chengkp75

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.

Welcome to US flag shipping.

Don't know if it's the first, but I see American Cruise Line's American Independence using the temporary channels to reach Baltimore, so cruises have returned to Baltimore.

And, if I read the regulation correctly, there can be no competent Canadian mariners available before they can issue certificates to foreigners.

Andy, help me out here. I can't remember enough about the DPA communication tree as to whether or not it is the Master's responsibility or the DPA's to notify local national maritime authorities of an incident (short of a Mayday, as you say). I seem to think that it falls to the DPA to notify coast guard, as the Master is busy dealing with the emergency.

Not sure what "beach day at Lahaina" you are referring to? But, if there was nothing in the SMS that precluded taking the ship this close to the Na Pali coast, then yes, it is standard procedure. If there was a missed note on a chart or sailing directions posted by NOAA and USCG, then there would have been a failure to follow procedures, most notably on the part of the navigation officer (the Captain relies on the navigator to provide him/her with all the pertinent details), and there will be amended procedures to double check charts for accuracy, and changes to improve passage planning. If you mean a day in Lahaina instead of the Na Pali sail by, then it is more likely that it is a change to allow local tempers to cool down, and also since they can't provide what they I guess promised in the Na Pali coast, they decided to change the itinerary. But, it in no way assigns blame to the Captain for any actions, and there will be a investigation both onboard and at corporate headquarters (since the company as a whole has to follow the SMS, just like the ships) before any cause is determined as to why this happened. I agree that it is a breakdown in procedure, but that is no one person's fault, it is a corporate problem, and needs to be corrected at the corporate level. Without knowing the exact circumstances of where exactly the ship was, and what the environmental conditions were at the time, I can't agree with the "breakdown of common sense" comment. As noted, NCL used to operate on the edge in giving the passengers a good view of the lava flows in the past. Was this against common sense? Not necessarily, we had mitigation measures in place, and were constantly revising those as we gained experience.

And, for those commenting on how accurate ship's equipment is, remember that maritime GPS, depending on satellite coverage at the location, is only accurate within about 15-25 meters (50-80 feet), 95% of the time.

Correct, these are not pilotage waters. When I worked for NCL, we used to stop on the Big Island's south shore to view the lava flow into the ocean, but never got closer than half a mile (3000 feet), and our time to stop and spin was limited due to the high water temperature causing the engines to overheat. We were in deep water, though.

This is precisely why a root cause investigation does not assign any blame, or suspicion of blame. It is found that when participants know that there will be no blame assigned, they are more likely to give truthful recounting of the facts of the incident. As I said, the "root cause" or "ISM" culture is designed to fix the problem, by making it almost impossible to have the same incident happen again. Assigning blame, firing a Captain, doesn't do that. Again, if the Captain followed SMS policies and procedures, he is not to blame, the SMS system is, and needs to be revised.