The color of lifeboats

[chengkp75]

It does happen that when a ship lists the lifeboats on the high side become impossible to launch. However the one constant about lifeboats is that they are always able to be launched by gravity alone. Loss of power would disable lifeboats on both sides - and loss of power must be at least contemplated in a situation requiring launching of lifeboats.

 

Beyond that, the notion of a lifeboat filled with 100 plus passengers being "catapulted out to sea" from the "center belly of the ship" requires a fair amount of explaining.

 

What about the 370 person boats?

 

The only workable solution to the inability to launch a boat from the high side of a ship is the one used by many modern cargo ships, the "free-fall" boat, fitted centerline on the stern. This one requires even less mechanism than the fixed davit mega-boats on Allure or the slide out boats on Disney. The boat helmsman pumps a handle, a hydraulic cylinder opens a hook, and the boat falls down a ramp, and into the water. No wires, no releasing gear, just gravity. Just a few problems adapting these to cruise ships, though. As fat as the stern of the ships are, there is not enough room to have 18 of these ranged across the stern. The boats tend to be about twice the size for a given capacity as a davit launched boat (so a 150 person davit launched boat is now the size of the 370 person Allure boat), because instead of packing you in like sardines, everyone must have a separate seat, facing backwards, with a 4 point seat/shoulder harness to absorb the force when the boat hits the water. The boats also have to be totally enclosed, unlike cruise ship boats, which are "semi-enclosed", which adds space for things like the compressed air bottles required to breathe and run the engine while the doors are shut.

 

Let me guess at your scenario. You would have a row of free fall boats down the middle of the ship, and when one launches from the stern, the next moves aft, and then launches? This is the catapulting? Lifesaving equipment is designed on the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid. This would require everyone to wait to launch boats sequentially, instead of the ability to launch all at once from the side of the ship, and when a boat fails to launch for any reason, the rest of the boats are just out of luck. That scenario would never work.

 

Sorry, this appears to be another, "why can't they rescue the people on the Triumph" to another ship thread. Those who spend a week a year on a ship that studiously avoids bad weather, come up with grandiose ideas, and those of us who have spent the majority of our lives on the ocean will tell them why it cannot work.

 

Suggest away, all crazy suggestions welcome, but when we shoot them down, please don't come back again with the same idea over and over again, saying we are "nay sayers". We are professionals.

Edited May 2, 2014 by chengkp75

[Aquahound]

Here is another thought about life boats. Lets have them in the center belly of the ship and have them capitulated out to sea to launch.

 

No.

[dorisis]

I usually use a 1 or 2 color scheme for the clothes and accessories I take on a cruise. Next time I go,Ii will let the cruise line know so that they can coordinate the ships colors with mine.

Edited May 2, 2014 by dorisis

[chengkp75]

No.

 

As usual, Aqua, short, succinct, and to the point. ;)

[caribsun]

Delete

Edited May 2, 2014 by caribsun

[ahecht]

Very possible. However, they would have gone to the boat manufacturer, and said, "we don't like your colors, we want this one", and the boat manufacturer would have gone to either the BMA or more likely the IMO for approval, and since there is no real requirement, other than highly visible, it wouldn't have taken much to get approval. But as LeaveItAll says, a good marketing ploy. And as Aquahound says, it has probably morphed into an urban legend, bolstered by the "fun facts".

 

And for boogs, I tried to post a reply twice, but it wouldn't save, so I guess we'll have to pass on the hug. :D Not much for hugging anyway, so I'll buy the first round of craft beers if you're ever in Maine.

 

The IMO regulations at the time the Disney Magic and Wonder were being built simply stated that the lifeboats "be of a highly visible colour" (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCE (LSA) CODE 1.2.2.6). Now, it's true that the LSA had just been adopted in June 1996, around the same time that the Disney Magic was ordered, and it's possible that Disney petitioned the IMO to not specify international orange in the LSA, but that wouldn't quite fit with the "special exception" story that Disney likes to pass around.

