chengkp75

Yes, as long as you are not expecting the full protections and rights of US law, then by all means embrace foreign flag ships.

The lava stopped flowing to the ocean several years ago, so the sail by was stopped.

Not comparing depth and bottom composition at all. NCL's ships were operating on the edge as far as whether we could keep the lights on, and hence propulsion to keep us off the shore. If the engines had overheated, there would not have been any "restarting" power, as the cooling system is common to all engines, and once overheated, and without power to run the pumps, not circulating, it will take hours to cool off enough to run an engine again.

Reality sucks, when it smacks you right between the eyes. As I've said many times, Marad has shown that it costs three times as much to operate a US flag ship over a foreign flag one (and that is for a cargo ship, let alone a cruise ship). And, this shows why cruise lines are not pushing for repeal of the PVSA, as they are afraid the concessions they have to make to get the repeal would force them into some of these costly requirements that US flag ships have to meet.

These small ships dock in the Inner Harbor. I now see that American Glory is already at Pier 5, so Independence was not the first.

Welcome to US flag shipping.

Don't know if it's the first, but I see American Cruise Line's American Independence using the temporary channels to reach Baltimore, so cruises have returned to Baltimore.

And, if I read the regulation correctly, there can be no competent Canadian mariners available before they can issue certificates to foreigners.

Andy, help me out here. I can't remember enough about the DPA communication tree as to whether or not it is the Master's responsibility or the DPA's to notify local national maritime authorities of an incident (short of a Mayday, as you say). I seem to think that it falls to the DPA to notify coast guard, as the Master is busy dealing with the emergency.

Not sure what "beach day at Lahaina" you are referring to? But, if there was nothing in the SMS that precluded taking the ship this close to the Na Pali coast, then yes, it is standard procedure. If there was a missed note on a chart or sailing directions posted by NOAA and USCG, then there would have been a failure to follow procedures, most notably on the part of the navigation officer (the Captain relies on the navigator to provide him/her with all the pertinent details), and there will be amended procedures to double check charts for accuracy, and changes to improve passage planning. If you mean a day in Lahaina instead of the Na Pali sail by, then it is more likely that it is a change to allow local tempers to cool down, and also since they can't provide what they I guess promised in the Na Pali coast, they decided to change the itinerary. But, it in no way assigns blame to the Captain for any actions, and there will be a investigation both onboard and at corporate headquarters (since the company as a whole has to follow the SMS, just like the ships) before any cause is determined as to why this happened. I agree that it is a breakdown in procedure, but that is no one person's fault, it is a corporate problem, and needs to be corrected at the corporate level. Without knowing the exact circumstances of where exactly the ship was, and what the environmental conditions were at the time, I can't agree with the "breakdown of common sense" comment. As noted, NCL used to operate on the edge in giving the passengers a good view of the lava flows in the past. Was this against common sense? Not necessarily, we had mitigation measures in place, and were constantly revising those as we gained experience.

And, for those commenting on how accurate ship's equipment is, remember that maritime GPS, depending on satellite coverage at the location, is only accurate within about 15-25 meters (50-80 feet), 95% of the time.

Correct, these are not pilotage waters. When I worked for NCL, we used to stop on the Big Island's south shore to view the lava flow into the ocean, but never got closer than half a mile (3000 feet), and our time to stop and spin was limited due to the high water temperature causing the engines to overheat. We were in deep water, though.

This is precisely why a root cause investigation does not assign any blame, or suspicion of blame. It is found that when participants know that there will be no blame assigned, they are more likely to give truthful recounting of the facts of the incident. As I said, the "root cause" or "ISM" culture is designed to fix the problem, by making it almost impossible to have the same incident happen again. Assigning blame, firing a Captain, doesn't do that. Again, if the Captain followed SMS policies and procedures, he is not to blame, the SMS system is, and needs to be revised.

