facts as they occur. The problem comes when they deliver the speculation as fact, or personal opinions and feelings as fact. That isn't the nature of the news beast, but the nature of sensationalist, ratings-driven modern television. I would rather hear "there was a ship...it had a fire...various reports range from x to x...here are the pictures...nothing yet confirmed...more to follow as it comes in"...as opposed to "a cruise ship at sea, with over 3,000 passengers, was engulfed in flames far from land, when a cigarette carelessly discarded started a fire at 3am. Panicked passengers were initially unaware of the fire as no general alarm sounded. Lifeboats were deployed and passengers were ready to board, before the fire was finally put out. Over 120 cabins were incinerated in the blaze. Some fire doors failed to close, and passengers were kept in crowded confined spaces for over 7 hours with no food or water, and the ventilation system turned off." (all of these were reported at some point or another on various news sources - and none were presented as rumors, but as possible 'coverups' and 'inside information'...because that sensationalism draws bigger ratings).

 

Also, let's recall that the chief reason we have more reliable info than Mr. Aldridge's is because of the news media, by the way.

 

Again I agree with that basic fact...the media delivers a wealth of information, an assemblage of facts, rumors, and opinions. And through a logical, factual analysis of all of the information first, one can draw a fairly accurate assumption of the truth of the scenario. Unfortunately, far too few people listen to all of the information before coming to a conclusion - maybe they just watch that local news channel, or maybe they only watch Fox News or CNN...maybe they get their 'news' on news talk shows like 'Rita Cosby' which include large amounts of personal opinion as opposed to known facts. It would be nice if more people would check out another report from another source or two before concluding!

 

 

What is useful from the analysis, though, is how frequently witnesses -- and participants -- in stressful/traumatic events can be wrong about the details. This can extent to professionals, too, by the way. If you've ever been in one, you'll understand that this, too, is the nature of the beast

 

Much agreed...and I have been in such situations. In 1994, I went through the Northridge Earthquake. My home was damaged, and my work was damaged. Worse, my psyche was damaged...I couldn't overcome the fear I felt at every aftershock. My memory of the event was of the unbelievable movement during the quake...roughly 10 miles from the epicenter, I experienced some of the stronger shaking. Until we were able to get news about the event, my friends and I who gathered after the quake to evacuate our condo were sure we had just felt a 7.5 - 8 magnitude quake, and that minute-long shaking felt like it would never end. In reality, the quake was a 6.7, and only shook for 14 seconds. Our fear and stress made it feel much longer and stronger.

 

In 2004, our town was hit by Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, back to back. I was quite sure that we had felt Cat 2 winds and damage in Frances, regardless of what the news said...I was there, I would know. But news reports said our town received sustained minimal Cat 1 hurricane winds. The damage was quite widespread and power was out for 8 days. But only after hurricane Wilma visited in October 2005 was I able to ride through the eyewall of a true Cat 2 hurricane strike...and it put my previous assertions to rest. Wilma felt like a Cat 3 or 4 (or so I thought)...it was intense beyond anything I'd ever been through. So when reports mentioned that it was BARELY a Cat 2 as it passed over us...I had to learn to readjust my thinking about wind speeds and strength. I always said I would not flinch for a Cat 1 or 2, would stay home and bunker down for a 3 or 4, and only leave for a full-fledged 5. After the past 2 hurricane seasons, I think I've learned that my stress inflated the perceived intensity of the prior hurricanes. I now realize that a Cat 1 or 2 storm is fierce enough. A Cat 3 is now the highest intensity I would stay in my house for, and even then, I would prepare thoroughly and have emergency locations ready in the event of the house breaking up. Cat 4, I'm outta there.

 

I don't mean to blame ANYONE for what they say about their experience...I don't consider them wrong - I just consider them stressed and traumatized, and therefore wait to hear multiple experiences before developing an opinion. But when I see threads break out only hours after the first reports hit the media attacking smokers, kids, spring breakers, Princess, terrorists, or any other group...it becomes very apparent that many people do in fact believe the first thing they hear in the media or from a single eyewitness. I am just trying to get more people to slow down and absorb a little more before accusing or believing. Fortunately, many others here have been very rational and logical, and do look at the bigger picture...and your lucid counterpoints are well taken, and demonstrate that you are maintaining an open mind as well.

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

I am just trying to get more people to slow down and absorb a little more before accusing or believing.

 

That's a valid (and noble) goal -- I applaud you for it!

 

Here is the point where reasonable people should reach agreement: We can't "know" facts until we know them. And you're absolutely right that the first info out of this situation was incomplete.

That's the nature of disasters (and flat-out catastrophes), of course. I wish more people recognized that fact as clearly as you appear to.

It is extremely useful (and human nature) to get early information from any disaster scene so we can at least try to better understand what happened ... mostly, though, we merely end up better recognizing which of the unanswered questions are most pertinent.

