chengkp75

If the vessel is "in distress" in the cruise ship Captain's opinion, and that vessel is requesting aid, then the cruise ship has a responsibility to give aid. Now, that responsibility is tempered by the cruise ship Captain's responsibility that giving that aid not endanger the ship, cargo, crew, passengers, or the environment. In most cases, the Captain will notify the nation who has agreed to provide SAR responsibility to the area (like the USCG for most of the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean Sea), and that government agency will advise the Captain on what measures should be taken (stand by and observe the vessel, take the people onboard the ship, etc), and what response the agency will provide (sending a cutter, or taking the people on a cutter at a later time, etc). The Captain can then decide what he/she wants to do (the ISM convention gives the Captain "overriding authority" in making decisions that affect the safety of the ship, cargo, crew, passengers, and environment, meaning that neither the USCG nor the cruise line corporate officers can second guess that decision, especially if it conforms to all of the ISM mandated SMS (Safety Management System) that the cruise line has promulgated. The limitations placed on giving aid that I mentioned above (not risking the safety of the rescuing vessel) is one of the things that laymen that "know" of the "requirement of the sea to give aid" have never heard of. Frankly, I'm surprised at the photos posted above of a refugee boat being brought into a tender port with multiple people onboard. More typical, from a vessel security standpoint is to send a rescue boat or lifeboat to the refugees boat (having instructed it to stand away from the ship), and bring the refugees back to the ship one at a time, for searching and identifying. As John Heald noted, refugees are always under constant security watch while on the ship.

Not sure what you'd like me to comment on. While I don't do social media, or John Heald, I saw an article that he was getting some rather xenophobic posts about this rescue, with passengers complaining that it happened, or saying "leave them be, it was their choice". Americans, as a nation of immigrants (nearly everyone's family started out somewhere else, mine came to the colonies in the early 1600's), really amaze me with their intolerance of others.

Innocent passage also has defined actions that are not allowed, and anchoring is one of them. So, if the ship anchors within territorial waters, it is no longer on "innocent passage".

Well, I mean do you want to see a website that says 25 ships entered the US this week, and 23 reported no cases of GI illness, and one had 1 case, and one had 30 cases, or just show the one ship that had 30 cases. The USPH's mandate is to prevent the introduction of infectious disease into the US, not reporting, or even protecting, the health of passengers on cruise ships. We all know that noro is already in the US, and one or two cases out of a couple thousand people entering the US isn't much call for alarm, but if a hundred out of those couple thousand are ill, then you have a possible "super spreader" scenario where those people can go home and spread this far and wide. They set a threshold limit for where they feel that remediation measures need to be increased to prevent that large number of people getting ill and re-entering the US, and those limits are where the reporting is. As long as a ship is following the VSP program, they are free from health inspection every cruise, which is what happens to cargo ships, etc, that don't have the VSP to follow. Imagine the headaches if USPH came aboard every week to inspect the ship and conduct health interviews with a hundred passengers before allowing passengers to disembark.

Nothing, never said there was. It is just that a MI flag ship (like Pearl Mist) has significant operating cost and tax benefits doing a Canadian and US itinerary over a US flag ship. Just as a US flag ship could do a Caribbean cruise itinerary, but would have competitive drawbacks compared to their foreign flag rivals. I expect that ACL will use US flag vessels on the Great Lakes, simply because it will give them flexibility in itineraries.

Never. If the number of cases changes from the initial report before arrival in US, if the numbers are below the threshold limits, those reports are not published either. The only reports that become public knowledge are the update reports at the 2% and 3% thresholds. These most commonly lag about a week behind.

Because your trip starts in a foreign country (Canada), and ends in the US, it is a foreign voyage, and not subject to the PVSA. PVSA is only concerned with domestic voyages, ones that start and end in a US port. Yes, your cruise would be legal for a US flag ship, again because it is a foreign voyage. The advantage that a US flag ship would have is to be able to sail a cruise that only includes US ports (no Canadian ports), or one that started in one US port and ended in another US port, whether or not it included a Canadian port. It is far more costly to operate a US flag vessel than a Marshall Island flag vessel, which is why Pearl Cruises has flagged the Mist there. Because she was built in Canada, that gives the ship an advantage in becoming Canadian flag, which is also much more expensive than MI flag, but would allow the ship to cruise exclusively Canadian ports, just like the PVSA allows US flag ships to cruise exclusively US ports.

Actually, the ship has to report even if there are zero cases onboard. The initial report, whether reporting any cases or not, has to be made 24 hours prior to returning to a US port. This is the "routine report". The "special reports" need to be made when the cumulative cases reaches 2% or 3% of passengers or crew (not combined). E. coli, botulism, salmonella, shigella, to name a few.

Which cruise lines are you referring to as "american"? None of the major cruise lines are US companies. Again, what are you basing your "better condition" on? Rust? Really? Where did you meet these crew members from the engineering department? Because loss of one main generator will not stop the ship. As I've said, I was a Chief Engineer with NCL.

this information came from whom?

If that is the case, it is very risky for RCI, as past illness data is reviewed whenever the USPH inspects a ship, and if the report doesn't correspond with other data the CDC may have (reports from individuals), then the ship can fail the inspection and be barred from boarding passengers.

