Ryndam Russian Roulette

According to this link with accompanying documents, SOLAS requirements are for 75% (37.5% each side) coverage with life boats (covered or uncovered), and 25% additional coverage with life rafts. That is as of 2010. So the regs require 1 spot in a life boat or life raft for each person on board, no excess capacity is required by the regs.

According to the report on the Volendam incident where a crew member was killed when a lifeboat fall line snapped (I can't get google to let me properly copy the link out to put it here, but it's easily findable by googling "Marine Inquiry 11-201 Volendam"), the Volendam was certified at launch for 620 crew and 1805 passengers (2425 total). She "was fitted with 14 motor lifeboats accommodating 1920 persons, 16 davit-launched life rafts accommodating 560 persons and 18 life rafts accommodating 630 persons." While she is certified for 2425 people, the "Ship Facts" on the HAL site list her as 1432 passengers and 615 crew, for a fully loaded ship carrying 2047 people. This would put her lifeboat capacity at 93.8% coverage, and overall coverage at 151.9%. While these aren't the numbers for the Ryndam, the Volendam's were easily findable, and the two ships are close in size and passenger capacity.

If HAL runs all the ships at similar numbers, then losing a lifeboat still puts them well within regulations. While I think it is scandalous that the regs allow only 100% overall coverage, it is comforting to know that overcapacity is there.

What is "a completely different situation" supposed to mean? The Concordia sank and 3 of the 26 lifeboats failed to launch. There goes your extra capacity. The fact is that several passenger had to swim for the shore. Now imagine what would have happened if lifeboats were missing.

The extra capacity is a safety margin for when things go wrong, and nothing makes things go wrong like an emergency situation with just a few minutes to spare. Drills often assume that everything is nominal and orderly. In the case of the Concordia the ship was listing badly, a lot of time was wasted and it didn't help matters to have the captain running off in a lifeboat.

igraf

The Costa Concordia was a completely different situation and without saying too much, from people in the industry I know and that the safety of that line is not up to HAL's standards.

 

Also, from people who actually work on HAL ships, there are more than enough lifeboat space for all the passengers in the event the ship has to be evacuated. Even if it means using the inflatable life rafts for passengers.

 

From my own personal experience watching emergency drills (held when most passengers are ashore), I know HAL drills all kinds of possible situations and several times I know at least half of the lifeboats were unavailable for use in an evacuation situation. They know what they're doing and everyone knows what to do in case something is different from the way passengers rehearsed it in lifeboat drill.

I don't think this is that uncommon of an occurrence. We had the same thing happen when we were on the Westerdam in 2011. It was actually one of the tenders in this case, but it was the boat we were assigned to. Explanation was that they were doing maintenance on it and we would be assigned a different boat in an emergency. Fine by me, but still strange to look up at the muster and not have a life boat over your head.

According to this link with accompanying documents, SOLAS requirements are for 75% (37.5% each side) coverage with life boats (covered or uncovered), and 25% additional coverage with life rafts. That is as of 2010. So the regs require 1 spot in a life boat or life raft for each person on board, no excess capacity is required by the regs.

 

According to the report on the Volendam incident where a crew member was killed when a lifeboat fall line snapped (I can't get google to let me properly copy the link out to put it here, but it's easily findable by googling "Marine Inquiry 11-201 Volendam"), the Volendam was certified at launch for 620 crew and 1805 passengers (2425 total). She "was fitted with 14 motor lifeboats accommodating 1920 persons, 16 davit-launched life rafts accommodating 560 persons and 18 life rafts accommodating 630 persons." While she is certified for 2425 people, the "Ship Facts" on the HAL site list her as 1432 passengers and 615 crew, for a fully loaded ship carrying 2047 people. This would put her lifeboat capacity at 93.8% coverage, and overall coverage at 151.9%. While these aren't the numbers for the Ryndam, the Volendam's were easily findable, and the two ships are close in size and passenger capacity.

 

If HAL runs all the ships at similar numbers, then losing a lifeboat still puts them well within regulations. While I think it is scandalous that the regs allow only 100% overall coverage, it is comforting to know that overcapacity is there.

The Volendam crew member was killed while doing routine maintenance work on a lifeboat, while berthed in Lyttelton Harbour, January 8th,2011.

He was not wearing a life-jacket and could not swim.

