Celebrity in Hot Water - Edge sailed too close to Kauai’s NaPali Coast

[hcat]

Thankfully no injuries to those on board!

[markeb]

7 minutes ago, snigol said:

Currently on the ship. Growing concern among passengers on two fronts:

 

1) Passengers are just now (this morning / afternoon) learning that all is not as Celebrity said last night during a ship wide announcement. Reporting the last-minute change to not go to NaPali Coast as being due to "environmental restrictions" is not entirely accurate. They are PR-ing it a *little* too slickly, marketing the itinerary change as a benefit ("2 days in Kona!!!"). So now, passengers aren't feeling as gracious and ready to change their plans / excursions without some sort of truth (and OBC 🤣).

 

2) Most disturbing to many is the lack of transparency and overly-positive spin, acting as though it's impossible to believe passengers can read and hear the news. Regardless of how "nice" Captain Matt is, passengers want to see some accountability. Celebrity is a 3B+ company, and the Edge is a 100+ GT vessel. This isn't an "oopsie" that can be written off to "not knowing." Either the Captain / Celebrity weren't fully informed and were unaware of environmental and safety restrictions in the waters in which they're sailing (a horrifying thought) or he was willfully violating rules and common sense (scarier still).

 

Speculation. That's why there are investigations. 

[Ferry_Watcher]

2 hours ago, pete_coach said:

And your analogy is applicable how??

The action on Costa was dangerous and uncalled for, do you know what and why the action in Hawaii even took place?

 

The Costa Concordia got into trouble because it went too close to the shore, entered shallow waters, hit a sandbar or underwater ledge and began listing. 

If you look at the Napali Coast photos of the Edge, it too is very close to the shore, and according to the aerial photos, was in shallow waters, enough so that it caused sand to be churned.

 

 “Some of the shots that were taken from the air actually showed the sand being disturbed at the bottom so all of these environmental impacts that it created was very upsetting to me,” said Wann

 

The reason I find this story so interesting is that I will be on the Edge in less than 10 days, and I am also fortunate enough to visit Kauai for a couple of weeks each winter. There will be repercussions for this incident - certainly an environmental fine at the very least.   It will be interesting to see if there will be a change in command on the ship once it arrives in Vancouver, BC.

[pete_coach]

6 minutes ago, Ferry_Watcher said:

 

The Costa Concordia got into trouble because it went too close to the shore, entered shallow waters, hit a sandbar or underwater ledge and began listing. 

If you look at the Napali Coast photos of the Edge, it too is very close to the shore, and according to the aerial photos, was in shallow waters, enough so that it caused sand to be churned.

 

 “Some of the shots that were taken from the air actually showed the sand being disturbed at the bottom so all of these environmental impacts that it created was very upsetting to me,” said Wann

 

The reason I find this story so interesting is that I will be on the Edge in less than 10 days, and I am also fortunate enough to visit Kauai for a couple of weeks each winter. There will be repercussions for this incident - certainly an environmental fine at the very least.   It will be interesting to see if there will be a change in command on the ship once it arrives in Vancouver, BC.

As I and others have said, speculation is fruitless. Witnesses are unreliable and the investigation will determine what happened.

Some folks wold rather make accusations before they know the details.

Oh and I too spend many winters in Hawaii.

[Straughn]

3 hours ago, pete_coach said:

And your analogy is applicable how??

The action on Costa was dangerous and uncalled for, do you know what and why the action in Hawaii even took place?

And, from what I have read, intentional.

[Ferry_Watcher]

41 minutes ago, pete_coach said:

As I and others have said, speculation is fruitless. Witnesses are unreliable and the investigation will determine what happened.

Some folks wold rather make accusations before they know the details.

 

Not sure what the 'speculation' is.  The ship clearly went too far into an area that it it should have been more respectful of - as shown by the following:

Aerial photos;

Eyewitness accounts from fellow CCer's who were on the Edge;

Incident occurred at a location that one would have to purposefully navigated to;

Common sense would suggest that it is an environmentally sensitive area, and should have been treated as such.

