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

[chengkp75]

Just now, NMTraveller said:

I was referring to the video that was supplied by a cruiser on this thread ...  They are beautiful by the way ...

Looked at that video as well, don't see any reefs there.

[Oceangoer2]

1 hour ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

I don't think anyone here would disagree that the ship was too close but  I've lost track of the point you are trying to make.

A right fighter....

[kjc852]

We were also aboard the cruise being dissected from every angle and perspective.  We took many photos from the Retreat deck as well as our Villa balcony on deck 15, albeit with either an I-Pad or I-phone.  I too have photos that make Edge look perilously close to shore, however the same photo taken at the same time and same location without zooming in shows the shoreline in the far distance. At no time did we ever believe, or even suspect, the ship was dangerously close.  The attached brief video from our balcony in the far front of the ship shows one of the tour or fishing boats in the area and in my mind provides another perspective on how close Edge was in comparison.

[hcat]

2 hours ago, kjc852 said:

We were also aboard the cruise being dissected from every angle and perspective.  We took many photos from the Retreat deck as well as our Villa balcony on deck 15, albeit with either an I-Pad or I-phone.  I too have photos that make Edge look perilously close to shore, however the same photo taken at the same time and same location without zooming in shows the shoreline in the far distance. At no time did we ever believe, or even suspect, the ship was dangerously close.  The attached brief video from our balcony in the far front of the ship shows one of the tour or fishing boats in the area and in my mind provides another perspective on how close Edge was in comparison.

IMG_5307.mov

I realize the thread is about the alleged incident, but I did  find this video beautiful... What great views..!

[hiccups]

15 hours ago, msolok said:

 

This is just how things tend to go with cruising. Itineraries, schedules and everything are very susceptible to changes. While they do try and make everything happen, sometimes things don't work out and things need to change. I don't think I have ever been on a cruise line that has offered $ for the "hassle" of a changed itinerary.

We recieved OBC from Azamara a few years ago when they had to cancel a port in Spain for a strike.  We’d also bought cruise-specific travel insurance, and that coverage included reimbursement for a missed port.  Our cruises after that one, cruise insurance no longer seemed to cover missed ports.

[NMTraveller]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Looked at that video as well, don't see any reefs there.

:47 - :49  1:00 - 1:02.

 

I would suppose that the locals would not be loudly complaining about the reefs if there were none to be damaged ...

 

The locals also claimed that they dropped anchor and at one point were stuck.  I am not sure any of this is true...

 

Was this a Hawaii ship size violation or the fact that they had more than 15 people on board?  Or both?

Edited May 5 by NMTraveller

[jwlane]

6 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

 I will take video/photos over opinion and spinning any day.

Photos of reflections?

[chengkp75]

52 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

:47 - :49  1:00 - 1:02.

Nope, sorry.  All I see is the ship's wake after having turned around, just as I described it before.

52 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

I would suppose that the locals would not be loudly complaining about the reefs if there were none to be damaged ...

Don't believe I heard the locals saying anything about "reefs", just coral, which can carpet the sea bottom, or even make small ridges on the bottom, but these are not "reefs" that are large, hard, ancient ridges that come closer to the surface.

 

52 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

The locals also claimed that they dropped anchor and at one point were stuck.  I am not sure any of this is true...

Where did this come from?  I would think that those folks who were on the ship would have heard the anchors going out, and not likely anything there to get the anchor stuck on.

 

52 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

Was this a Hawaii ship size violation or the fact that they had more than 15 people on board?  Or both?

Well, if you think about it, its both.  From what I remember, the statute is written to restrict boats with 50 or more passengers, because the more passengers, the bigger the vessel.

Edited May 5 by chengkp75

[Mark_K]

Just for a little context on the distances. The video posted earlier from a tv station showed the ship’s track, this is from a screenshot of it.

 

 

This is from the Geospace app. It shows that the outcropping at the bottom is about 550 feet wide at the widest.

 

[Georgia_Peaches]

@Mark_K would you mind explaining what you are getting at with  2 images you posted for the photo-spatially challenged types...like me!  