One of the wires suspending the lifeboat to the ship snapped, leaving the boat dangling and throwing both men into the water below, the second crew member working on the lifeboat survived and gave evidence which was reported at the Coroners enquiry.

What is "a completely different situation" supposed to mean? The Concordia sank and 3 of the 26 lifeboats failed to launch. There goes your extra capacity. The fact is that several passenger had to swim for the shore. Now imagine what would have happened if lifeboats were missing.

 

The extra capacity is a safety margin for when things go wrong, and nothing makes things go wrong like an emergency situation with just a few minutes to spare. Drills often assume that everything is nominal and orderly. In the case of the Concordia the ship was listing badly, a lot of time was wasted and it didn't help matters to have the captain running off in a lifeboat.

 

igraf

One thing that people are failing to take into consideration when citing the Costa Concordia incident. The captain deserted his post and the crew was left without direction. It is also my understanding that the "life boat muster" left a great deal to be desired.

HAL takes pride in making sure passengers attend the muster, are well informed of what to do in case of an emergency AND the crew's training is of a higher quality.

I also believe that HAL would not let a ship sail unless they were absolutely sure there was MORE than enough seats in the "life boats" for all persons on board.

It seems as if this post is dissolving into an argument over semantics. The OP was concerned about there not being a life boat at his station. He was told he would be assigned another boat "should the occasion arise. That is where it should have ended.

Okie1946

An example of what I'm talking about. Oasis of the Seas has a lifeboat capacity of around 6600 (thereabouts). On her initial crossing, she hit 45' seas and the forward lifeboats were heavily damaged. For several months, until those lifeboats were fixed and modifications were made to the hull to protect them, OAS had to limit passenger numbers to around 5900 (thereabouts).

That was exactly what I was thinking about when I read the OP. You do make a good point - a point many here can't realize.

Straight from the US Coast Guard in plain english:

"What kind of survival craft are cruise ships required to have and how many?"

All Cruise ships will have a total aggregate survival craft capacity to accommodate no less than 125% of the total persons onboard. This is accomplished by life boats, life rafts, and marine evacuation systems.

Posted here: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/csncoe/publicaffairs.asp

So if a lifeboat IS missing, the remaining lifeboats/rafts STILL must have a capacity not less than 125% the number of souls on board.

Straight from the US Coast Guard in plain english:

 

"What kind of survival craft are cruise ships required to have and how many?"

 

All Cruise ships will have a total aggregate survival craft capacity to accommodate no less than 125% of the total persons onboard. This is accomplished by life boats, life rafts, and marine evacuation systems.

 

Posted here: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/csncoe/publicaffairs.asp

 

So if a lifeboat IS missing, the remaining lifeboats/rafts STILL must have a capacity not less than 125% the number of souls on board.

Exactly! A routine issue for HAL, and why they build in redundancy by assigning less passengers/crew to each lifeboat than its nominal capacity.

We also had the occurrence of attending muster drill and found the lifeboat at that muster station missing, Maasdam 2006. Upon boarding and arrival in our cabin we found a letter explaining this in advance of the muster drill which said that the lifeboat was out for maintenance. It was good to know that the lifeboats are routinely checked, exercised and sent for maintenance if needed. The letter assured us that there was more than enough evacuation capacity for all onboard.

What got my attention was when I noticed how tight the seating is expected to be and then noticing that a great many of the passengers seemed larger than the allocated seat space. There was a crash of a small commuter aircraft several years ago that was partially blamed on being overloaded. At that time a passenger's weight was estimated at 160 pounds. That's a rather light estimate and that system has been changed. But the painted seats on the lifeboats haven't been changed to be a more realistic reflection the passenger complement.

Regarding Concordia, IIRC, that voyage did not have a muster drill which was scheduled for the next day, within the 24 hr requirement in effect at the time. Now I believe that requirement has been tightened to have muster drill before sailing. m--

That was exactly what I was thinking about when I read the OP. You do make a good point - a point many here can't realize.

Thanks Gina. You get it. You always do. ;) That's ok...people like your husband and me exist so the others don't have to worry about the details. :)

On our recent (3 weeks ago) Alaska cruise on the Oosterdam we were informed by the captain that we would be dropping off a lifeboat for maintenance at one of the ports -- sorry, I don't remember which one. This is done routinely, apparently, one lifeboat at a time. We were also told not to worry there was plenty of lifeboat capacity for everyone if the need should arise. It did not. :)