chengkp75

Taking 4000 tons off the bow, along with maybe another 1000 tons of containers (no idea how many are laden and how many are empty) will certainly raise the bow, but not sure if it will be enough to come unstuck. I thought I've seen in a few shots that they have run mooring lines from the Dali's bow to the SE dolphin (ahead of Dali and on the other side of the bridge) to help stabilize the bow, and the two anchors will hopefully have been recovered and reset directly under the bow. As noted by the Unified Command, the "canal effect" of a large ship moving fast in a narrow, shallow channel will cause a whole lot of hydraulic force towards things on the sides of the channel (like the Dali), and this could cause her to lift up and maybe break free.

Ships using the limited depth channel will be determined by the Captain of the Port of Baltimore (USCG) on an "as needed" basis. I believe the cruise ships will fit into the "between 40k to 60k ton displacement" category, which will mean they will be evaluated by the CotP, weighing risk to reward as to whether they are allowed or not. Not confident that the cruise ships will show enough reward to warrant the risk in traversing the channel.

I think the ship will return to Norfolk, and then dead-head to Baltimore for the next cruise.

Marinetraffic is showing her destination as Astoria, pointing to her going to Portland for drydocking. Currently Vigor's dock is empty, Victoria's dock currently has Norwegian Sun in it. Radiance doing 15.8 knots.

Off hand, I don't remember the repair you mention, but was the "evening before" on the Panama Canal cruise that I quoted, or the next cruise? But, yes, if the blades are available (some ships carry a spare set on the bow), then it would be just a couple of days to replace the blades by diver.

Does your car give you hints before it breaks down? 😉

I've got the livestream open on my toolbar, and look in several times a day, but don't spend too much time on it.

Considering that Oasis of the Seas, at 225,000 GT only weighs (displacement) about 100,000 metric tons (did they actually say "long tons", because about the only ships in the world that still measure deadweight or displacement in long tons are US government vessels). While there is no direct correlation between displacement and gross tonnage (particularly when comparing two dissimilar types of ships like container ships and cruise ships), comparing cruise ship to cruise ship will give a "good enough" approximation. With Vision (78,000 GT) and Legend (88,000 GT) being the ships in question, I would estimate that they displace no more than 35-45,000 metric tons (close to long tons). Ships will almost definitely have tugs while transiting the salvage area for the reasons you give regarding wind and tide. Speed will also be limited, as this limits the "canal" effect of a large ship in a small channel displacing all of the water in the channel (the argument against large cruise ships in Venice's canals) that could move the Dali, and the slower the ship is moving, the less effective the rudder is, so making tugs even more required. One of the main objects of this early opening of the temporary channel is to get the ships trapped in Baltimore out, as most of these will be empty, so easily meeting the tonnage limitation. As you say, cruises will not return to Baltimore until the Dali is moved, if for no other reason than the cruise terminal is the command center for the operation, and won't be closed down until after the Dali is moved.

If the vessel is "in distress" in the cruise ship Captain's opinion, and that vessel is requesting aid, then the cruise ship has a responsibility to give aid. Now, that responsibility is tempered by the cruise ship Captain's responsibility that giving that aid not endanger the ship, cargo, crew, passengers, or the environment. In most cases, the Captain will notify the nation who has agreed to provide SAR responsibility to the area (like the USCG for most of the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Sea), and that government agency will advise the Captain on what measures should be taken (stand by and observe the vessel, take the people onboard the ship, etc), and what response the agency will provide (sending a cutter, or taking the people on a cutter at a later time, etc). The Captain can then decide what he/she wants to do (the ISM convention gives the Captain "overriding authority" in making decisions that affect the safety of the ship, cargo, crew, passengers, and environment, meaning that neither the USCG nor the cruise line corporate officers can second guess that decision, especially if it conforms to all of the ISM mandated SMS (Safety Management System) that the cruise line has promulgated. The limitations placed on giving aid that I mentioned above (not risking the safety of the rescuing vessel) is one of the things that laymen that "know" of the "requirement of the sea to give aid" have never heard of. Frankly, I'm surprised at the photos posted above of a refugee boat being brought into a tender port with multiple people onboard. More typical, from a vessel security standpoint is to send a rescue boat or lifeboat to the refugees boat (having instructed it to stand away from the ship), and bring the refugees back to the ship one at a time, for searching and identifying. As John Heald noted, refugees are always under constant security watch while on the ship.

Not sure what you'd like me to comment on. While I don't do social media, or John Heald, I saw an article that he was getting some rather xenophobic posts about this rescue, with passengers complaining that it happened, or saying "leave them be, it was their choice". Americans, as a nation of immigrants (nearly everyone's family started out somewhere else, mine came to the colonies in the early 1600's), really amaze me with their intolerance of others.

Innocent passage also has defined actions that are not allowed, and anchoring is one of them. So, if the ship anchors within territorial waters, it is no longer on "innocent passage".

Well, I mean do you want to see a website that says 25 ships entered the US this week, and 23 reported no cases of GI illness, and one had 1 case, and one had 30 cases, or just show the one ship that had 30 cases. The USPH's mandate is to prevent the introduction of infectious disease into the US, not reporting, or even protecting, the health of passengers on cruise ships. We all know that noro is already in the US, and one or two cases out of a couple thousand people entering the US isn't much call for alarm, but if a hundred out of those couple thousand are ill, then you have a possible "super spreader" scenario where those people can go home and spread this far and wide. They set a threshold limit for where they feel that remediation measures need to be increased to prevent that large number of people getting ill and re-entering the US, and those limits are where the reporting is. As long as a ship is following the VSP program, they are free from health inspection every cruise, which is what happens to cargo ships, etc, that don't have the VSP to follow. Imagine the headaches if USPH came aboard every week to inspect the ship and conduct health interviews with a hundred passengers before allowing passengers to disembark.

Nothing, never said there was. It is just that a MI flag ship (like Pearl Mist) has significant operating cost and tax benefits doing a Canadian and US itinerary over a US flag ship. Just as a US flag ship could do a Caribbean cruise itinerary, but would have competitive drawbacks compared to their foreign flag rivals. I expect that ACL will use US flag vessels on the Great Lakes, simply because it will give them flexibility in itineraries.

Never. If the number of cases changes from the initial report before arrival in US, if the numbers are below the threshold limits, those reports are not published either. The only reports that become public knowledge are the update reports at the 2% and 3% thresholds. These most commonly lag about a week behind.

Because your trip starts in a foreign country (Canada), and ends in the US, it is a foreign voyage, and not subject to the PVSA. PVSA is only concerned with domestic voyages, ones that start and end in a US port. Yes, your cruise would be legal for a US flag ship, again because it is a foreign voyage. The advantage that a US flag ship would have is to be able to sail a cruise that only includes US ports (no Canadian ports), or one that started in one US port and ended in another US port, whether or not it included a Canadian port. It is far more costly to operate a US flag vessel than a Marshall Island flag vessel, which is why Pearl Cruises has flagged the Mist there. Because she was built in Canada, that gives the ship an advantage in becoming Canadian flag, which is also much more expensive than MI flag, but would allow the ship to cruise exclusively Canadian ports, just like the PVSA allows US flag ships to cruise exclusively US ports.