 

In 2006 the IMO did amend the LSA (in MSC.207(81)) to specify the color "be of international or vivid reddish orange, or a comparably highly visible colour" (which went into effect in 2010), but this still would've allowed yellow lifeboats without any special permission. In 2010 the IMO's DE 53rd Session proposed to further amend that section to remove the "comparably highly visible colour", which would've required that all lifeboats be orange, but they got enough pushback that they just settled on publishing a clarification in 2012 that clarifies that this "only includes colours of strong chromatic content, i.e. pure achromatic colours such as white and all shades of grey should not be accepted as "comparable" colours."

[smeyer418]

LOL now I know why Disney costs so much as they spend time and money getting an exception for the color on the lifeboats....

BTW not to act like a lawyer but some country could deny Disney entrance because the fact that the flagged county gave an exception means literally that it doesn't meet SOLAS standards.

[Blue Mudshark]

According to several sources, including an article by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/16/garden/now-it-s-heigh-ho-off-to-sea-we-go.html) Disney did receive special approval for that specific shade.

 

 

None of those several sources ever seem to be able to specify which nameless international agency gave which vaguely referenced "special" approval, or when. This is probably because the story originated with Disney marketing.

[Capt_BJ]

SOLAS, USCG and non-US flagged passenger ships ....

 

back in 2006, on the USCG web site(s) you could find a Cruise Ship Consumer Fact Sheet ... it is probably still around somewhere but I can't find a current version ... however I DID save the 2006 version. The first section dealt with Coast Guard Safety Oversight

 

"Ocean-going cruise ships of U.S registry must meet a comprehensive set of Coast Guard safety regulations and be inspected regularly for compliance. The safety regulations cover things such as hull structure, water tight integrity ..{comment: the vast majority of the SOLAS recommendations have simply been written into the US regulations; in some cases a more strict or restrictive rule is applied to US registered vessels}. If the ship passes its annual inspection, it is issued a Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection valid for one year. ...

 

Today, nearly all ocean cruise lines employ passenger ships registered under flags of various foreign countries (non US) Each ship is subject to the vessel inspection laws of the country in which it is registered. However, as a condition of permitting the vessels to take on passengers at U.S. ports, the U.S. Coast Guard requires the ships to meet the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (referred to as SOLAS.) (emphasis added) ...

 

To insure compliance with SOLAS, the Coast Guard examines the ship when it first goes into service at a U.S. port, with quarterly checks thereafter. The examinations emphasize structural fire safety and proper lifesaving equipment. Fire and abandon ship drills conducted by the ship's crew are witnessed, and operational tests are made on key equipment such as steering systems, fire pumps and lifeboats. The U.S. Coast Guard has the authority to require correction of any deficiencies before allowing the ship to take on passengers at the U.S. port. ... (emphasis added)"

 

So the US plays an interesting trump card ... we can't require something the flag state does not require for the ship to sail ... but we CAN prohibit the loading of passengers .... hence compliance with the US interpretation becomes prudent . . .

[chengkp75]

SOLAS, USCG and non-US flagged passenger ships ....

 

So the US plays an interesting trump card ... we can't require something the flag state does not require for the ship to sail ... but we CAN prohibit the loading of passengers .... hence compliance with the US interpretation becomes prudent . . .

 

Not much of a trump card, in that ANY country where the ship makes a port call, can make a 'port state' inspection (what the USCG is allowed to do), and can detain a vessel for not meeting SOLAS requirements. While probably very few Caribbean countries even have the infrastructure to board and inspect the ships, they could. Those ships calling in Europe and Down Under have the same inspections as the ships in the US.

 

And while the original intent was to inspect the ships quarterly (as the POA is required to do), the latest USCG statements (around the time of the Triumph fire) was that their "goal" was to board every cruise ship twice a year, budget and ship's itinerary allowing. They are also mandated to do "port state" inspections of all cargo ships calling in the US (so the condition of allowing the ship to load passengers at US ports is somewhat disingenuous) and can detain any foreign vessel (and have done so to a few every year, 13 just in September 2014, and 98 to date this year). Interestingly, scrolling through the detentions, I found that the Veendam was detained in Boston in August for equipment failures and lack of training.