chengkp75

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.

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.

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

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

And, if you weren't aware that the law existed, i.e. before you heard about it on this thread, would you have made the "easy" google search in the first place?

Frankly, I went back and looked at the photos, and don't see any evidence of coral reefs anywhere near the ship. I see sand stirred up by the propellers, and I see lighter blue water mixed with that brown, sandy water, where the change in color is caused by the aeration of the water by the propellers. While I don't know the underwater geography of the Na Pali coast, in particular where this incident happened, again, I don't see any evidence of reefing. Now, the seabed is likely covered in coral, and stirring up the sand probably didn't do that any good, but to say that there are "reefs" in the area, of a sufficient age to be strong enough to harm a ship (as opposed to a ship breaking off a high growing fan coral) is pure speculation.

No, but there are some cruises that just do Australian ports, that are homeported there, and these ships have to apply for licenses to operate there, and they have to hire a percentage of crew from Australia.

What is being stated is basically what the SMS requires of bridge team management and passage planning. While the 24 hours may apply to cruise ships, where they are in port every day, it is not common on long passages, where the route is set at the beginning of the passage, and unless there are required deviations from that original plan, the plan isn't "signed off" except at the beginning. I will also disagree that the route planning is sent to corporate after signing off, when in fact it is done generally again at the beginning of the passage, after the Master has approved it, but before it is discussed with the bridge team. That way, corporate gets a vote on it, before it becomes "law" by being signed by the bridge team. That, at least, has been my experience in 30 years of operating under the ISM (note that the Chief Engineer has to be notified of the passage plan, and sign his/her acknowledgement as well as the bridge team).

Australia does, but the both the Navigation Act of 1912 and the Coastal Trading Act of 2012 allow for the granting of licenses to foreign flag ships to operate in Australian waters. I believe in 2016, the government moved to simplify the regulations regarding these licenses (used to be for 12 months, and specified number of voyages, and each voyage had to be approved in advance), but I don't know if the CTA was repealed or not. Brazil will do this also, but again for limited time periods subject to renewal.

Yes, Japan, like many nations, have cabotage laws similar to the US's PVSA that makes it mandatory that the foreign flag ship visit at least one foreign port. In fact, 91 nations, accounting for 80% of the world's coastline, have maritime cabotage laws.

As I said earlier, yes he was removed from the ship for PR reasons. He was not fired, nor did he lose his Master's license. I don't have the articles at my fingertips, but it was widely talked about in the media that RCI acknowledged that their weather reporting and heavy weather passage decision making processes were faulty, and were being changed. Remember the announcement that they were hiring a corporate weatherman? This is tacit acknowledgement that the Captain did nothing wrong, and that the SMS was at fault. If he had been fired for following the policies and procedures, as written at the time, he would have been within his rights to sue for false dismissal. And, talk that the crew discuss with passengers is rarely reliable. I can't, and neither can you, which is why I won't question the safety of this operation. Neither one of us was there. This happens in nearly every port the ship goes into. How close does the ship come to docks and other ships in port? How deep is the water there? How many times has the Captain brought his ship into and out of port, where things are shallow and passages narrow? And, before you say it, I am perfectly aware of the Master/pilot relationship, and how it works, and who is in charge. And, for example, the Captains on the NCL POA all have pilotage for all the ports in Hawaii, and never take a pilot onboard. Again, if you don't have any experience in handling a ship like this, you have no basis for judging someone who does.

Then you are in the minority of US cruise passengers.

I, and most Captains I know would disagree with this. What is your basis of information on this? This was not a "marine incident", since there was no damage to the ship, or injury to a person, so this would fall under Hawaiian jurisdiction, not USCG, and since this is a state created protected zone, I don't believe EPA would be involved either. Unless you were there, and have experience in ship handling, this is pure speculation Nothing happened to the Captain, RCI did amend their SMS to improve the decision making chain regarding operating in heavy weather. And, he didn't burn out an azipod, he wore out the clutches on the azimuthing gear, so the azipod was harder to keep on track. And, frankly, 30 foot seas are not all that dangerous. 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. I tend to agree with this. Many passengers feel that the "best" Captains are the ones that are out and about with the passengers all the time, schmoozing. Personally, I feel that the best Captains are those who spend the vast majority of their time with the crew, getting to know them, and encouraging the crew to perform at their best for the passengers, as personal leadership results in the best performance of subordinates. And, the Captain's job is to get the crew to perform at their best, not to hang out with the passengers.

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.