what is wave height to be considered "rough seas?"

Spent a week last January on the Sun in the Eastern C. and it was a rough ride the first couple of days. Didn't bother me so much, but lots of people were green around the gills. Pools closed, etc. High winds. Anyway, I found a wave chart on the web for current conditions, but was wondering: how high do the waves have to be in order to be considered "rough seas????" We depart from NO this Sunday....looks like it could be raining in the Western C...just wondered about the wave-thing. Rain or shine, we're ready!

Rough seas is very subjective, everyone has a different opinion.

But here's the Beaufort scale, used since 1805;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale

I would state a Beaufort scale 7 or more is rough seas. Some would state scale 1.

At 7 on the Beaufort scale:

Wind speed: 32 to 38 mph

Description: Near Gale

Wave height: 13 feet

Sea Conditions: Sea heaps up and foam begins to streak.

Land Conditions: Whole trees in motion. Effort needed to walk against the wind.

In the United States, winds of Beaufort 6 or 7 result in the issuance of a small craft advisory, with force 8 or 9 winds bringing about a gale warning, 10 or 11 a storm warning (or "tropical storm warning" for 8 to 11 if related to a tropical cyclone), and anything stronger a hurricane warning.

Don't forget, winds are the primary cause of waves on the open ocean.

Thanks, Electricron. What's the highest waves you guys have cruised through? Our highest was 28 ft. on Sun cruise last Dec. I got a little seasick on that one. Before that the record was 22 ft.

Thanks, Electricron. What's the highest waves you guys have cruised through? Our highest was 28 ft. on Sun cruise last Dec. I got a little seasick on that one. Before that the record was 22 ft.

32+ feet, which qualifies as a Near Gale force winds according to Beaufort.

The ride was slightly rough on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, about the size of the new build RCI Genesis Class at 220,000 gross tons.

Spent a week last January on the Sun in the Eastern C. and it was a rough ride the first couple of days. Didn't bother me so much' date=' but lots of people were green around the gills. Pools closed, etc. High winds. Anyway, I found a wave chart on the web for current conditions, but was wondering: how high do the waves have to be in order to be considered "rough seas????" We depart from NO this Sunday....looks like it could be raining in the Western C...just wondered about the wave-thing. Rain or shine, we're ready![/quote']

 

 

Try this web site:

 

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/waves/main_int.html

 

Just enter where you are traveling from, in your case, under info page scroll down to north atlantic and it will give you what the NOAA est. wave heights

 

We were on the Spirit in march of this year and on the last day at sea they would not let you outside on deck 7 because waves were hitting and splashing on it, talk about some sick people.

THe Nimitz, in terms of gross tonnage, is actually closer to the NCL Jewel or Dawn at around 95,000 tons displacement (the figure varies a little depending on the source and load). Wikipedia has it at 101-104,000 tons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz

Having been on both, the Dawn gives a better ride than the Nimitz in similar sea state in my opinion...of course that can also be because I notice the horizon pitching a lot more when standing on that huge flight deck.

All in all I will take an aft suite on the Dawn over an officer's stateroom in the Nimitz!

We were on the Dawn in 2005. The seas were very very rough. The waves were 27 to 42 feet high. We were not allowed to go out on the deck. The doors were locked for safety reasons. At one point we were hit by a rogue (freak) wave measuring 72 ft high . Did some damage to the front of the ship broken radar units, crew pools destroyed, railings ripped away and thrown into the windows on cabins 10502 and 9502. There were also some injuries to the people in those cabins, but all were minor. We also had 63 cabins that were flooded. We had to be diverted to South Carolina for repairs. I sailed again on the Dawn the next year and had no problems.

Happy, that's terrible! I think you win the prize for the highest waves! We enjoy somewhat rough seas, but don't want to go through that for sure. Must have been really scarey.

THe Nimitz, in terms of gross tonnage, is actually closer to the NCL Jewel or Dawn at around 95,000 tons displacement (the figure varies a little depending on the source and load). Wikipedia has it at 101-104,000 tons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz

 

Having been on both, the Dawn gives a better ride than the Nimitz in similar sea state in my opinion...of course that can also be because I notice the horizon pitching a lot more when standing on that huge flight deck.

 

All in all I will take an aft suite on the Dawn over an officer's stateroom in the Nimitz!

Not quite. Most navies, including the US Navy, don't use gross tons, but actual water displacement for tonnage ratings. If you check out the RCI press release for its new Genesis class, they report its gross tons of 220,000 was slightly, ever-so-slightly- larger than a Nimitz class carrier.

Gross tons is a measure of cublic feet, than weight.

Here's some numbers at Wikpedia. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_class

Genesis class

Tonnage: 220,000 gross

Displacement: app. 100,000 tons

So, as you can see, gross tons does not equal displacement tons.

A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is displaces approximately 95,000 tons. An NCL Panamax class ship (Star, Dawn, Jewel, Pride of Hawaii, Pearl and Gem) gross tonnage is 92,000. Their actual displacement is closer to 40,000 to 45,000 tons.

Well I learned something then...did not realize that difference in stats. Still say the Dawn rides better!

Yes - GRT (gross registered tonnage) is entirely different than displacement tonnage, and different again from deadweight tonnage.

Passenger ships usually measured by GRT, which is a cubic volume measurement.

Naval ships usually are displacement tonnage, but the US Navy uses two different displacements - normal load and wartime load.

On the Star they had wave heights shown on one of the tv stations, along with the categories/wave height ranges. I meant to write them down at the time, but I forgot, and now I can't remember them. I know on the night we were coming down the outside of Vancouver Island, it said the seas were "rough", but I don't remember the wave height range that corresponded to. From our balcony (deck 11), the waves didn't seem like much; you could feel the ship's motion, but it wasn't bad.

