Oceania Regatta - Propulsion Issue - Anyone onboard current voyage?

Who suspected it a passenger???

Jancruz1

Does not matter who suspected it, but the question was is true? Some passengers are pretty smart, right? Lets get the answer without a cover up.

 

What worries me is that the emergency generator did not come online as it is supposed to. That, I'm sure, drew a lot of attention from the USCG.

My question too. Might explain the fuel issue (same fuel).

I thought most ships have monitoring equipment that measure the quantity, density and detects any water during the bunkering process.

My question too. Might explain the fuel issue (same fuel).

 

I thought most ships have monitoring equipment that measure the quantity, density and detects any water during the bunkering process.

Actually, no. The emergency generator is designed to run on diesel fuel, since residual fuel that the main engines run on requires heating and external pumps to get it to a condition to be able to be burned, while diesel fuel can be used right out of the tank, and with engine driven pumps. Also, the emergency generator is required to have its own fuel tank, capable of holding enough fuel for the engine to run at full load for 24 hours.

While the ship does monitor the quantity, and density is an easily measured specification, it does not have much to do with fuel quality, or compatibility problems, which are the only real problems that residual fuels present. Water content is not a real problem, as all residual fuel is centrfuged before going to the engines to remove water and solids.

Typically, the ship relies on the specification sheet provided by the bunker supplier during bunkering, and may run some rough field tests, but industry practice is to not burn fuel recently bunkered until the lab analysis comes back, as this has information on a lot of things like catalytic refining byproducts that will burn fine in the engine, but can cause accelerated wear to engine parts.

Actually, no. The emergency generator is designed to run on diesel fuel, since residual fuel that the main engines run on requires heating and external pumps to get it to a condition to be able to be burned, while diesel fuel can be used right out of the tank, and with engine driven pumps. Also, the emergency generator is required to have its own fuel tank, capable of holding enough fuel for the engine to run at full load for 24 hours.

 

While the ship does monitor the quantity, and density is an easily measured specification, it does not have much to do with fuel quality, or compatibility problems, which are the only real problems that residual fuels present. Water content is not a real problem, as all residual fuel is centrfuged before going to the engines to remove water and solids.

 

Typically, the ship relies on the specification sheet provided by the bunker supplier during bunkering, and may run some rough field tests, but industry practice is to not burn fuel recently bunkered until the lab analysis comes back, as this has information on a lot of things like catalytic refining byproducts that will burn fine in the engine, but can cause accelerated wear to engine parts.

Thanks always nice to have a Chief Engineer's expertise!

Do they make the USCG's inspection report public??

Thanks always nice to have a Chief Engineer's expertise!

 

Do they make the USCG's inspection report public??

It would be listed here;

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwio-cj6scjXAhUB8CYKHTPYBycQFggwMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcgmix.uscg.mil%2FPSIX%2FPSIXSearch.aspx&usg=AOvVaw3_768onJsyiNlJeCTXMeqj

But, there are delays in posting, and not a lot of details are typically given. This site is for all Port State Control (PSC) inspections/detentions.

We were on this cruise and can provide some clarification to the "dead in the water" issue. Our suite neighbor is a former US Navy member and engineer as well as having a strong business and legal background. He was invited along with 3 other passengers to meet with a VP from Oceania who had flown in to Honolulu on an emergency basis from corporate HQ in Miami. This invitation was after much demanding of vessel staff for details of the cause and repair info that a proper decision could be made as regards passengers' right to choose if they wish to continue the cruise IF the repair could be made!!

No precise information was provided, however it was clarified that a main breaker on the electrical system was tripped and the normal redundancy to fall back to the emergency generator failed to occur. No explanations as to why nor how the repairs were to be made and their degree of reliability.

To be noted a "back up" breaker was put on board!!

Also, to be noted - this invitation to meet was after leaving Honolulu after the 2 day repair. So no opportunity to disembark if one felt at risk!! Imagine if this failure had occurred midway between San Diego and Honolulu!!