Whether or not there is any noro onboard a cruise ship, it must make a report to the CDC at least 24 hours prior to entering US waters reporting the number of GI cases (even if zero, so every voyage).The ship then needs to report again when the number of cases reaches 2% of passengers or crew, and then again when it reaches 3%. The only time anything is shown on the CDC website (which is for GI outbreak updates is when the 3% threshold is reached. So, there could be 70 cases of noro onboard, and there would be no report on the CDC website.

As the Pearl Mist is a newer ship, and Canadian built, I'm sure ACL will retain the ship, as reflagging to Canadian would avail them of the ability to meet the Canadian Coastal Shipping Act (analogous to PVSA), and sail exclusively to Canadian ports. Or, maintaining the Marshall Island flag would give them significant tax advantage. I have no doubt that ACL, with its ambitious building program, will target the Great Lakes market, using US flag vessels where appropriate, and Canadian vessels where appropriate. The AQV ocean ships were too old for economical usage (IMHO), and the river boats were bought at near scrap prices to keep them from competitors, while ACL powers over Viking in the US river market.

This day out of service is needed to comply with the PVSA, as your "back to back" would be from Miami to Port Canaveral (Miami to Miami, Miami to PC, PC to PC, so as far as CBP is concerned this is Miami to PC.

ACL would not use the AQV ships in their Pearl Seas subsidiary, as this would eliminate their ability to bypass the PVSA. The ships need to be US owned, and Pearl is not a US company. Why initiate a US subsidiary to a non-US subsidiary, when they can operate US flag Great Lake ships directly under ACL.

I was not aware of this 2 day dry dock, as it is not listed as scheduled in the DNV database. It is unusual, for a ship of 20 years old to have just a 2 day docking, especially since unforeseen problems are often found when the ship goes dry, but it makes some sense as an interim docking to make up for the obviously missed docking about a year ago, and to reset things in line with the 2025 class renewal timeframe. To be completely factual, one of the "seven generators" is the emergency generator. As I stated before, the ship will routinely sail with one main generator down for overhaul, for weeks at a time, so this would not cause the USCG to prevent the ship from sailing. Even with two main generators down, the ship would not be prohibited from sailing, and could still likely make full speed. If, however, the problem was with the emergency generator, then that would definitely be a "no sail" item. Failure of the emergency generator is definitely a safety concern for the ship, and in not specifying that as the problem, I find your answer somewhat disingenuous. Especially as you camouflage the emergency generator in a lump with the other generators, calling it "just" one of seven. Now it all makes sense. Hilo is the typical day for crew fire drills, and also the weekly test of the emergency generator, which apparently failed during this test.

As I said upthread, it is an inconsistent problem. Your hair dryer may work one day, and not the next. It depends on the state of the ship's electrical system (whether any ground faults are present or not) at the time you want to use your Dyson, as to whether it will work or not.

Yes, the generic term is "podded propulsion system". There are two manufacturers, ABB and Rolls Royce. Since ABB is the 800 lb gorilla of the "podded propulsion system" market, "azipod" (their trademark) is used generically (its handier). POA has the Rolls Royce "Mermaid" podded system.

Not sure why one generator being down would stop the ship, or even get the USCG involved. The ship (and nearly all cruise ships for that matter) routinely operate with one generator engine down for overhaul, and these overhauls (about every 2.5 years for each engine) take about 4 weeks to complete. POA has 6 generators, all identical, and any 4 of them could provide full speed to the ship. The only thing I can think of is there was an electrical problem with one of the two main switchboards, only allowing 3 generators to be put on line, and halving power to the azipods.

Looks to me like they will see 3 of the 4 ports of call, Kahului, Hilo, and Nawiliwili. Fair enough, not another overnight on Kauai, but they did have the overnight on Maui, but they get to see all of the islands that the cruise was scheduled to go to. The only missed port was Kona.

Ah, no. There is no such thing for ships. And, they do not stay "inside controlled water areas", as there are no traffic separation schemes in Hawaii. There are a few whale protection zones, but that is mainly "go slow" areas, you are free to move around in them as you want.

Which are well outside the normal shipping lane through the channel.

The North Sea pilots are unusual, and not required, though most ships take them, due as you say to the amount of traffic in the area, providing another set of eyes to the bridge team. While pilots are well paid, they also have one of the most dangerous jobs around, a recent report saying that 1 in 20 will die on the job. Typically, before taking a pilot's job, you must get a merchant marine license and sail on that license for a time to gain experience in handling ships. Then there are the exams, that in many cases requires you to hand draw a chart of the area you are looking for pilotage for, including all navigational markers, and obstructions, in their proper locations. Then, there is the professional bond, of several hundred thousand dollars, that you have to have. Then, you start out as an apprentice, under another pilot, making not much money. After a while, if the other pilots approve, you can move up to handling small ships, and then over time, you move up to larger ships. The pay is based on the number and size of ships you handle. You typically also have to "buy your way in" to the pilot's association, to the tune of another few hundred thousand dollars.

The pilot stays onboard the entire time the ship is in the Channel and North Sea.

From looking it up, cardioversion is different from defibrillation, so an AED would not be a proper device.