chengkp75

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.

Not comparing depth and bottom composition at all. NCL's ships were operating on the edge as far as whether we could keep the lights on, and hence propulsion to keep us off the shore. If the engines had overheated, there would not have been any "restarting" power, as the cooling system is common to all engines, and once overheated, and without power to run the pumps, not circulating, it will take hours to cool off enough to run an engine again.

Reality sucks, when it smacks you right between the eyes. As I've said many times, Marad has shown that it costs three times as much to operate a US flag ship over a foreign flag one (and that is for a cargo ship, let alone a cruise ship). And, this shows why cruise lines are not pushing for repeal of the PVSA, as they are afraid the concessions they have to make to get the repeal would force them into some of these costly requirements that US flag ships have to meet.

These small ships dock in the Inner Harbor. I now see that American Glory is already at Pier 5, so Independence was not the first.