Why Do Supersized ships Stay Away From Storms???

Hello Everyone,

Just wanted to put my 3 cents in about super sized ships and big Seas...

Did you know that the Queen 2 is built for Ocean Going Storms across the Atlantic?

A Huge Keel and cabins designed to take 160 mile an hour winds?

You may not know that the "New" Super Ships are not designed for such crossings,

and mostly stay away from rough weather....

Can you guess why?

Their hulls are very shallow, to get more $$$$ for the ship, plus, many Captains are paid

Cash Bonuses to keep the stabilizers off during the cruise, to save thousands for the

Company...

A Question: ?

How many feet is your ship above the water line?

15 stories?

16 stories?

17 stories?

18 stories?

That's about 150 fifty to 200 Feet ABOVE the water line...

Well folks that is all great...

Does anybody know what the Keel or "draft" under your ship is?

80 feet?

60 feet?

50 feet?

24 Feet?

Well folks, as your ships keel was designed to save on fuel, and not for

stability, it is an average of 24 to 27 feet below the waterline...

So we have a huge fleet of top heavy ships sailing around just waiting

to get in a super storm and capsize, with most souls lost.

I truly think it is only a matter of time. (Poseidon Adventure Movie?)

No Ocean liner with 6,000 souls should ever attempt to circumvent a

Storm event that is of Historic Proportions.

100 to 150 MPH Winds and 30 foot seas...

I am so thankful that this ship made it, but it could have been a debacle

that makes the Titanic a footnote as the greatest disaster in History...

I hope the Mon Captain is demoted to first mate, as the weather forecasts

said this was going to happen 5 days before this cruise.

As a huge cargo ship sank last year with all souls lost in the same area,

this should be a wake up call to all ships designed for "Cruising", not sailing

in high Seas to evaluate how much their bottom line means before having one of their ships

"On The Bottom"...

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Stay safe,

Safe journeys,

and take Care.

The Moore Family

Tampa Bay

Hello Everyone,

 

Just wanted to put my 3 cents in about super sized ships and big Seas...

 

Did you know that the Queen 2 is built for Ocean Going Storms across the Atlantic?

 

A Huge Keel and cabins designed to take 160 mile an hour winds?

 

You may not know that the "New" Super Ships are not designed for such crossings,

 

and mostly stay away from rough weather....

 

Can you guess why?

 

Their hulls are very shallow, to get more $$$$ for the ship, plus, many Captains are paid

 

Cash Bonuses to keep the stabilizers off during the cruise, to save thousands for the

 

Company...

 

A Question: ?

 

How many feet is your ship above the water line?

 

15 stories?

16 stories?

17 stories?

18 stories?

 

That's about 150 fifty to 200 Feet ABOVE the water line...

 

Well folks that is all great...

 

Does anybody know what the Keel or "draft" under your ship is?

 

80 feet?

60 feet?

50 feet?

24 Feet?

 

Well folks, as your ships keel was designed to save on fuel, and not for

stability, it is an average of 24 to 27 feet below the waterline...

 

So we have a huge fleet of top heavy ships sailing around just waiting

to get in a super storm and capsize, with most souls lost.

 

I truly think it is only a matter of time. (Poseidon Adventure Movie?)

 

No Ocean liner with 6,000 souls should ever attempt to circumvent a

Storm event that is of Historic Proportions.

 

100 to 150 MPH Winds and 30 foot seas...

 

I am so thankful that this ship made it, but it could have been a debacle

that makes the Titanic a footnote as the greatest disaster in History...

 

I hope the Mon Captain is demoted to first mate, as the weather forecasts

said this was going to happen 5 days before this cruise.

 

As a huge cargo ship sank last year with all souls lost in the same area,

this should be a wake up call to all ships designed for "Cruising", not sailing

in high Seas to evaluate how much their bottom line means before having one of their ships

 

"On The Bottom"...

 

I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

Stay safe,

Safe journeys,

and take Care.