This is known as the "swiss cheese" model of accident causation. While there may be a lot of "holes" (wrong decisions or actions) in the "cheese" (the ship's operations), only if all the holes line up (contribute to one another) do you have a straight path to the disastrous result.

Okay, whole lot to unpack here, so I'll open this thread twice to try to answer things in order. Apologies for not listed answers by username. Lazy. Post #9: Yes, a passage plan must be made, and submitted to corporate showing the ships exact, planned routing, but this is typically done for just a couple of ports ahead of time, as the time from each port to the next is a separate "passage". Not to have found the note on the chart regarding the protection zone (and if it's not on the chart it is in the "notice to mariners" or sailing directions publications) is a failure from the navigating officer (who prepares the passage plan) to the Marine Superintendent ashore who reviews it, though the vast amount of responsibility lies with the onboard staff: Navigating Officer, First Officer, Staff Captain, Captain. #16: I see, from a professional mariner's viewpoint, the very close correlation between the Costa Concordia and this incident. Both were dangerous, and both were "uncalled for" PR stunts. One went horribly bad, one got lucky. #18: I don't know the chart, but it likely was not delineated on the chart, but was noted in fine print in the title corner of the chart, and was likely overlooked. Still no excuse. #24: You are correct. The investigation will almost certainly be of an ISM (International Safety Management Code) type, where the assigning of "blame" is not considered, but the finding of the root cause of the incident is of primary importance, so that policies and procedures can be amended to prevent it from happening again. For all those calling for, or speculating on, the Captain being relieved because of this, again, that is not what an ISM investigation does. Almost regardless of the outcome of any incident, if the Captain, or any officer or crew, are found to have followed the company's SMS (Safety Management System, that is created by the ISM) policies and procedures, however flawed those turn out to be, then no blame is assigned against him. The only time a Captain would come under censure would be if he failed to follow the SMS policies and procedures. Even in the case of the RCI Captain on Anthem (I believe) that is mentioned here, was found to not have violated SMS procedures, and is not an ex-Captain, he was however, relieved for PR reasons, to be reassigned later. #45: This is perhaps the most disturbing part of this thread. If the Captain took this light-hearted approach to this incident, that is indeed worrisome. #52: While the Captain may not have started the cruise, apparently weeks before, it is his responsibility to review the passage plan, prior to each passage (i.e. before the ship left port to sail to the Na Pali coast) with the bridge team. #58: What is the date on the NOAA chart? NOAA has started phasing out printing paper charts, back in 2021, so not sure when that chart was last published. Navigating officers spend most of their days taking the "Notice to Mariners" updates and making corrections to the paper charts, and then noting on the chart the last date it was updated. Various posters: If the depth was as reported in this thread (no confirmation), then there was sufficient under keel clearance, but as others have noted, things change in the ocean. One important note that is always on a chart, is the last date the area was surveyed, meaning the depths could change wildly (I've seen charts that casually mention that the area has not been surveyed (sonar mapping) in over 50 years). #76: No one said they drove the ship at high speed into shallow water. Just the fact they are shown using bow thrusters, shows the ship was stopped, or nearly so, as thrusters lose effectiveness above 3-5 knots. Depths do change over time, and even when charted, the bottom profile is not a continuous map, but a series of data points that is extrapolated (educated guess) between. As for depth sounder alarms, typically these are set for the minimum under keel clearance set forth by the company's SMS (for a ship this size, likely 2 meters) #99: By "rare and expensive" equipment that sees the depth ahead of the ship, I'm assuming you mean side scan sonar? Because that is the only technology that does this, and I can assure you that even your highly regarded Edge does not have this. I'm bothered that this happened in the first place, as the damage that can be done by a ship in shallow water to delicate underwater ecosystems is great (though this instance is probably less destructive than anchoring), but hope that this leads to changes in Celebrity's SMS to prevent it happening again. I am also bothered by the Captain's lack of contriteness in discussing the incident, and apparent lack of concern for the why of the violation. That may, in the end, get him into more trouble with Celebrity than the actual violation.