[chengkp75]

What they are trying to say is that the second image gives the size of the rock outcropping that shows at the bottom of the first image, which means that according to the ship tracking image, the ship is about 1200-1500 feet from the rock.  Now, to put a little finer context, the point showing the ship's location is the location of the AIS transmitter, which is typically above the bridge.  Edge is 1000 feet long, so when the ship is pointing away from the coast, the stern would be likely 600-800 feet closer to shore than the position "dot".  Further, as I noted before, maritime GPS has an accuracy of about 45 feet at best, so that could put the ship that much closer, or that much farther away from shore.

 

So, while it appears to be very close to shore, that is irrelevant depending on the ocean bottom at that location, but it does place the ship definitely within the restricted zone.

Edited May 5 by chengkp75

[Orator]

I can wait for the results of any investigations before drawing any conclusion and assessing blame.

[sofietucker]

3 hours ago, hiccups said:

We recieved OBC from Azamara a few years ago when they had to cancel a port in Spain for a strike.  We’d also bought cruise-specific travel insurance, and that coverage included reimbursement for a missed port.  Our cruises after that one, cruise insurance no longer seemed to cover missed ports.

We get Allianz Global insurance and always get reimbursed for any missed ports, $100 pp. But it depends on the specific policy: check to see what's covered before you buy any given one.

[critterchick]

On 5/4/2024 at 5:07 PM, chengkp75 said:

 

 

Unless you were there, and have experience in ship handling, this is pure speculation

 

This based on your vast years of experience as a ship's Captain, navigation officer, or even helmsman?  I don't believe for a moment that the ship or passengers were in any danger from this maneuver.  I am bothered that it happened in a protected zone, and that that zone was not recognized when planning the passage, but because I was not there, I would never question the judgement of a Captain, on scene, when no difficulties arise from his actions.

DH has vast (23 years) experience as a Chief Engineer and Captain (in command of a ship) in the USN.  We were on Deck 10 aft and he opined that we too close for his comfort when the stern was facing the shore directly. I managed to take pictures that don’t have any ship structure for a reference point so can’t provide any evidence to back him up but I think he knows whereof he speaks.

 

Were we in imminent danger? I think not, but there was no margin for error.  Like you, we are both more bothered by the fact that the Captain appears to have violated local laws put in place to protect the marine environment from harm in excess of “normal wear and tear” (I can’t think the the correct phrase).

21 hours ago, happy5 said:

On the ship now and VERY disappointed on the itenerary change., day 2 was cruising the coast.. which made up for missing Maui.. day one at night told we were going to Hilo day 2 and 3… those with excursions on both days were out of luck.. was told j” just get on your phone and book your own thru visitor” by both the excursion desk and the retreat concierge.. we were refunded for the excursion we missed on day 4 but had no time to rebook it.. I understand missing Maui but to be told 1 and 1/2 days in Kona makes up for missing day two cruising is not acceptable and certainly not the Celebrity I know.. no compensation for having the rug pulled out and having to scramble on our own to do something our first day in Hilo.. there were NO Cruise excursions planned for us.

Have heatd no compensation for being treated like this for the beginning of a cruise.

should we expect something??

You should expect nothing. Yes, you are inconvenienced by the abrupt change in plan, but you didn’t miss a port - you gained an extra day on land. For me that’s infinitely preferable to another sea day (making it 6 in a row) off the coast of my favorite place on earth, wishing that Google and Apple Maps were both correct that it was a one minute walk (albeit on water) to the beach.  You don’t need to go on a guided excursions in either place, anyway - Kona has loads to do within walking distance of the tender dock - snorkeling, tastings at local breweries, shopping, visiting a fascinating exhibit at the Courtyard hotel (ask a bellman to guide you around; they know about all of what’s on exhibit), geocaching…..  There are plenty of places that are a walk or quick ride from the dock in Hilo and tour operators are available at both places if you want to go further afield.

If you’d rather have a sea day, then stay on the ship and gaze at the shore.