The horrible Public Relations handling by Oceania, their total lack of an open and clear line of information to the 600 passengers smelt strongly of their legal department. Considering the Norwegian Cruise Line - owners of Oceania - have had issues similar to this Regatta event on some of their other vessels, they own 4 R class ships, and considering they are in court with their engine supplier over what sounds like similar break downs, "mum is the word"!!

As to the insulting $ 500 per person offer of a credit toward a cruise in 2018 or 2019 for what they stated as "minor inconvenience" - the makings of a class action is to be found here. As well as having purchased their prospectus for this cruise and having chosen Penthouse suite accommodations at +/- $ 14,000 for the 2 of us - should we not be offered an amount different from passengers that choose less expensive accommodations??

We had a problem with THIS cruise - so settle this issue with an appropriate offer for credit toward THIS cruise.

Health issues at our age exclude us likely cruising again. This was to be our "bucket list" last major trip!!

This saga will continue!!

Welcome to Cruise Critic.

While I will not dispute the previous poster's account of what went on onboard, I'll ask a question and make some technical comments.

First, where did you hear that NCL is in court with Wartsila over "similar break downs"? The Wartsila engines on the Regatta are widely used in the maritime industry, not just on cruise ships, and I've not heard of any type of suit resulting from failures.

Second, a failure of the "main circuit breaker" would have nothing to do with the "engine supplier", since the manufacturer of the main switchboard (the electrical distribution system and the circuit breakers) is a totally different company than the engine manufacturer.

There is really no "main circuit breaker" for the whole ship, unlike your house. The ship has 4 generators, each with a circuit breaker connecting it electrically to the switchboard. You would have to have a failure of all 4 breakers to totally black the ship out for any extended time. Even if only two or three generators were running at the time, if one breaker failed, there are "safeties" in the power management software that controls the ship that would reduce power to that of the remaining generators (slowing the propulsion, for instance), or if that failed, and the other generators tripped off line from overload, then the generators that were not running at the time are designed to start up and come online to restore power, and this generally happens before the emergency generator starts.

Until I can see the USCG investigative report, I can't comment on how or what exactly happened. From earlier posts it appears that hotel power was restored fairly quickly but that propulsion was lost for an extended time. This appears to be two problems, one with power generation, and one with propulsion, but again, until I see what actually happened, they can be intertwined to a degree. As to what would have happened midway between the West Coast and Hawaii, I would bet that had it happened then, the ship's engineers could have worked to get propulsion back on in a limited fashion enough to get the ship to Hawaii. The decision to tow the ship to port was most likely due to the ship's proximity to the islands, and the availability of the tugs. Any loss, even a partial loss, of propusion or steering capability would have resulted in the USCG requiring a tug escort, at the very least, into any US port.

As to the class action statement, well a quick look at Oceania's ticket contract, which is very similar to every other cruise line's contract, states that there is no implied warranty for any service, facility or act covered by the contract. It also states that all claims other than personal injury claims are subject solely to binding arbitration, and further that the passenger has waived all rights to class action suits.

Fascinating. Looking forward to hearing more about this and appreciating chengkp's perspective.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

As to the class action statement, well a quick look at Oceania's ticket contract, which is very similar to every other cruise line's contract, states that there is no implied warranty for any service, facility or act covered by the contract. It also states that all claims other than personal injury claims are subject solely to binding arbitration, and further that the passenger has waived all rights to class action suits.

but who reads the fine print :halo:

We had a problem with THIS cruise - so settle this issue with an appropriate offer for credit toward THIS cruise.

I would agree with you there

They should have given you an OBC for this sailing some people may not want or be able to cruise with Oceania again

I would be shocked if you found an attorney for a class action. Don’t pay any money upfront. It’s a losing strategy

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Having just returned from this cruise I feel that Oceania's offer of $500.00 is a derogatory one, in as much as they are keeping all the compensation in house. If they had any regard for customer care and retention the offer should have been for a credit against this particular cruise and not for a future cruise. Many people for whom this was a once in a lifetime trip will not cruise again or choose to cruise again with Oceania therefore the compensation is no good what-so-ever to them. Shame on Oceania!