 

Current fallout: 

Hawaii State Gov't not happy

Negative state/national press coverage

Negative social media

Cancelled Napali Coast visit on current cruise - passengers complaining about 'slick' excuses for the cancelled visit, and wanting OBC for missing the scheduled visit

Edited May 2 by Ferry_Watcher

[yogini06]

1 hour ago, snigol said:

Currently on the ship. Growing concern among passengers on two fronts:

 

1) Passengers are just now (this morning / afternoon) learning that all is not as Celebrity said last night during a ship wide announcement. Reporting the last-minute change to not go to NaPali Coast as being due to "environmental restrictions" is not entirely accurate. They are PR-ing it a *little* too slickly, marketing the itinerary change as a benefit ("2 days in Kona!!!"). So now, passengers aren't feeling as gracious and ready to change their plans / excursions without some sort of truth (and OBC 🤣).

 

2) Most disturbing to many is the lack of transparency and overly-positive spin, acting as though it's impossible to believe passengers can read and hear the news. Regardless of how "nice" Captain Matt is, passengers want to see some accountability. Celebrity is a 3B+ company, and the Edge is a 100+ GT vessel. This isn't an "oopsie" that can be written off to "not knowing." Either the Captain / Celebrity weren't fully informed and were unaware of environmental and safety restrictions in the waters in which they're sailing (a horrifying thought) or he was willfully violating rules and common sense (scarier still).

The “environmental restrictions” likely mean they couldn’t get close enough to shore for folks to see Na Pali coast.  Or they were refused sailing privileges due shore distance violations the previous day.  RCI corporate likely doesn’t want staff talking with an ongoing investigation in process.  
 

Even though everyone enjoyed the views (prior to knowing about shore distance restrictions ) most people would have preferred a day in a Hawaiian port instead of another day at sea.  We were scheduled to tender to the Lahaina port but it is closed due to the fire.  No other Hawaiian ports were available.  
 

I was on the 14 April cruise and left the ship yesterday. Captain Matt was very safety conscious.  We sailed through coral reefs that were very narrow and shallow in French Polynesia. He knew the exact width and depth of the ship as well as the width and depth of the water surrounding the reefs. He also knew what speed he should proceed under those conditions. The ship was moving very slowly and took almost an hour completing a 360° maneuver.  Unfortunately he was unaware of the shore distance restriction.   

[cruisetonowhere10]

1 hour ago, Ferry_Watcher said:

 

The Costa Concordia got into trouble because it went too close to the shore, entered shallow waters, hit a sandbar or underwater ledge and began listing. 

If you look at the Napali Coast photos of the Edge, it too is very close to the shore, and according to the aerial photos, was in shallow waters, enough so that it caused sand to be churned.

 

 “Some of the shots that were taken from the air actually showed the sand being disturbed at the bottom so all of these environmental impacts that it created was very upsetting to me,” said Wann

 

The reason I find this story so interesting is that I will be on the Edge in less than 10 days, and I am also fortunate enough to visit Kauai for a couple of weeks each winter. There will be repercussions for this incident - certainly an environmental fine at the very least.   It will be interesting to see if there will be a change in command on the ship once it arrives in Vancouver, BC.

I would imagine that could be the case.  In my opinion (which holds zero weight) I’d proactively remove the captain at the earliest opportunity both from a PR and liability standpoint.  Once the investigation is complete, X reevaluates captain assignments and makes whatever needed adjustments are necessary.  Simply safer that way.  Unfortunate for the captain but it is his ship and a potential error occurred and he must answer to that as well as protect the safety of the passengers/crew as well as the image of the company who employs him.  While I understand the wait for an investigation mentality, I wouldn’t risk the liability waiting for that to happen.

[NMTraveller]

9 hours ago, mnocket said:

And pictures.  Let's not forget to ignore the pictures too.

Spoken like a true politician ... 🤣

[NMTraveller]

7 hours ago, highfields said:

I wonder who the current Captain is on the Edge?

You mean now ex captain ...

 

A rather difficult oops to explain away ...

Edited May 3 by NMTraveller

[markeb]

1 hour ago, Ferry_Watcher said:

 

Not sure what the 'speculation' is.  The ship clearly went too far into an area that it it should have been more respectful of - as shown by the following:

Aerial photos;

Eyewitness accounts from fellow CCer's who were on the Edge;

Incident occurred at a location that one would have to purposefully navigated to;

Common sense would suggest that it is an environmentally sensitive area, and should have been treated as such.