[Liao]

22 hours ago, happy5 said:

On the ship now and VERY disappointed on the itenerary change., day 2 was cruising the coast.. which made up for missing Maui.. day one at night told we were going to Hilo day 2 and 3… those with excursions on both days were out of luck.. was told j” just get on your phone and book your own thru visitor” by both the excursion desk and the retreat concierge.. we were refunded for the excursion we missed on day 4 but had no time to rebook it.. I understand missing Maui but to be told 1 and 1/2 days in Kona makes up for missing day two cruising is not acceptable and certainly not the Celebrity I know.. no compensation for having the rug pulled out and having to scramble on our own to do something our first day in Hilo.. there were NO Cruise excursions planned for us.

Have heatd no compensation for being treated like this for the beginning of a cruise.

should we expect something??

Other than being made whole for out of pocket, no you should not.

[Octavias]

On 5/4/2024 at 9:43 AM, Ferry_Watcher said:

 

Evel Knieval only put himself in danger doing stunts.

The Edge (worth hundreds of millions of dollars) probably had upwards of four thousand souls on board.  If all ship captains were allowed to daredevils, or allowed to take chances to enhance passenger  experience, then maybe the Icon of the Seas could be the next ship to try give its passengers the best view experience.  That would be exciting.

 

While  those passengers who were on-board during that sailing got a once in a lifetime view from a cruise ship of an amazing natural wonder, sadly the current on-board passengers suffered the consequences by the having the same scheduled sail-by of the Napali Coast cancelled - either by Celebrity, or by the State of Hawaii.

 

Now the Edge will doing it's new Alaska season sailing (I will be on the Edge next Saturday).  Should I expect the Edge to sail super close to a glacier?    Do I want the Edge to push the boundaries so I, as a passenger can have an amazing view of a glacier?  No.  While I want a great Alaska experience, I also want to be safe.

 

I will let you know who the Captain is after I board the Edge next Saturday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also, are scheduled to be on the Edge later this month in Alaska.  I’m wondering how this is going to affect our glacier viewing experience.  I suspect they will be extra cautious after this. 

[Northern Aurora]

1 hour ago, Octavias said:

We also, are scheduled to be on the Edge later this month in Alaska.  I’m wondering how this is going to affect our glacier viewing experience.  I suspect they will be extra cautious after this. 

 

What is your concern?  While I don't know the specifics of your Alaska itinerary the glaciers you will visit are in the headwaters of very deep fjords.  Actually, I am trying very hard to remember any Alaska major glacier which is not at the head waters of a very deep fjord.  No extra cautions measures required.

[rrraydon]

13 hours ago, yogini06 said:

I was on this sailing and up on deck 15 during the 360° maneuver.  My pictures look much closer than what I saw. 
 

I posted a link above that USCG cleared them of violating any federal laws.  As noted previously they violated local rules put in place for environmental purposes. 

Objects in the rearview mirror appear much closer than they are... 😁🤣

 

Videos and pictures can be zoomed in, can be focused way out...all kinds of various options nowadays. It's difficult to base opinions of distances off of these pictures and videos as we don't know what the settings were. 

Edited May 6 by rrraydon

[Steeler808]

2 hours ago, Octavias said:

We also, are scheduled to be on the Edge later this month in Alaska.  I’m wondering how this is going to affect our glacier viewing experience.  I suspect they will be extra cautious after this. 

So far as I know there is no set "safe distance" to how close the ship can approach the glacier. 

 

It depends on what the captain decides is a safe distance depending on the weather conditions and how much ice may be in the water. At least that is what I recall was advised during my two cruises to Alaska. Hopefully you have some nice weather and get some great memories. 

Edited May 6 by Steeler808

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, critterchick said:

DH has vast (23 years) experience as a Chief Engineer and Captain (in command of a ship) in the USN.  We were on Deck 10 aft and he opined that we too close for his comfort when the stern was facing the shore directly. I managed to take pictures that don’t have any ship structure for a reference point so can’t provide any evidence to back him up but I think he knows whereof he speaks.

