chengkp75

Any helicopter evacuation from a ship at sea is done free of charge to the patient. The US has agreed under the UN's SAR (search and rescue) convention to take responsibility for SAR missions around our coasts, and most of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, and under the SAR convention, this service is provided free. "Evacuation" insurance does not cover evacuation from the ship, only from whatever land hospital you were evacuated to, to a hospital of your choice in your home town. And, in fact, sending a Coast Guard cutter to make an evacuation is free as well, as is sending a police or pilot boat for a close in evacuation.

Yes, the ship's Captain, the ship's doctor, the flight crew, and the, in this case, Air Force flight surgeon made the decision that the risk of winching the patient, and spending a couple of hours in a helicopter with marginal life support systems (even though it is a fully equipped medevac helicopter), outweighed the additional time with the life support systems of the ship to get closer. The patient apparently had a perforated bowel, and time was critical. And, if this had been anywhere else in the world, it would have waited for the ship to get closer to land, taking more time, to send out a helicopter, as almost no one on earth has aerial refueling helicopters besides the US.

Coast Guard helicopters cannot refuel in flight. That is why the Air Force was tasked with the long range mission on Venezia, because they have the capability of inflight refueling.

Virtually no helicopter evacuation from a ship at sea will be done by anything other than the military (or coast guard) using military type equipment. The reason the helicopter came back alongside the ship, is that the flight crew want to avoid a catastrophe if a problem happens to the helicopter, so it doesn't go down on the ship. Also, the thermals over the ship from the ship's funnels makes it hard to maintain a good hover, requiring lots of concentration, so minimizing the time hovering over the ship is logical. The only time those helipads on the bow of cruise ships are used is when the seas are absolutely glass calm. Since the ship needs to keep moving to head into seas to minimize motion, the helicopter needs to maintain a "moving hover" (hovering stationary over a moving spot), with the high front of the ship heading right into the cockpit window. Most evacuations happen on the top deck, roughly midships.

I'm not sure that it is a passport "sampling" that randomizes the scrutiny, but I know that CBPS gives each agent quite a bit of latitude when determining action. As noted, Regent will not get involved (it's not their business), and he may not be allowed on the train to the Yukon, or he may, upon disembarking in Vancouver, be escorted by CBPS to his flight. Or, nothing may happen.

Regatta 8/25 Nautica 2/25 Insignia 12/24 Sirena 10/24 Marina 5/24 (but this may just be an in-water survey) Riviera 12/25

But, what were the vetting requirements set by NCL? Does it have a mental health investigation, and what does that cover? Does it have a "temper" clause? And, NCL has the right to turn down any crew member before they even travel to the ship.

It's never been even a tradition that the Captain must die with the ship. In the days of sailing ships, the Master was very often a part owner, and so could be sued by the cargo owners for the value of the lost cargo. Even when not an owner, the Master was personally responsible to the owners for the value of the ship and cargo. So, when a ship went down, some decided that rather than face debtor's prison, it was better to just die with the ship. Conscious decision, not a tradition. It was more treated as "the Captain must ensure that all passengers and crew are safely away from the ship, but in doing so, he risks not being able to get away himself".

South African, I was incorrect before. But, still, nope. If the person met the requirements of the contract between NCL and the crewing agency, there is nothing NCL can do about it.

Yes, the crew are not getting anything extra for being hired by the ship management company. And, while Viking is paying a fee to Wilhelmsen for managing the ship, they have found that, as you say, Wilhelmsen can do it better, for less money (less Viking shore payroll offsets the Wilhelmsen fee). In fact, Wilhelmsen does the payroll for crew as well, but the pay rates are set by Viking, either by market forces or by collective bargaining agreements in the crew's home country.

Not really. Viking places certain expectations of quality, professionalism, and service on the management company, and if these are not met, then if the problem is with a crew member or officer, they are replaced at Viking's request. If the problem is endemic, then the management company can find itself being replaced.

Not a law, but a requirement to meet the US USPH/CDC Vessel Sanitation Program. Interestingly enough, the EU's ShipSan program, while similar, allows swim diapers in pools.

Virtually all ships' crews, on all vessels around the world are hired by the shipowners through manning agencies in the home countries of the crew. Shipowners find this practice very efficient, as the company does not need to keep a large personnel department, with contacts in many countries, but relies on the crewing agencies to have large pools of candidates available at all times. In the US, crew are hired through unions, for the much the same reasons, the union is responsible for maintaining the pool of mariners, not the company.

Still doesn't answer why whether they are employed by Viking or by Wilhelmsen it would affect your evaluation of them.

Now, which officers are you referring to, and what have they not done to your satisfaction? Interested to know, as again, noted that there is an operational break between technical and hotel.