Chengkp75 did you ever serve as a marine inspector in USCG or as a classification society inspector?

Chengkp75 did you ever serve as a marine inspector in USCG or as a classification society inspector?

No, but I've worked with them many, many times over the years.

Having just returned from this cruise I feel that Oceania's offer of $500.00 is a derogatory one, in as much as they are keeping all the compensation in house. If they had any regard for customer care and retention the offer should have been for a credit against this particular cruise and not for a future cruise. Many people for whom this was a once in a lifetime trip will not cruise again or choose to cruise again with Oceania therefore the compensation is no good what-so-ever to them. Shame on Oceania!

I was also on this cruise. Agree with you completely. First time with Oceania, most likely last one.

Hi Folks... I will be on this vessel in March. I am sure (?) there wont be an issue like this in the future. Aside from the breakdown, can anyone provide any positive information on the ship and the actual voyage and ports? As I said, we will be sailing in March and will be going from Hawaii through the Canal and land in Miami. Thanks!

Cindy

Hi Folks... I will be on this vessel in March. I am sure (?) there wont be an issue like this in the future. Aside from the breakdown, can anyone provide any positive information on the ship and the actual voyage and ports? As I said, we will be sailing in March and will be going from Hawaii through the Canal and land in Miami. Thanks!

 

Cindy

you may want to read some of the reviews on the ship & join the roll call for your cruise

the ports you can research or look at the ports of call forums on CC to see what interests you in the ports

we have done the cruise through the canal a couple of times

we love the small ships

if you have specific questions maybe start a new thread & ask there

Cindy, the roll call for your cruise is fairly active. Please join us.

I, too was on the Regatta which lost power off Honolulu. Similarly, we were offered as a "goodwill gesture" of $500.00 towards a future cruise only for 2018 or 2019. (other stipulations ) as well.. As stated above if I got $500.00 towards a future cruise and if I had a inside cabin on a lower deck. I might be satisfied. However, we had a concierge cabin and the ' goodwill gesture" offered by Oceania is a joke. even worse an insult. Even my travel agent was astonished in Oceania's blasé attitude.

We paid dearly for the cruise and were at sea for approximately 70 % of the time.. this was by far not the dream cruise we had been expecting. In fairness to the passengers who paid handsomely for their accommodations and experience... I think Oceania should review and provide just restitution to us .. We have choices when we pick a cruise. The sour taste that remains in my mouth from the mis-adventure remains today. Anybody I have spoken to about our 'vacation' believes it is an absurdity that Oceania has not been more responsive.

Oceania are now offering more compensation for this cruise.

Some have recived a letter from Oceania stating that "they were offering an additional goodwill gesture" of a $500.00 credit per person for a future cruise. Others $250 credit per person. Does anyone know why the different amounts.

Oceania are now offering more compensation for this cruise.

 

Some have recived a letter from Oceania stating that "they were offering an additional goodwill gesture" of a $500.00 credit per person for a future cruise. Others $250 credit per person. Does anyone know why the different amounts.

I received the letter offering additional $250 each, I had an inside cabin.

This "compensation" offer is absurd. Can you imagine if you'd gone to John Lewis or Walmart and bought say, a vacuum cleaner and when you got the box home, found half the tools were missing, and then when you complained were offered 25% discount off another cleaner?

This "compensation" offer is absurd. Can you imagine if you'd gone to John Lewis or Walmart and bought say, a vacuum cleaner and when you got the box home, found half the tools were missing, and then when you complained were offered 25% discount off another cleaner?

Apples and oranges - at best :)

That said, it does not sounds like a generous compensation.

Frankly, it stinks. Spoke to a manager from customer srvice.. Given multiple apologies but no other action. The additional $250.00 is an inadequate reply to our concerns for just compensation. . Their 'talk' is cheap and they are incapable to comply with action befitting an upscale cruise line... After all... Even carnival would have treated us better. We should have all gotten to the media while on board... Anybody in for a class action law suit????