Without minimalizing your DH's service to our country in any way shape or fashion, I believe even he would admit that Navy vessels in no way compare with cruise ships for maneuverability.  While Navy vessels have extremely high power capabilities, many even more power than Edge, that is for speed in the open ocean, and they are very limited when maneuvering at low speed in confined waters.  This is where equipment like bow and stern thrusters, azipods, and high lift rudders (on various types of cruise ships) come into play, and are what negates the use of tug boats when docking, unlike the Navy cousins.  So, while your DH felt uncomfortable where the ship was, based on his experience with ships that don't compare to cruise ships, I think that after a few hours using a bridge simulator of the Edge, he would change his mind.

 

I did a short stint with the "Gray Funnel Line" when I was young, but as an engineer, I was a "doer", not a "pointer", and felt the Navy was just not a good fit for me.  Went on for a 46 year career as a Marine Engineer, 38 of them as Chief.

 

Was the ship too close, by law?  Yes.  Was it too close for safety?  Only those on the bridge that day can say for sure.  They had all the data, they had the experience in handling that ship in that kind of weather.

 

Go Navy.

[cruisestitch]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:37 AM, yogini06 said:

It is my understanding that when ports are missed the cruise line refunds the port fees paid. In this case a sail by was missed and a port was substituted.  

I do not wish to hijack this thread, but I wish to point out that the cruise line does not necessarily refund port fees for missed ports.  It’s a complicated issue.  Port fees go up and down.  The fee for one port may go up.  If another port is missed, that money might be applied to that increase rather than refunded.  There are other complications which might come into it to, including the day you booked and your nationality.

[Ferry_Watcher]

10 hours ago, Octavias said:

We also, are scheduled to be on the Edge later this month in Alaska.  I’m wondering how this is going to affect our glacier viewing experience.  I suspect they will be extra cautious after this. 

 

I agree.  Guessing how close to the glacier will be determined by how much ice is in the water, and how cautious the Bridge team is after the PR fallout from the Napali Coast event.

[gcornell]

15 hours ago, Orator said:

I can wait for the results of any investigations before drawing any conclusion and assessing blame.

100% agree but unfortunately many make virtue signaling a sport. 

[MMS Cruising]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Without minimalizing your DH's service to our country in any way shape or fashion, I believe even he would admit that Navy vessels in no way compare with cruise ships for maneuverability.  While Navy vessels have extremely high power capabilities, many even more power than Edge, that is for speed in the open ocean, and they are very limited when maneuvering at low speed in confined waters.  This is where equipment like bow and stern thrusters, azipods, and high lift rudders (on various types of cruise ships) come into play, and are what negates the use of tug boats when docking, unlike the Navy cousins.  So, while your DH felt uncomfortable where the ship was, based on his experience with ships that don't compare to cruise ships, I think that after a few hours using a bridge simulator of the Edge, he would change his mind.

 

I did a short stint with the "Gray Funnel Line" when I was young, but as an engineer, I was a "doer", not a "pointer", and felt the Navy was just not a good fit for me.  Went on for a 46 year career as a Marine Engineer, 38 of them as Chief.

 

Was the ship too close, by law?  Yes.  Was it too close for safety?  Only those on the bridge that day can say for sure.  They had all the data, they had the experience in handling that ship in that kind of weather.

 

Go Navy.

Very helpful to read the detailed views of the most qualified commentators on this thread.  For my part, I particularly appreciate the views of DH given his presence on the ship in question and many years of captaining naval vessels.  I agree that the Edge would have the benefit of all of the modern cruise ship propulsion and maneuverability devices, but I for one would not presume to tell DH that his lack of comfort with the proximity to the cliffs would have been alleviated "after a few hours using a bridge simulator" (akin to patting DH on the head and saying something like "don't worry, buddy, you stick to driving the dump trucks and let the captains of the fancy teslas/ferraris/maseratis show you how its done").  I'm very new to the boards, and understand from my brief time here that you are quite an authority on cruise ships. But I appreciate DH validating the feeling that many of the local boat captains and other witnesses had (all were eyewitnesses) that the Edge was uncomfortably close to the natural wonders of the Na Pali cliffs.  