 

The Moore Family

Tampa Bay

What's your point? Nimitz class Aircraft Carriers have about 15 stories out of the water and only draft 37 feet carrying a much heavier load in worse conditions.

But Nimitz class flat tops do not have fifteen stories above the water the entire length of the vessel as do cruise ships. That extra square footage above is heavy and becomes a "sail" for the wind to act upon.

It is the hollow promenades that spook me out regarding a bad storm. Like a big wind tunnel.

weather forecasts said this was going to happen 5 days before this cruise.

Wrong.

Nothing forecast the incredibly rapid formation "bombogenesis" of this storm, prior forecasts said around 70mph gusts "possible". It was the wind that made things difficult, 30ft waves isn't anything to write home about.

Hello again folks,

Don't mean to preach but just call me MR. Cruise... lol

I hope all the cruise lines will take this as a lesson as to the Anthem event.

I hope that safety will surpass greed.

I hope that cruise lines will stop giving cash bonuses to

Captains that speed at 21 knots in flat seas and make folks

sick to get a little cash.

I hope that a Captain can get to a Port an Hour later than planned

and not make the "Home" office happy.

Just a few thoughts.

May your Seas Be Flat,

And your Tummies be fat...

We are the Moore's

Tampa Bay :)

All our local forcasters showed hurricane winds before the ship sailed.

I can send you the forcast.

Punch up GMA and Al Roker said several times this was an incredible blunder

on live TV... You can punch that up also on the internet.

He said the Captain saying the ship was not in danger was much like calling Godzilla

a green garden lizard... They were livid in their critique of this cruise... Its all online

and I can send you more links if you like...

Not flaming here. Just the Facts Jack.

Take care,

Be well,

We are Moore's

Tampa Bay

You have a dubious source

............and a truly horrific writing style. :eek:

You have a dubious source

 

 

 

............and a truly horrific writing style. :eek:

Amen. Proofreading is a beautiful thing.

Will send you all the posts if you like that were on USA TV.

And I love your comments on my style! Thanks so much. Its a passion.

Good luck on your cruise.

Take care,

We are the Moore's

Tampa Bay

I agree, these large ships are a disaster waiting to happen.

The storm was predicted for days and they ignored the facts for $$$$$$. They compromised the safety of their passengers and you cannot deny it.

Please, when will it stop? :cool:

But they made a financial decision no doubt. Not to risk a ship but hope that some upset sick passengers would be OK. Now they'll pay the fuel costs in triplicate for bad PR , ship damage and dropping stock prices

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

The horse is dead. Stop the beating! :p:D

. Now they'll pay the fuel costs in triplicate for bad PR , ship damage and dropping stock prices

Actually, despite the market being down yesterday, RCL stock was up. May have had something to do with them announcing a dividend payout.

Who even asked for your 3¢?

I won't quote the OP, because the post would be way too long, but I'll try to cover the salient points.

Regarding the Queen Mary 2, please provide a photo or drawing of the "huge keel" that keeps her safe. That ship is just as flat bottomed as the Anthem. Comments like this puts the remainder of the post into question as to your maritime expertise. What allows the QM2 to ride better in a storm is a finer bow, a more pronounced rake to the stem, and a higher open deck.

Next, do you have any concept of naval architecture, or ship stability? You do realize that the draft of a vessel is pretty much determined by how much it weighs, not how much revenue generating space the cruise line wants? So, adding decks up high adds weight, which pushes the hull deeper into the water. And continuing your comparison to the QM2, there is only a 1.5 meter (<5 ft) difference in draft. And don't confuse gross tonnage (a measure of interior volume) with displacement, which is its actual weight.

As to ship's stability, I could have a ship that is 50 stories above the waterline, and a 30 foot draft, and still have a stable ship. It all depends on where the center of gravity of the ship is (down low), and where the center of buoyancy is (up higher). Because stability all boils down to the distance between these two points. The engines, machinery, fuel and water in the bottom of the ship weighs more than the empty volume of the superstructure.

Every ocean-going ship in the world, regardless of type or "mission" is designed to withstand a hundred year storm, and what Anthem went through is not even close to that.