But my hope is that people will get past the absolute knee-jerk press-bashing that has become so fashionable in the past six or seven years. The media has plenty of failings, of course, but it's simply hypocritical for our "news on demand" society to gripe that the media has either "missed something important" or is "covering up the real news" ... yet then turn around and complain about early converage of disasters because the initial versions don't mirror the final NTSB report that's filed many liesurely months later.

 

Clearly, without police or subpeona power - or any physical presence aboard the ship - the TV station will struggle to get as much info as it can. And what would make more sense than turning to witnesses? Especially since it's guaranteed that company in this situation will go into one form or other of "coverup" mode.

(If not, Princess could have chartered a couple of launches in Montego Bay and invited any nearby press to tour the ship, interview the front-line firefighters, etc. Of course I recognize why Princess wouldn't do that -- but in the absence of a direct way to get at the facts, the media has no recourse but to pull together the best info it can from the best sources it can find).

Now what the viewers and readers do with that info is another thing entirely.

Perhaps we agree that our countrymen (and women) could use an extra bit of restraint and, perhaps, analytical thinking in such situations. (It's worrisome that people rush - angrily - from 'news of burning ship' to 'terrorist' ... or 'news of burning ship' to 'damn those smokers!') But this is a failing of the American people, not the media.

 

Safe and happy cruising Zackiedawg & to all

[Saga Ruby]

I'm muddled about MAIB and other investigative agencies doing their research. When Star sailed to Germany, are there (a) investigators onboard doing their work, (b) when do they turn it over to the insurance guys, and © is MAIB the authority to release the ship to the dockyard for overhaul? What is the chain of authority to sequence from disaster to investigation to refurb? Who has the overall authority to release the ship to the next progressive stage?

 

I never knew I would care about qualities of burning aluminum until I read this thread!

 

To Zackiedawg (Justin) and Escape to Connecticut - I appreciated your discussion about journalistic integrity and that each of you respected the other's input. Thanks.

 

Ruby

[Tater1800]

"It all started around 2:00 am last Thursday morning. Richard Aldridge was out on the balcony." ""I look over and I see one cabin on fire. The fire was so small I said 'they'll put it out.'

 

Maybe he forgot to set his watch ahead one hour, and based his observations on EST. :rolleyes:

 

The time should have been in EST, Ship's Time. I think you are on the right track. It was very confusing in Cozumel. We were told when to meet the tender in Ship's Time then the tender operators would quote local time, CST. The only way to make sense of it was to get a time-hack from the tender operator and go from there. I think Grand Cayman was back to EST, Ship's Time, but I'm not sure.

[emerald777]

"......I look over and I see one cabin on fire. The fire was so small I said 'they'll put it out."

 

:eek: Is it just me, or is that statement not mindboggling? I can just see myself, on a ship, see a fire at 3:00am and calmly walk back into my cabin saying to myself, oh it's just a little one, I think I'll go back in the cabin for awhile, maybe watch a little TV....." Did he not think to call someone?? Would you leave your balcony?? Here's my question to keep this post on the technical side (ok, not really) "Does this guy have nerves of steel or was he in lala land?"

[ccrain]

Apparently they fought the fire from the upwind cabin balconies.

 

Note the time stamps on this video:

 

http://loganfam.net/jeff/fire_vid.wmv

 

Comments from the experts?

[CruiseWacker23]

I'm muddled about MAIB and other investigative agencies doing their research. When Star sailed to Germany, are there (a) investigators onboard doing their work, (b) when do they turn it over to the insurance guys, and © is MAIB the authority to release the ship to the dockyard for overhaul? What is the chain of authority to sequence from disaster to investigation to refurb? Who has the overall authority to release the ship to the next progressive stage?

 

I never knew I would care about qualities of burning aluminum until I read this thread!

 

To Zackiedawg (Justin) and Escape to Connecticut - I appreciated your discussion about journalistic integrity and that each of you respected the other's input. Thanks.

 

 

 

Ruby

 

Ruby, I can only speculate by how we do it on land but here goes. Perhaps CaptBJ knows for sure.

 

I would think the MAIB guys are the main investigators and their mission is to determine origin and cause. They will also be the ones that determine if there was a crime committed or not. If there are criminal charges possible, things will really be tight. The insurance guys normally can conduct their investigations with their PI's side by side with the MAIB people. There is a strict log kept and nothing is removed without everyone knowing about it. These guys are all pros and they know not to spoil any evidence.

 

Aside from the criminal aspect, the insurance investigators will be looking at any possible failures or defects, things that they go after someone else or subrogate their insurance companies. If there is a crime scene, the legal authority has to clear it first, then, since they are paying the damages, the ship's insurance investigator gives it the final clearance for repairs.

 

One thing...before I posted this I slipped over to CruiseCal and checked the location of the Star. If the ship cam is correct, they are still in Freeport.

CW

[Mrs. Gump]

Wow - That's the first footage of the actual fire that I've seen. To see the size of the fire vs. the effects of the one hose makes it look so hopeless. Hearing the p.a. announcement is eerie.