 

I agree that the captain on the bridge, fully experienced with the capabilities of the Ship, was in the best position to determine the safety of the vessel under his command.  But there is always an element of risk in charting a course very close to land, and I don't think anyone is arguing that getting this close is a risk-free proposition, akin to sailing miles offshore (as is typical for say, the Pride of America).  The captain determined that this was a "safe" maneuver, and thankfully, he was correct.  This time.  But even if the approach did not violate local laws, this looks like a much riskier path to take, the kind of thing that made a former naval captain "uncomfortable" and shocked the local boat captains.  Given the reduced margin of error, would it be out of line to call this a "stunt"?  In your opinion, was this maneuver as "safe" as steering a course miles off shore instead?  Would you argue that captains in the future should have leeway to make similar maneuvers (again, assuming no local laws are impacted), as long as they make a judgment that it is "safe"?  The focus of the discussion on this thread seems to assume that there a line where something is judged "safe", up until the point that the ship hits a sandbar or rock, and then it's "not safe" (@CostaConcordia).  But would you agree that it's actually a sliding scale of risk that at some point becomes an unacceptable risk?  Should the Edge have been permitted to go even closer to the cliffs (assuming no local laws were impacted)?

 

I don't think the people of Hawaii are willing to allow cruise ships to take these kinds of elevated risks with the natural beauty and resources of the land for the sake of a thrilling view of the Kaua'i coast.

 

Apologies for the long post, but I was born and raised in Hawaii, and there is already a lot of tension between local people and the tourism industry.  This kind of event only makes the local Hawaii people more resentful of what they often perceive as a "cavalier" attitude of tourists toward the land and its beauty.

 

 

[chengkp75]

22 minutes ago, MMS Cruising said:

The focus of the discussion on this thread seems to assume that there a line where something is judged "safe", up until the point that the ship hits a sandbar or rock, and then it's "not safe" (@CostaConcordia).  But would you agree that it's actually a sliding scale of risk that at some point becomes an unacceptable risk?  Should the Edge have been permitted to go even closer to the cliffs (assuming no local laws were impacted)?

The ISM model of safety management uses a "likelihood/consequence" matrix to make decisions on actions that are not automatically approved by the SMS.  This is a matrix with "likelihood" on the vertical (how likely is the result of the action to happen), and "consequences" on the horizontal (what happens if the worst happens).  So, for each action (say, running aground on the Na Pali coast), you assign a likelihood (rare to almost certain) and then a consequence (from insignificant to extreme) that may happen (if you do run aground).  Crossing the likelihood with the consequence gives a risk assessment for the action, from low to extreme.  Your actions should never be in the high or extreme risk areas, moderate is allowed with permissions and mediating methods, and low is best.  You then think of the mediating actions that can moderate the risk (having bow thrusters running, going slowly, etc), and assign an effectiveness rating to these mediating actions, to determine how much risk there is after you've done all the mediation actions you think can help.

 

So, long story long, yes it is a sliding scale of risk, and the risk assessment matrix allows you to find where the risk isn't acceptable anymore.  Edge could have gone closer (baring any legal restriction) should the risk matrix allowed it (which would depend on things like weather, water depth, obstacles, etc)

44 minutes ago, MMS Cruising said:

akin to patting DH on the head and saying something like "don't worry, buddy, you stick to driving the dump trucks and let the captains of the fancy teslas/ferraris/maseratis show you how its done").

Actually, while the cruise ships may be maseratis, Navy vessels are the Corollas, and 95% of merchant ships are the "dump trucks".  Most Navy vessels have multiple propellers and multiple rudders, while most merchant ships have one diesel engine bolted to a propeller shaft driving one propeller, and having one rudder.  While Navy vessels most often use tugs, merchant ships (other than cruise ships) will always use them, as they are so unmaneuverable.  When a merchant ship Captain transitions to cruise ships, it takes a few hours to become comfortable with the systems, and amount of maneuverability.  In the "old days" he learned by doing it (docking the cruise ship under the Captain's supervision), but now simulators are so good that some ships even have one onboard for training/refreshing/casualty training.

 

Again, not trying to marginalize the ex-Navy Captain's experience, but it is similar to someone who has a private pilot's license and learned on a single engine Cessna, comparing their comfort level to sitting in the flight deck of a 777.