chengkp75

No, two ships of the same cruise line are not considered to be one voyage. The definition of what constitutes a "voyage" is when a passenger permanently disembarks (i.e. settles the bill and takes their luggage) the ship, the voyage is ended. Since, by definition, you permanently disembark one vessel to get on another, the first voyage ends, and a new voyage begins.

Nope. The first in port blackout was caused by a mechanical blockage of the generator engine's exhaust, which would have caused the engine to slow down due to high exhaust gas pressure (potato in exhaust pipe), and when the engine slows, the frequency of the generated power drops, and when the frequency drops too low, the circuit breaker for that generator will open (which is what happened). The second in port blackout was caused by "low fuel pressure" to the next diesel generator that came online after the first blackout. This was caused by either someone leaving a valve closed on the engine fuel system, or a clogged fuel filter, and again, when the fuel pressure drops, the engine slows down, and the same process as the first blackout happens (low speed equals low frequency results in breaker opening). These are totally normal safety features of the engines and their breakers, and there was no malfunction, other than human error or a blocked fuel filter. The first blackout under way, was caused by two totally different circuit breakers than those that were involved in the in port blackouts. So, the in port blackouts had nothing to do with the blackouts that caused the ship to hit the bridge. The HR2 and LR2 breakers are designed to trip on low voltage, which is what happened when the generators tripped in port, so again, this is normal operation of the breakers. Ships normally have two main power transformers, one in use and one in standby, as the Dali did. It is common to rotate between the two transformers periodically (I usually did it once a year), as the Dali crew did when restoring power after the second in port blackout. The breakers that tripped while the ship was heading towards the bridge, were the HR1 and LR1 breakers, which were in an open condition the entire time the ship was in port, and during the two in port blackouts, so again, not involved in the in port blackouts. While I understand that this is a preliminary report, I find that it suffers from a lack of maritime experience on the part of the NTSB investigators, in that nothing is said in the reports that everything that happened during the two in port blackouts was normal operation, with the exception of human error, or possibly a clogged fuel filter (which are the only two reasons for a "low fuel pressure" alarm). What I suspect is that the TR1 transformer, not having been in use for a while (undetermined at this point how long), likely developed a short, which tripped the HR1 and LR1 breakers (as it should). My thought is that this transformer developed a short from not having it's heater on while off line (the heater keeps the windings warm and stops condensation forming, which could degrade the insulation. It was 4 minutes from the time of the first blackout, and striking the pier. The NTSB says the VDR (voyage data recorder) stopped recording when the blackout happened, but restarted recording one minute later. The NTSB says they don't know when the emergency generator came online, but the restarting of the VDR gives that clue, within 1 minute. The second blackout was less than two minutes after the first, and power was restored using the standby main generator, which started itself and put itself online in less than a minute, and full power was restored just over two minutes after the first blackout. The engine crew were really jumping to get this done, and this is very good operational awareness and training. Why the DG3 and DG4 breakers tripped, causing the second blackout is unknown, but my thoughts are that the engine crew were trying to rapidly restore cooling, fuel and oil to the main engine so it could be restarted, and closed too many breakers for these pumps too quickly, causing a rapid increase in power demand, and this resulted in the generators slowing (heavy load bogs a diesel down, and until the governor and turbocharger can catch up, the engine slows, and just as in the in port blackouts, this causes low frequency, and trips the generators. The crew may also not have restarted the fuel pumps for the generators, thinking that since they were still running (but not connected to the electrical system), that the pumps were already running. At this time, I can't say which scenario happened, but the alarm system "data dump" should show the actual timeline and events. I would say that there was no forewarning of this incident, the blackouts the day prior had nothing to do with the blackouts approaching the bridge.

That is because Princess requires that the charter boat document the time of the catch, the time the catch reached 40*F in the boat's coolers, and that the fish maintained that temperature for the entire time from catch to delivery to ship. Those are the documentation requirements that the USPH/CDC VSP requires for fresh seafood to be brought onto the ship. Sources of "potentially hazardous food" have to be "verifiable" with records.

Nor were they there to vote, so their wishes were not represented in the vote, so their income or wealth had no bearing on the result of the vote.

Newer ships (under 15 years) will typically get a technical drydock done in 2 weeks. After the ship turns 15, there are vastly more, and costlier, inspections required, and these tend to lead to structural steel replacement, adding more time.

Yeah, we carried everything from POV's to Abrams tanks. Most likely they are using Baltimore or Norfolk for POV's to Europe.

Were you planning on settling the bill, and taking all your luggage with you when you disembarked in Seattle? If not, then they are correct. You must permanently disembark for one voyage to be declared ended, and then you can start another.

The real question is; does anyone remember what MOTBY was? I was in there every month for years carrying military vehicles to Europe.

Not counting the AQV boats, they already had 25 ships in service, and another 4 scheduled for this year.

Well, for a 25 year old ship a "hull check" (by which I guess you mean a "technical only" drydock?) will be more on the lines of 3-4 weeks. And, that is mandatory, you can't just say I'm putting off dry dock surveys and maintenance because I want to sell the ship. It has to be done in the statutory timeframe, with the mandatory inspections, or the certificate to sail is voided. It is an unavoidable expense. Now, updates and refurbishments to the hotel side are definitely optional, both for time and cost.

The dates I posted are from the Lloyd's Register database, showing what dates the "bottom survey" (which means drydock) are due. There may be a month or so earlier, but not much wiggle room later. Riviera and Marina, being less than 15 years old, those dates can be for an underwater survey by divers in lieu of drydocking (which is usually done while still in service, over a couple or three ports). Oh, yeah, forgot that Marina is in dock now, so the underwater will only apply to Riviera. All others, that is a pretty hard date, as it is required by the class society to maintain the ship's certificates of seaworthiness.

Yeah, still a big slab of pavement on the bow, and even with removing the weight of the truss, the bow didn't rise any significant amount, so she is likely well and truly stuck in the bottom, and they may have to dredge around her to free her.

Ding!

The maritime industry has always tended to be a special case in most countries and legal systems. Many countries have slews of laws specific to the maritime, some important, some not, some impactful, some not. For instance, in the US, no one can garnish a mariner's wages other than the IRS and a spouse (or ex-spouse). In Scandinavia, mariners benefit from the social security benefits of all citizens, but are exempt from the taxes that pay for those social benefits. As for Viking maintaining control over the ships, it is Viking who promulgates the SMS (Safety Management System) manual, that is what we call "write what you do, and do what you write". All ships are required by the IMO's ISM (International Safety Management) Code to formulate an SMS that describes how the company does virtually every aspect of business, both at the corporate level, but also down to sometimes very fine detail of shipboard operations and procedures, that everyone working on a Viking ship have to adhere to. Both the company (both Viking and Wilhelmsen) and third party auditors will audit the ships every year to ensure that the SMS is followed to the letter, and to locate areas where improvements can be made. An example of the system is the Dali, currently holding up a portion of the Key Bridge in Baltimore. The ship is owned by Grace Ocean. It is operated for Grace Ocean by Synergy Marine. Synergy provides the crew and deals with the day to day operation of the ship (getting food and fuel to the ship, spare parts, hiring port agents, etc). The ship is under charter to Maersk (AP Moller Group). So, the ship is carrying cargo for Maersk, but since this is not a "bareboat charter", but a "time charter", Synergy continues to operate the ship and crew daily, and Maersk only tells Synergy where to go, when to get there, and what cargo to load/discharge.

And, I for one, don't begrudge those tax dollars spent in this fashion. Have known mariners who were evacuated in emergencies, and thankful that the service is there.