As I've stated in numerous threads on this topic over the last two days, I doubt seriously the Captain will have any censure for this at all. If he followed the procedures in the company's ISM code for passage planning, then there is nothing to be said.

Also, the ship did not try to "circumvent" the storm, though that is what many others were suggesting that should have been done. The ship sailed pretty much into the track of the storm, not "circumventing" (defined as "finding a way around") it. The Captain was in fact, hoping to circumvent it, and chose to try the northwest quadrant of the storm, which is safer than the northeast quadrant.

Everyone makes a big deal about 30 foot seas. Cruise ships encounter these all the time. While the wind was exceptional, 30 foot seas are well within the design parameters of Anthem.

Al Roker is not a meteorologist, so he can say whatever he feels like on TV, but that doesn't make it gospel truth. And what expertise does Al Roker have with maritime operations, ship design, or weather simulation in regards to ship design? None.

Don't even try to equate the El Faro to this incident. I personally know, and have worked with one of the officers on the El Faro. Based on the information out there (and as a professional mariner, with a personal connection, I probably have collected more than you), I have a pretty good idea why the ship went down, and it really had nothing to do with the ship's ability to weather a storm.

And I would love to know the source of your information regarding "cash bonuses" for Captains that "speed at 21 knots in flat seas" and make people sick. First off, what has ship speed in flat seas got to do with inducing motion sickness? Secondly, the companies slow the ships down to save fuel, and have actually shortened port stays to accommodate the slower cruising speeds.

Try to get some facts, Jack, and some knowledge of the area you are arguing about before engaging the keyboard.

Correction to my last post, done early before my first coffee. The center of gravity of a ship is always above the center of buoyancy.

And to further feed the troll, what caused the damage to the non-structural portions of the ship is just what makes the ship so safe. Ships with low metacentric heights (look it up, I don't want to spend the time defining it for you) like tankers (center of gravity and buoyancy close together) tend to roll easily, roll gently, and will right themselves, but sometimes with a hesitation at the extreme of the roll. Ships that have a larger metacentric height (center of gravity and buoyancy farther apart), tend to be harder to start to roll, but when they do roll, the large righting moment tends to snap the ship back upright, and this acceleration is what causes non-structural items to break. Ships with large metacentric heights are considered to be "stiffer" and have more stability.

Thank you for the extremely informative post. I learned a great deal!

I won't quote the OP, because the post would be way too long, but I'll try to cover the salient points.

 

Regarding the Queen Mary 2, please provide a photo or drawing of the "huge keel" that keeps her safe. That ship is just as flat bottomed as the Anthem. Comments like this puts the remainder of the post into question as to your maritime expertise. What allows the QM2 to ride better in a storm is a finer bow, a more pronounced rake to the stem, and a higher open deck.

 

Next, do you have any concept of naval architecture, or ship stability? You do realize that the draft of a vessel is pretty much determined by how much it weighs, not how much revenue generating space the cruise line wants? So, adding decks up high adds weight, which pushes the hull deeper into the water. And continuing your comparison to the QM2, there is only a 1.5 meter (<5 ft) difference in draft. And don't confuse gross tonnage (a measure of interior volume) with displacement, which is its actual weight.

 

As to ship's stability, I could have a ship that is 50 stories above the waterline, and a 30 foot draft, and still have a stable ship. It all depends on where the center of gravity of the ship is (down low), and where the center of buoyancy is (up higher). Because stability all boils down to the distance between these two points. The engines, machinery, fuel and water in the bottom of the ship weighs more than the empty volume of the superstructure.

 

Every ocean-going ship in the world, regardless of type or "mission" is designed to withstand a hundred year storm, and what Anthem went through is not even close to that.

 

As I've stated in numerous threads on this topic over the last two days, I doubt seriously the Captain will have any censure for this at all. If he followed the procedures in the company's ISM code for passage planning, then there is nothing to be said.