On the Star they had wave heights shown on one of the tv stations, along with the categories/wave height ranges. I meant to write them down at the time, but I forgot, and now I can't remember them. I know on the night we were coming down the outside of Vancouver Island, it said the seas were "rough", but I don't remember the wave height range that corresponded to. From our balcony (deck 11), the waves didn't seem like much; you could feel the ship's motion, but it wasn't bad.

Not sure exactly what wave hieght eguals rough but I know it when I see it ;) :D

On the Star they had wave heights shown on one of the tv stations, along with the categories/wave height ranges. I meant to write them down at the time, but I forgot, and now I can't remember them. I know on the night we were coming down the outside of Vancouver Island, it said the seas were "rough", but I don't remember the wave height range that corresponded to. From our balcony (deck 11), the waves didn't seem like much; you could feel the ship's motion, but it wasn't bad.

shoreless, the TV on the Star indicated 4-7.5 as moderate seas and 7.5-12 as rough seas.

shoreless, the TV on the Star indicated 4-7.5 as moderate seas and 7.5-12 as rough seas.

I always like it when the TV says calm wavelets :D

We had a day on our Alaska cruise (about a month ago) that the TV said "Flat Seas" looked outside and it indeed was the smoothest I had ever seen.

-Monte

32+ feet, which qualifies as a Near Gale force winds according to Beaufort.

The ride was slightly rough on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, about the size of the new build RCI Genesis Class at 220,000 gross tons.

Actually, the Nemitz displaces about 105,000 tons, fully loaded. Less than many of the new cruise ships.

Actually, the Nemitz displaces about 105,000 tons, fully loaded. Less than many of the new cruise ships.

The Nimitz class ships have different full load displacements.

Here's their full load displacement by ship, according to Combat Fleets of the World:

CVN 68 Nimitz 101,000 tons

CVN 69 Dwight D. Eisenhower 101,000 tons

CVN 70 Carl Vinson 101,000 tons

CVN 71 Theodore Roosevelt 103,500 tons

CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln 104,000 tons

CVN 73 George Washington 104,000 tons

CVN 74 John C. Stennis 103,000 tons

CVN 75 Harry S. Truman 101,000 tons

CVN 76 Ronald Reagan 98,000 tons

CVN 77 George H. W. Bush 98,000 tons

Never-the less, they never sail fully loaded. They always have 10% to 20% of their water and fuel tanks empty, to assorb shock from nearby explosions.

As for deminisions,

Length=1,092 feet

Hull Beam=134 feet

Maximum Beam=257 feet

Draft=38 feet

Propulsion Power=4x70,000 shp=280,000 shp.

Here's the Pride of Hawaii stats:

Length=965 feet

Beam=106 feet

Draft=26.9 feet

Propulsion Power=2x20,000kW-40,000kW

(1hp=.74608kW) Therefore it has a total of 29,843 hp.

That's significantly less than 280,000 hp.

Please don't suggest a ship 127 feet longs, and 28 feet wider, and 11 feet deeper displaces the same as the Dawn or Jewel.

By the way, the new Freedom of the Seas stats are:

Length=1112 feet

Beam=158 feet

Draft=28 feet

Propulsion Power=3x16,000kW=42,000kW

(1hp=.74608kW) Therefore it has a total of 31,335 hp.

That's significantly less than 280,000 hp.

You're also confusing gross tons with displacement tons.

Gross tons = 100 cubic feet of interior space. Displacement tons = weight of seawater displaced by the ship's hull.

The US Navy uses displacement tons, most commercial ships use gross tons.

Shoreguy,

You always put things in perspective,i.e.; Rough is Rough & Calm is Calm.

You usually give me a good chuckle.

Thanks.

Not sure exactly what wave hieght eguals rough but I know it when I see it ;) :DToday 02:09 PM

Thanks, Brunolvr. That sounds right for what we experienced.

Now Shoreguy's picture is what I would call rough! I wonder what that would translate to on the Star's scale.:)

On our September 2005, we had to go thru Hurricane Ophelia on our way back from the Bahamas.

Both my wife & I have great sea-legs and really have no problem with bad seas.

We were staying in OS 10506 on that cruise and got to witness the waves coming over the bow first had thru our front winodw as in Shoreguy's Bridge cam shot.

You can feel the waves hitting the bow and the ship really creaks.

We had a good 36 hours of this until we reached NYC.

We had another experience on the Celebrity Horizon going to Bermuda. It was the Captains Dinner Party night. The outside decks were off limits. They cancelled the reception line and picture session and we had the whole table for 8 just to ourselves.

The only problem with it being so rough is after the cruise. Tow days later and you will be walking down the street and all of a sudden you are walking like a drunken sailor for no reason.

Smooth wavelets are the best kind of seas!

Happy Sailing,

Monty

Last night we had a very bumpy ride home. The winds were listed at 12 hurricane strength and the seas very listed as very rough 12-18 ft. I had a blast watching everyone walk sideways and watching the water in the pools slosh back and forth. My husband didn't think it was much fun, he was in the cabin sick.

We just returned from a 10 day Canada-New England on the Sea Princess. Between Sydney and Halifax we hit, what the captain said was 14 to 16 seas, it put the wife and brother-n-law in the bed!:rolleyes:

what the captain said was 14 to 16 seas, it put the wife and brother-n-law in the bed!:rolleyes:

You sound so casual... :rolleyes: Most people would be filing for divorce!!! :D

You sound so casual... :rolleyes: Most people would be filing for divorce!!! :D

sjbdtz-you're sick. ;)

-Monte