 

Current fallout: 

Hawaii State Gov't not happy

Negative state/national press coverage

Negative social media

Cancelled Napali Coast visit on current cruise - passengers complaining about 'slick' excuses for the cancelled visit, and wanting OBC for missing the scheduled visit

 

The "speculation" is why? Which is the only real question. Unless the photos are exaggerating distance (which they can), the Edge was within the restricted space.

 

Incident/accident investigation transitioned from assigning blame to assessing cause probably 20 years ago. Assessing cause may result in assigning responsibility (and yes, the master is responsible for everything on his watch), but its true purpose is understanding what happened and what can be done to prevent it in the future. That's the more important consideration here. Not attaching blame. It's highly unlikely there was a single failure, and corrective action for future cruises will need to address all those failures.

 

I do tend to fall into a military mindset where the Commander is responsible for everything that does and does not happen in his or her command. Not sure how that applies in this corporate 'command' structure. Right or wrong, I sense a captain being promoted to corporate duties. But first you need to know exactly what failed, when, and why. Otherwise you're firing the coach because the GM signed the wrong players. Looks good on Sports Center but rarely fixes the problem.

 

 

[NMTraveller]

It will be interesting to see if Captain Matt is captain next week.  That will be a sign of how the investigation is going.

 

The week before we were to go on an RCL cruise,  the captain took the ship into a storm with 30 footers and burned out one of the azipods.  Our cruise was fine (after repairs),  but there was a new captain on our cruise.

[cruisetonowhere10]

36 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

The "speculation" is why? Which is the only real question. Unless the photos are exaggerating distance (which they can), the Edge was within the restricted space.

 

Incident/accident investigation transitioned from assigning blame to assessing cause probably 20 years ago. Assessing cause may result in assigning responsibility (and yes, the master is responsible for everything on his watch), but its true purpose is understanding what happened and what can be done to prevent it in the future. That's the more important consideration here. Not attaching blame. It's highly unlikely there was a single failure, and corrective action for future cruises will need to address all those failures.

 

I do tend to fall into a military mindset where the Commander is responsible for everything that does and does not happen in his or her command. Not sure how that applies in this corporate 'command' structure. Right or wrong, I sense a captain being promoted to corporate duties. But first you need to know exactly what failed, when, and why. Otherwise you're firing the coach because the GM signed the wrong players. Looks good on Sports Center but rarely fixes the problem.

 

 

Agreed, but if you don’t act swiftly and something additional happens you’ve got a much bigger problem.  Easiest to remove from active duty pending the investigation.  I imagine there just be some contractual

language that deals with this sort of scenario and the rights of X and the captain.

[markeb]

2 minutes ago, cruisetonowhere10 said:

Agreed, but if you don’t act swiftly and something additional happens you’ve got a much bigger problem.  Easiest to remove from active duty pending the investigation.  I imagine there just be some contractual

language that deals with this sort of scenario and the rights of X and the captain.

 

Easiest, but what if this was considered a low risk maneuver and one of the staff captains miscalculated the route? Then you remove the master (again, his responsibility) but leave the staff captain who actually screwed up. Or you remove the entire command structure, and have to replace 2-3 master rated officers. Overnight.

 

Removing the captain without knowing what happened is PR. It'll probably happen, but it's still PR.

[cruisetonowhere10]

1 minute ago, markeb said:

 

Easiest, but what if this was considered a low risk maneuver and one of the staff captains miscalculated the route? Then you remove the master (again, his responsibility) but leave the staff captain who actually screwed up. Or you remove the entire command structure, and have to replace 2-3 master rated officers. Overnight.

 

Removing the captain without knowing what happened is PR. It'll probably happen, but it's still PR.

Fair point.  I’m not on Edge for a few months so it should all hopefully be handled 🤞🏻

[chisholmag]

9 hours ago, highfields said:

I wonder who the current Captain is on the Edge?

Captain Matt Karandreas

[NMTraveller]

I wonder how much Celebrity will get fined?

[Aloha23]

We were on the Edge during this and were shocked how close we got. We sailed on the Pride of America back in 2015 and we recalled being so much farther away from shore.  We assumed the bridge would be aware of and abide by all local laws but definitely got concerned once we looked towards the bow thruster and noticed sand was being churned up. We also noticed that the current depth had been removed from the navigation channel at the time when it was present everywhere else during our 18 days.
 