 

Also, the ship did not try to "circumvent" the storm, though that is what many others were suggesting that should have been done. The ship sailed pretty much into the track of the storm, not "circumventing" (defined as "finding a way around") it. The Captain was in fact, hoping to circumvent it, and chose to try the northwest quadrant of the storm, which is safer than the northeast quadrant.

 

Everyone makes a big deal about 30 foot seas. Cruise ships encounter these all the time. While the wind was exceptional, 30 foot seas are well within the design parameters of Anthem.

 

Al Roker is not a meteorologist, so he can say whatever he feels like on TV, but that doesn't make it gospel truth. And what expertise does Al Roker have with maritime operations, ship design, or weather simulation in regards to ship design? None.

 

Don't even try to equate the El Faro to this incident. I personally know, and have worked with one of the officers on the El Faro. Based on the information out there (and as a professional mariner, with a personal connection, I probably have collected more than you), I have a pretty good idea why the ship went down, and it really had nothing to do with the ship's ability to weather a storm.

 

And I would love to know the source of your information regarding "cash bonuses" for Captains that "speed at 21 knots in flat seas" and make people sick. First off, what has ship speed in flat seas got to do with inducing motion sickness? Secondly, the companies slow the ships down to save fuel, and have actually shortened port stays to accommodate the slower cruising speeds.

 

Try to get some facts, Jack, and some knowledge of the area you are arguing about before engaging the keyboard.

Thank you!!! Still waiting for the OP to let us know what qualifications or education support his comments.......:rolleyes: :) I suspect it isn't forthcoming.....

I won't quote the OP, because the post would be way too long, but I'll try to cover the salient points.

 

Regarding the Queen Mary 2, please provide a photo or drawing of the "huge keel" that keeps her safe. That ship is just as flat bottomed as the Anthem. Comments like this puts the remainder of the post into question as to your maritime expertise. What allows the QM2 to ride better in a storm is a finer bow, a more pronounced rake to the stem, and a higher open deck.

 

Next, do you have any concept of naval architecture, or ship stability? You do realize that the draft of a vessel is pretty much determined by how much it weighs, not how much revenue generating space the cruise line wants? So, adding decks up high adds weight, which pushes the hull deeper into the water. And continuing your comparison to the QM2, there is only a 1.5 meter (<5 ft) difference in draft. And don't confuse gross tonnage (a measure of interior volume) with displacement, which is its actual weight.

 

As to ship's stability, I could have a ship that is 50 stories above the waterline, and a 30 foot draft, and still have a stable ship. It all depends on where the center of gravity of the ship is (down low), and where the center of buoyancy is (up higher). Because stability all boils down to the distance between these two points. The engines, machinery, fuel and water in the bottom of the ship weighs more than the empty volume of the superstructure.

 

Every ocean-going ship in the world, regardless of type or "mission" is designed to withstand a hundred year storm, and what Anthem went through is not even close to that.

 

As I've stated in numerous threads on this topic over the last two days, I doubt seriously the Captain will have any censure for this at all. If he followed the procedures in the company's ISM code for passage planning, then there is nothing to be said.

 

Also, the ship did not try to "circumvent" the storm, though that is what many others were suggesting that should have been done. The ship sailed pretty much into the track of the storm, not "circumventing" (defined as "finding a way around") it. The Captain was in fact, hoping to circumvent it, and chose to try the northwest quadrant of the storm, which is safer than the northeast quadrant.

 

Everyone makes a big deal about 30 foot seas. Cruise ships encounter these all the time. While the wind was exceptional, 30 foot seas are well within the design parameters of Anthem.

 

Al Roker is not a meteorologist, so he can say whatever he feels like on TV, but that doesn't make it gospel truth. And what expertise does Al Roker have with maritime operations, ship design, or weather simulation in regards to ship design? None.

 

Don't even try to equate the El Faro to this incident. I personally know, and have worked with one of the officers on the El Faro. Based on the information out there (and as a professional mariner, with a personal connection, I probably have collected more than you), I have a pretty good idea why the ship went down, and it really had nothing to do with the ship's ability to weather a storm.

