Senator Nelson calls for NTSB to investigate Anthems Feb 7 sailing.

That's not the question needing to be asked. The question that needs to be asked is why a federal lawmaker doesn't know the law? The NTSB has no jurisdiction over a foreign flag ship operating in international waters. Even if they did have jurisdiction, there was no loss of life, or serious injuries, so what is to investigate. Peruse my posts on the various Anthem storm and investigation threads for more.

There you go, confusing the issue with logic and facts again.:rolleyes:

Every time there is a significant transportation incident, there should be an investigation of some sort. I don't think this one warrants any special investigative commission or anything like that, but it would be absurd not to investigate this incident and learn from it.

(Not sure NTSB has any jurisdiction on this, though.)

I think that someone does need to investigate why that Captain put them in that situation

I would implore RCI to do an internal investigation into the circumstances, pre-knowledge, and decisions made. That's only prudent for any passenger carrier dealing with quality and control.

However, I do not support government involvement. There was no loss of life or serious injury, and the ship is safe. There are several conduits for US jurisdiction on cruise ships, but I'm not seeing it in this case.

NOAA isn't blaming anybody or saying they screwed up. They said that they issued an advisory that winds may go from 63 to 75 mph. If the winds had been at the level predicted there most likely would not have been any issues with the ship or the cruise continuing on. Even the "weather experts" talk of how quickly this storm developed into something much larger and stronger than predicted. Yes they knew there was a storm and went anyway. The storm was not supposed to be that large and it seemed they could avoid the main portion of the originally predicted storm.

Thank goodness for a sensible, well worded and reasonable post!

THANK YOU!

You can't control the weather. Even though the Government would like to...

Doesn't have anything to do with controlling the weather. The question should be as to why the ship was "allowed" to enter the path of a severe storm which was forecast days in advance to be a dangerous storm.

That's not the question needing to be asked. The question that needs to be asked is why a federal lawmaker doesn't know the law?

Of course you know this answer. The request has nothing to do with any points of law (he may even know the law quite well). The reason is all about politics and be the first to get the soundbite.

As you have read (and accurately responded) comments in CC, it should be obvious that some "want heads". By asking for an investigation (even if he is fully aware that one won't actually occur), he appeases constituents that want those heads.

NOAA isn't blaming anybody or saying they screwed up. They said that they issued an advisory that winds may go from 63 to 75 mph. If the winds had been at the level predicted there most likely would not have been any issues with the ship or the cruise continuing on. Even the "weather experts" talk of how quickly this storm developed into something much larger and stronger than predicted. Yes they knew there was a storm and went anyway. The storm was not supposed to be that large and it seemed they could avoid the main portion of the originally predicted storm.

Exactly, I don't understand why people are not getting this point. Yes, everyone knew there was going to be a storm. They did not know at the point they left Bayonne, it was going to blow up on Sunday and go through bombogenesis and intensify so rapidly, by that time I guess there was little they could do since the storm became so big and powerful and they just happened to be going through it at that time.

I live in the tri-state area. I can watch 5 different meteorologists and get 5 different forecasts.

i can come up with about a million better uses of our resources and tax money than investigating a cruise ship event that resulted in no serious injury and no loss of life.

this time !

this time !

I'm sure if The Bahamas, the nation with jurisdiction over the ship, requests NTSB assistance, they will be happy to assist.

As one other poster on the locked thread stated, some cruise lines will have internal procedures for inspecting (by the Chief) certain areas of known high stress, from the design stage. If there is no visible damage at these points, there is no legal requirement, nor a class requirement to have a drydock. They could have divers do an inspection, but there is not likely to be any damage done to the pods, thrusters, or stabilizers.

 

The damage you mention on the QE2 was damage to plating. The only reason this was repaired was for cosmetics. Generally, if plating is deformed in a gradual way (in other words it curves inwards from the framework on all four sides), there is no reason to ever renew it. Even when there is a marked crease, there are standards of how much deflection per inch is allowed, and unless frames are bent or tripped, again no reason to repair. I really doubt there is any damage whatsoever to the hull below the waterline, as it does not see the impact force that bow plating sees in this kind of storm, which is what deforms steel.

 

Unless a pod or thruster has started leaking oil, and weathering a storm does not usually initiate something like this, there is no need to drydock the ship. Even a leaking thruster can be repaired in the water, while in service. I did this on my ship in Hawaii, where the divers took the thruster apart during port stays, and lashed everything back in the tunnel to get underway. It took about a week to do it this way, but kept the ship in service.

I sort of set you up for that answer, Cheng. :D You said nothing I didn't already know. I mean if a ship "drops" a prop blade, does it need to go into dry dock to replace it. Not usually. Ever see the beautiful "sculptures" near the bow on QM2?

Seriously how many older ships have we seen with some dented plating? Indeed, you can inspect from inside the ship. We do the same with airplanes internally (mostly looking for corrosion or cracks), but dents we need to remove to maintain aerodynamics.

I still say the Anthem sails on schedule Saturday.

Always great to hear your knowledge and thoughts here my good man. :)

Lead story on USAToday website now: "Meteorologists: Royal Caribbean blew it sailing into storm"

No, meteorologists blew it, and did not predict what "might" occur, and it did.