The most disturbing part was that evening in the theatre when we learned that the ship broke the law. Captain Matt asked everyone how we enjoyed the day and then shared his “funny story” that while doing the two full rotations, the US Military called the ship asking to speak to the captain and informed him that a vessel of the Edge’s size could not come closer than 1,000 yards to the shoreline and that we were within 300. He kind of chuckled and said that “now we know for next time”. This was addressed as a “whoopsie” and there appeared to be no consideration as to why the law was in place and what environmental impact breaking the law might have. The mistake was made, there was no changing it at that point, but it should have been addressed in a serious and respectful manner displaying remorse for improper planning and concern for the potential impact on the local reef as well as a commitment to doing better in the future. 
 

 

 

Edited May 3 by Aloha23

[NMTraveller]

Other boats in the area reported that they were in about 43 feet of water...

Edited May 3 by NMTraveller

[mahasamatman]

5 hours ago, snigol said:

Most disturbing to many is the lack of transparency

Typical Celebrity. We were on one cruise where multiple crew members (in particular the front desk and cruise director) were declaring "there are no COVID cases on board" while five minutes later the captain announced mandatory masks because of the unusually high number of cases.

[msolok]

7 hours ago, hcat said:

Thankfully no injuries to those on board!

 

Why would anyone in board have been injured? There was no immediate incident from what happened, it was just the ship was closer to the shore than it should have been.

 

I just got off this cruise. Prior to the day it occured Captain Matt announced the ship was going to sail to that point, where they where allowed to be within 1000feet of shore, and do the turns. Apparently Captain Matt was contacted only once we started leaving the coast to be informed that we were too close. So the plans prior to the day where to be as close as we were, and he only got told afterwards not to be.

 

This stop has been on the itinerary for months for this trip. As far as I can see the details where all confirmed by head office and set. Not sure where the breakdown has oxcured, or what laws it is that have been broken, so we really do need to wait for the investigations.

[msolok]

2 hours ago, Aloha23 said:

that while doing the two full rotations, the US Military called the ship asking to speak to the captain and informed him that a vessel of the Edge’s size could not come closer than 1,000 yards to the shoreline and that we were within 300. He kind of chuckled and said that “now we know for next time”.

 

Guessing you where in a different Seating for the show. At the earlier session he said they were only contacted by the coast guard (not the Navy, as this really isn't the navy's job) once we were already leaving, and he didn't say we were within 300 feet.

[kwokpot]

Just another perspective. I'm currently(May2) on the Ovation of the Seas anchored off Kona on an overnight here in Kona. We did the Na'pali Coastline all day on May 1st and we definitely weren't anywhere near that close to the shoreline. Is the Edge supposed to be here in Kona also? I didn't notice any other ship anchored off shore. Photos from our time off the Na'pali Coast of Kauai.

Edited May 3 by kwokpot

[Steeler808]

2 hours ago, msolok said:

 

Guessing you where in a different Seating for the show. At the earlier session he said they were only contacted by the coast guard (not the Navy, as this really isn't the navy's job) once we were already leaving, and he didn't say we were within 300 feet.

Coast Guard is one of the armed forces of the US and most would consider that part of our military. I mean they fall back under the Navy during war time. 

 

As for why being thankful no injuries on board. - I don't think they are meaning that this incident was violent enough to cause injury...just that getting too close to shore has potential for turning out bad. Sort of like when you tell someone about how you almost got hit by some crazy driver and they're like "thank goodness you weren't injured/you're ok" it's just something people say. 

Edited May 3 by Steeler808

[msolok]

20 minutes ago, Steeler808 said:

Coast Guard is one of the armed forces of the US and most would consider that part of our military. I mean they fall back under the Navy during war time. 

 

Ok, sure. But what I was really just saying was that even amongst the people actually on the cruise, there was different things that had been said.

 

 

Another thing that makes the whole thing a bit murkier is that Captain Matt was not even the captain who started the cruise. Captain Matt only took over the ship after his 6 months holiday when the ship reached New Zealand. So he would have been handed a bunch of the cruise information as he came onboard, and he likely wasn't involved in the planning and preparation work for the cruise.