 

And I would love to know the source of your information regarding "cash bonuses" for Captains that "speed at 21 knots in flat seas" and make people sick. First off, what has ship speed in flat seas got to do with inducing motion sickness? Secondly, the companies slow the ships down to save fuel, and have actually shortened port stays to accommodate the slower cruising speeds.

 

Try to get some facts, Jack, and some knowledge of the area you are arguing about before engaging the keyboard.

One correction here, chengkp75, and that while it's technically correct to say Roker is no longer a meteorologist, he did hold a seal of approval (since expired) from the American Meteorological Society (but held neither a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist or a Certified Consulting Meteorologist seal) and his career was as a weathercaster. It should be noted, however, that his education was in communications, not meteorology, so there's that. And, as you put it, what experience does he have with maritime forecasting and its effects on naval architecture?

A cruise ship

is not

an ocean liner.

.....the QE2 is an

ocean

liner.

The storm was......

predicted.......

I won't quote the OP, because the post would be way too long, but I'll try to cover the salient points.

 

Regarding the Queen Mary 2, please provide a photo or drawing of the "huge keel" that keeps her safe. That ship is just as flat bottomed as the Anthem. Comments like this puts the remainder of the post into question as to your maritime expertise. What allows the QM2 to ride better in a storm is a finer bow, a more pronounced rake to the stem, and a higher open deck.

 

Next, do you have any concept of naval architecture, or ship stability? You do realize that the draft of a vessel is pretty much determined by how much it weighs, not how much revenue generating space the cruise line wants? So, adding decks up high adds weight, which pushes the hull deeper into the water. And continuing your comparison to the QM2, there is only a 1.5 meter (<5 ft) difference in draft. And don't confuse gross tonnage (a measure of interior volume) with displacement, which is its actual weight.

 

As to ship's stability, I could have a ship that is 50 stories above the waterline, and a 30 foot draft, and still have a stable ship. It all depends on where the center of gravity of the ship is (down low), and where the center of buoyancy is (up higher). Because stability all boils down to the distance between these two points. The engines, machinery, fuel and water in the bottom of the ship weighs more than the empty volume of the superstructure.

 

Every ocean-going ship in the world, regardless of type or "mission" is designed to withstand a hundred year storm, and what Anthem went through is not even close to that.

 

As I've stated in numerous threads on this topic over the last two days, I doubt seriously the Captain will have any censure for this at all. If he followed the procedures in the company's ISM code for passage planning, then there is nothing to be said.

 

Also, the ship did not try to "circumvent" the storm, though that is what many others were suggesting that should have been done. The ship sailed pretty much into the track of the storm, not "circumventing" (defined as "finding a way around") it. The Captain was in fact, hoping to circumvent it, and chose to try the northwest quadrant of the storm, which is safer than the northeast quadrant.

 

Everyone makes a big deal about 30 foot seas. Cruise ships encounter these all the time. While the wind was exceptional, 30 foot seas are well within the design parameters of Anthem.

 

Al Roker is not a meteorologist, so he can say whatever he feels like on TV, but that doesn't make it gospel truth. And what expertise does Al Roker have with maritime operations, ship design, or weather simulation in regards to ship design? None.

 

Don't even try to equate the El Faro to this incident. I personally know, and have worked with one of the officers on the El Faro. Based on the information out there (and as a professional mariner, with a personal connection, I probably have collected more than you), I have a pretty good idea why the ship went down, and it really had nothing to do with the ship's ability to weather a storm.

 

And I would love to know the source of your information regarding "cash bonuses" for Captains that "speed at 21 knots in flat seas" and make people sick. First off, what has ship speed in flat seas got to do with inducing motion sickness? Secondly, the companies slow the ships down to save fuel, and have actually shortened port stays to accommodate the slower cruising speeds.

 

Try to get some facts, Jack, and some knowledge of the area you are arguing about before engaging the keyboard.

Voice of reason, as always.

OP to answer the question in your subject line- they avoid storms if they can to keep passengers from getting sick. Sick passengers are not happy passengers. Same reason a pilot will fly around a storm if she can.