In fact it would have taken them by surprise as it did the captain. Watch the captain's video and explanation of what actually did happen. What he sailed towards was a fraction of the size and power that it later became when it exploded around the ship.

Seriously, if you do not want to have a ship sail anywhere near a storm, and hide in port instead, then you should probably not be cruising.

That's not the question needing to be asked. The question that needs to be asked is why a federal lawmaker doesn't know the law? The NTSB has no jurisdiction over a foreign flag ship operating in international waters. Even if they did have jurisdiction, there was no loss of life, or serious injuries, so what is to investigate. Peruse my posts on the various Anthem storm and investigation threads for more.

How could even the most enthusiastic cruiser be so dense? Whoever put the ship, crew, and passengers in harm's way should be investigated and held accountable for this potentially fatal decision. I'd like to know exactly who made the final decision to go, corporate or the captain. Was due diligence concerning rough weather done before sailing? Facts need to come out to protect the public against negligence. . A NTSB hearing is not just appropriate, but mandatory!

I'm sure if The Bahamas, the nation with jurisdiction over the ship, requests NTSB assistance, they will be happy to assist.

That is highly, highly, highly unlikely to happen. No accident, no major damage, no deaths, no NTSB. The NTSB is not going to be sending a "go team" to this nothing of an accident.

Please, know your facts before making such comments.

I think that someone does need to investigate why that Captain put them in that situation

I agree!

How could even the most enthusiastic cruiser be so dense? Whoever put the ship, crew, and passengers in harm's way should be investigated and held accountable for this potentially fatal decision. I'd like to know exactly who made the final decision to go, corporate or the captain. Was due diligence concerning rough weather done before sailing? Facts need to come out to protect the public against negligence. . A NTSB hearing is not just appropriate, but mandatory!

LOL!!! It is out of the NTSB's authority to do such. Why cannot some people understand this. Inquiring minds want to know. :cool:

Then again, why should some folks confuse themselves with reality and facts, when they have already made up their minds to the contrary.

I would implore RCI to do an internal investigation into the circumstances, pre-knowledge, and decisions made. That's only prudent for any passenger carrier dealing with quality and control.

 

However, I do not support government involvement. There was no loss of life or serious injury, and the ship is safe. There are several conduits for US jurisdiction on cruise ships, but I'm not seeing it in this case.

Most likely there will be a review of the ISM system internally, to see whether industry best practices (including those provided by the USCG Cruise Ship National Center of Expertise) are met by the existing ISM, or whether it needs revision, and whether all aspects of the ISM for sailing into inclement weather were followed. That will then need to go to the class society and flag state, in many cases.

That is highly, highly, highly unlikely to happen. No accident, no major damage, no deaths, no NTSB. The NTSB is not going to be sending a "go team" to this nothing of an accident.

 

Please, know your facts before making such comments.

Know my facts? :eek:

Oh, boy.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since maritime investigations is my field of expertise, not yours. So do me a favor. Go research NTSB jurisdiction and their abilities to assist foreign nations, come back, and then we'll talk.

The Anthem of the Seas just sailed through a storm that no ship with 5k people should reasonably sail through. It is very reasonable to ask the NTSB to investigate what happened to ensure that there wasn't anything missed throughout the process, and whether or not the course of action, be it in error or in line with the industry standard, was appropriate.

There should be an investigation because there is always something to learn from events like this. That doesn't mean that they should investigate with the sole intention of sanctioning RCI or bringing criminal charges against the captain or crew. But they should investigate to ensure proper procedures were followed, and if so, if there isn't anything that can be done to amend the procedures to avoid situations like this again.

Know my facts? :eek:

 

Oh, boy.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since maritime investigations is my field of expertise, not yours. So do me a favor. Go research NTSB jurisdiction and their abilities to assist foreign nations, come back, and then we'll talk.

Aquahound, I see it your way. Perhaps Loubetti didn't see that it was you posting as he is usually in agreement with you.:confused:

Know my facts? :eek:

 

Oh, boy.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since maritime investigations is my field of expertise, not yours. So do me a favor. Go research NTSB jurisdiction and their abilities to assist foreign nations, come back, and then we'll talk.

I don't see what that has to do with this, Aquahound. Assisting a foreign nation is not the same as initiating an investigation. So, though they certainly are allowed to assist foreign nations with transportation investigations, that says nothing about their authority to insert themselves into an investigation.

I'm not expert on this area, and I'm not sure if they'd have jurisdiction here or not. Just pointing out that "ability to assist" in areas outside their normal jurisdiction is not a very relevant come-back.

Edit: Sorry. I didn't go back into the origin of the conversation. Not sure NTSB has jurisdiction here, but I see that your original comment was about "if The Bahamas asked them for assistance...."

How could even the most enthusiastic cruiser be so dense? Whoever put the ship, crew, and passengers in harm's way should be investigated and held accountable for this potentially fatal decision. I'd like to know exactly who made the final decision to go, corporate or the captain. Was due diligence concerning rough weather done before sailing? Facts need to come out to protect the public against negligence. . A NTSB hearing is not just appropriate, but mandatory!

I am not "the most enthusiastic cruiser" around by a long shot. As I've patiently explained in many posts here on CC, I will defend or castigate a cruise line for an incident, based on the facts, and my 40 years as a mariner, not how my personal feelings go.

Now, once again, slowly. I won't use caps, because I'm trying not to yell. The ship is not a US ship, the corporation is not a US corporation, the ship was not in US waters. By definition, even if there had been loss of life and a lot of serious injuries, the NTSB, nor any US government agency has jurisdiction. The FBI may have limited jurisdiction if a crime was committed against a US citizen, but I don't see the crime. The USCG may have limited jurisdiction if they feel, once the ship returns to a US port, that something relating to SOLAS or ISM was violated, but I cannot see anywhere where the NTSB has any jurisdiction. If you want full time coverage by US government agencies, you will have to sail on US flag ships. This is the point that US cruisers don't get: you're not in Kansas anymore.

Potentially fatal decision? Based on what? I can just about bet that some doctoral candidate in Naval Architecture will run a computer simulation or a wave tank study and show that the Anthem could have survived the storm at full capability, at reduced capability (partial power loss), and very likely even in a full power loss situation. Would there have been injuries, sure. Would everyone onboard have felt that they were dying, and wished they had? Sure. Would the ship still be afloat at the end of the day? You bet.

I base my statements on maritime experience, not cruising experience.

Will the same Captain & Bridge Crew be on the next cruise?

Will the Captain/Bridge Crew choose to go "On Vacation" on their own?

Will Royal Caribbean put the Captain/Bridge Crew "On Vacation"?

If they (Captain/Bridge Crew) have nothing to fear they will be on the next cruise.

If you haven't done anything wrong you should be there to answer Royal Caribbean Customer's questions.

Lets see what happens?

As a retired G-IV Captain I hope EVERYONE is there.

CaptDave

I don't see what that has to do with this, Aquahound. Assisting a foreign nation is not the same as initiating an investigation. So, though they certainly are allowed to assist foreign nations with transportation investigations, that says nothing about their authority to insert themselves into an investigation.

 

I'm not expert on this area, and I'm not sure if they'd have jurisdiction here or not. Just pointing out that "ability to assist" in areas outside their normal jurisdiction is not a very relevant come-back.

 

Edit: Sorry. I didn't go back into the origin of the conversation. Not sure NTSB has jurisdiction here, but I see that your original comment was about "if The Bahamas asked them for assistance...."

Thanks for going back and seeing the context. :) What you said in your edit is correct....it was simply a statement that NTSB could assist those who actually have jurisdiction. My stance all along is that the US government has no standing in this.

I am not "the most enthusiastic cruiser" around by a long shot. As I've patiently explained in many posts here on CC, I will defend or castigate a cruise line for an incident, based on the facts, and my 40 years as a mariner, not how my personal feelings go.

 

Now, once again, slowly. I won't use caps, because I'm trying not to yell. The ship is not a US ship, the corporation is not a US corporation, the ship was not in US waters. By definition, even if there had been loss of life and a lot of serious injuries, the NTSB, nor any US government agency has jurisdiction. The FBI may have limited jurisdiction if a crime was committed against a US citizen, but I don't see the crime. The USCG may have limited jurisdiction if they feel, once the ship returns to a US port, that something relating to SOLAS or ISM was violated, but I cannot see anywhere where the NTSB has any jurisdiction. If you want full time coverage by US government agencies, you will have to sail on US flag ships. This is the point that US cruisers don't get: you're not in Kansas anymore.

 

Potentially fatal decision? Based on what? I can just about bet that some doctoral candidate in Naval Architecture will run a computer simulation or a wave tank study and show that the Anthem could have survived the storm at full capability, at reduced capability (partial power loss), and very likely even in a full power loss situation. Would there have been injuries, sure. Would everyone onboard have felt that they were dying, and wished they had? Sure. Would the ship still be afloat at the end of the day? You bet.

 

I base my statements on maritime experience, not cruising experience.

It ported out of the US and was filled with a majority of US passengers. While it isn't a US ship and RCI isn't HQd in the US, there is precedent, especially from the Airline industry, to allow the US agencies to launch their own investigation into what happened.

That being said, that doesn't mean they'll necessarily mean they'll have the jurisdiction to issue criminal charges or sanctions. If they find that anyone was at fault, they can recommend that happen, but it'll be up to whichever nation has jurisdiction to follow-through with it. Most likely scenario is that they find where standard practices were lacking, and they'll make a recommendation to adjust industry-wide to avoid situations like this again.

Know my facts? :eek:

 

Oh, boy.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since maritime investigations is my field of expertise, not yours. So do me a favor. Go research NTSB jurisdiction and their abilities to assist foreign nations, come back, and then we'll talk.

LOL!!

Where's the accident? Where are the deaths? Did the ship sink? This isn't Titanic or Andrea Doria.

Just what would the NTSB assist in?

I dare say that my 40-year aviation background trumps yours when it comes to the NTSB- sorry.:cool: