Ruby sick passenger

[SwimCarrie]

Hi all!

 

I haven't seen anything posted about this yet. There was a US Coast Guard rescue of a sick passenger on our Ruby coastal that ended yesterday. The whole operation was fascinating and I wanted to share a few thoughts.

 

First of all, I hope the passenger is okay. The process itself was enough to cause a lot of additional distress for him, I'm sure!!

 

Secondly, I always thought we were closer to the shore on these California coastals. I never imagined it would take a Medevac helicopter over an hour and a half to respond to an emergency on coastal cruises. They certainly came as fast as they could but I imagine it felt like a lot longer for the passenger in distress. At least the Coast Guard got him safely to San Diego and not Mexico!

 

Also, I know people are always preaching the value of insurance, but BUY INSURANCE!!! This is a prime example of how important it is. I imagine people being nonchalant about it...we're not far from the coast, only one day at sea, we don't need it. NO! Get it! Every time, every cruise! Got it? LOL.

 

My prayers go out to the passenger and his family.

[Pam in CA]

We, the taxpayers, pay for a Coast Guard medevac. However, whoever the person is, they will need insurance for any other expenses.

 

I read that it was a gentleman with intestinal bleeding. (This is public record.)

[aimee0715]

I have only been on one cruise with a medical evacuation(that I know of). On that cruise, we actually had 2! The first was a Coast Guard helicopter as you described. It is my understanding it was a crew member with a heart issue who was flown to St. Thomas. The second evacuation was a passenger. The ship pulled into Nassau a second time (we had already made our scheduled stop there) and offloaded a passenger and his companion. There was an ambulance waiting. I sure hope those folks had travel insurance.

[john watson]

Swim Carrie's post showed compassion and concern for a fellow passenger and highlighted the situation on coastal cruises being further from the safety of hospital than you might otherwise think, should ones plight become an acute emergency. Clearly being covered under an insurance policy for this very rare type of event is crucial.

 

I see no reasons whatsoever why this type of posting should cause offence to anybody in a civilised society.

 

Regards John

Edited October 4, 2015 by john watson

[Waterwitch]

Thanks, SwimCarrie! I was on the fence about whether or not to buy insurance. I have in the past and now I definitely will in the future! I thought your message about the Ruby passenger was sympathetic.

[PenguinLife]

We had one on a Carnival cruise a few years ago out of Galveston, passenger was part of a large wedding party onboard and was in a car accident on the way to the ship, boarded anyway and waited until we cast off to seek medical attention. It was determined that the passenger had internal bleeding while we were still within sight of land at the end of the ship channel (about 30-40 minutes from leaving port), so the ship pulled off to the side of the channel with the other waiting ships and a coast guard helicopter was sent out to rescue the passenger. In our case the process went VERY slow, the helicopter arrived about 30 minutes later just at sunset, circled the ship for nearly 40 minutes before starting the series of lowering crew members and basket down and lifting the injured person and a companion off the ship. Total time was over 2 hours for the process, much slower than is shown on TV. Each basket hoist to and from the helicopter was interrupted by the helicopter moving out over the water and hovering for 5-10 minutes. I would have thought they would want to do things quick before it got dark, but it was pitch black out by the time the helicopter finally departed.

[Pierlesscruisers]

We had one on a Carnival cruise a few years ago out of Galveston, passenger was part of a large wedding party onboard and was in a car accident on the way to the ship, boarded anyway and waited until we cast off to seek medical attention. It was determined that the passenger had internal bleeding while we were still within sight of land at the end of the ship channel (about 30-40 minutes from leaving port), so the ship pulled off to the side of the channel with the other waiting ships and a coast guard helicopter was sent out to rescue the passenger. In our case the process went VERY slow, the helicopter arrived about 30 minutes later just at sunset, circled the ship for nearly 40 minutes before starting the series of lowering crew members and basket down and lifting the injured person and a companion off the ship. Total time was over 2 hours for the process, much slower than is shown on TV. Each basket hoist to and from the helicopter was interrupted by the helicopter moving out over the water and hovering for 5-10 minutes. I would have thought they would want to do things quick before it got dark, but it was pitch black out by the time the helicopter finally departed.

 

n the case of a medevac the is the person being evacuated may have been delayed in being taken onboard due to there being problems in stabilizing his medical condition. Since there is a doctor on the ship was probably closely monitoring the patient, he may have delayed lifting the person to allow the patient to stabilize. The same thing could have been the situation with the companion also. But as to having a choice to do things like that during daylight or night, yes, the preference would be to do it during the day.

 

Tom

[waltd]

Thanks, SwimCarrie! I was on the fence about whether or not to buy insurance. I have in the past and now I definitely will in the future! I thought your message about the Ruby passenger was sympathetic.

 

It's not always the passenger you have to worry about. Having aging family members that might not be in the best of health can also change your travel plans.

[PenguinLife]

One does not have to be elderly to break a leg, or even get the flu at the wrong time.

[cb at sea]

Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. It would totally suck.

[SoCal Cruiser78]

Swim Carrie's post showed compassion and concern for a fellow passenger and highlighted the situation on coastal cruises being further from the safety of hospital than you might otherwise think...

 

I was on a coastal on the Ruby a couple weeks ago and, at one point, happened to walk past the electronic wall map. If accurate, we were FAR farther off the coast of Mexico than I would have imagined. Perhaps this was to keep us away from other shipping traffic? I have also heard they are allowed to burn cheaper, higher sulphur-content fuel at a certain distance offshore.

 

I realize that ships need to be a certain distance from land (12 miles?) before casinos and shops can open, but we appeared to be closer to 100 miles offshore. The distance traveled listed in the Patter later in the cruise was consistent with this.

Edited October 4, 2015 by SoCal Cruiser78

[Astro Flyer]

I was on a coastal on the Ruby a couple weeks ago and, at one point, happened to walk past the electronic wall map. If accurate, we were FAR farther off the coast of Mexico than I would have imagined. Perhaps this was to keep us away from other shipping traffic? I have also heard they are allowed to burn cheaper, higher sulphur-content fuel at a certain distance offshore.

 

I realize that ships need to be a certain distance from land (12 miles?) before casinos and shops can open, but we appeared to be closer to 100 miles offshore. The distance traveled listed in the Patter later in the cruise was consistent with this.

I doubt if opening casino/shops or the type of fuel used are the primary reasons for the route taken and instead sailing the most direct route between 2 ports to use less fuel.

 

I think that one factor in determining shipping lanes is taking the most direct route possible.

[Coral]

I was on a coastal on the Ruby a couple weeks ago and, at one point, happened to walk past the electronic wall map. If accurate, we were FAR farther off the coast of Mexico than I would have imagined. Perhaps this was to keep us away from other shipping traffic? I have also heard they are allowed to burn cheaper, higher sulphur-content fuel at a certain distance offshore.

 

I realize that ships need to be a certain distance from land (12 miles?) before casinos and shops can open, but we appeared to be closer to 100 miles offshore. The distance traveled listed in the Patter later in the cruise was consistent with this.

 

I am going to sound ignorant here but doesn't sailing that far away from the land have to do with dumping of sewage/gray water, etc...

[JimmyVWine]

I doubt if opening casino/shops or the type of fuel used are the primary reasons for the route taken and instead sailing the most direct route between 2 ports to use less fuel.

 

I think that one factor in determining shipping lanes is taking the most direct route possible.

If a ship has a choice of sailing the most direct route but that route means that the bars, shops and casino could not open, or take a slightly longer route that allows these venues to open, they will choose the longer route. It's a cruise after all. Not a merchant marine voyage where time is of the essence.

[ar1950]

I doubt if opening casino/shops or the type of fuel used are the primary reasons for the route taken and instead sailing the most direct route between 2 ports to use less fuel.

 

I think that one factor in determining shipping lanes is taking the most direct route possible.

 

Unless, like on a coastal where it takes 3 or 4 hours to go from one port, pick one, Catalina, Santa Barbara, or Ensenada to another like LA and you have 12 or 13 hours to kill, I think the time consuming route is more likely to be taken rather than the direct route.

 

Yes, and JimmyVWine's point also.....

Edited October 5, 2015 by ar1950

[Astro Flyer]

If a ship has a choice of sailing the most direct route but that route means that the bars, shops and casino could not open, or take a slightly longer route that allows these venues to open, they will choose the longer route. It's a cruise after all. Not a merchant marine voyage where time is of the essence.

Certainly but it doesn't take long to get into international waters to open profit making venues. SoCal Cruiser 78 was on a CA Coastal off the Mexican coast & the most direct route between Ensenada & Point Conception is well out to sea & thus no issue with opening up those venues. I checked the Crown's route after departing LA yesterday for SF & the ship headed directly towards Point Conception & is currently heading directly to SF...both routes are well off the CA coast.

 

How about clarifying my point...as directly as possible with opening those profitable venues.

Unless, like on a coastal where it takes 3 or 4 hours to go from one port, pick one, Catalina, Santa Barbara, or Ensenada to another like LA and you have 12 or 13 hours to kill, I think the time consuming route is more likely to be taken rather than the direct route.

 

Yes, and JimmyVWine's point also.....

Absolutely & I never posted that doesn't happen on quick hops between ports...I've been on coastals that went very slowly between ports or made wide slow circles to keep moving forward.

[Putterdude]

Having been on the Coral a few years back we witnessed a medivac off the ship when we were about 35 miles off San Francisco. The professionalism of the ship company and the Coast Guard was nothing short of amazing. Just recently I was contacted by one of the crew of the chopper asking if I would share some of my photos of the incident which I was happy to do.

[Pam in CA]

If a ship has a choice of sailing the most direct route but that route means that the bars, shops and casino could not open, or take a slightly longer route that allows these venues to open, they will choose the longer route. It's a cruise after all. Not a merchant marine voyage where time is of the essence.

They make giant circles out to sea at a slow, fuel-efficient speed. Yes, they also dump grey water as far from shore as possible. If they sailed directly to the next port, passengers would be paying a much bigger port charge since the ship would be charged port charges which they pass on to passengers.

 

Spend some time down at the Medical Center and you'll see a wide range of ages, illnesses and injuries. It's not just the "nearly dead." On one cruise several years ago, we ported in Acapulco and a woman in her early 50's was walking down the street talking to her friend when she tripped and fell, breaking her arm in four places. Another passenger, a young male, was playing basketball on Sun deck and twisted his ankle, breaking it. On the cruise before ours, a woman was taking a jungle walk in rubber thong sandals and was bitten by a poisonous snake. (Seriously? You're going to walk in the jungle in what is in effect almost barefoot?)

 

Insurance is for the unexpected. You never know what could or will happen to you. If you did, you'd be a seer.

[Steviewonder1]

My wife had a gall bladder attack on our second Alaskan Cruise and we were medevacuated off the ship in Sitka Alaska on the first tender. We had insurance that paid for all the shore issues. I called AMEX on the last day to get us out of there and we boarded a short hop plane to Juneau and then back to Seattle for our originally scheduled flight back home. Zero out of pocket with the insurance and half credit from the cruise and a refund of the excursions we missed. There were 5 ship's personnel helping me pack the PH Suite to get off the ship while my wife was taken care of in the infirmary. Yes, get the trip and med insurance unless you can fund an issue well into 5 digits!

[john watson]

I am going to sound ignorant here but doesn't sailing that far away from the land have to do with dumping of sewage/gray water, etc...

 

I think they process the water on board these days similar to on land.

 

Regards John

Edited October 5, 2015 by john watson

[Pierlesscruisers]

My wife had a gall bladder attack on our second Alaskan Cruise and we were medevacuated off the ship in Sitka Alaska on the first tender. We had insurance that paid for all the shore issues. I called AMEX on the last day to get us out of there and we boarded a short hop plane to Juneau and then back to Seattle for our originally scheduled flight back home.!

 

Ah, just the person I need to answer a question I've been wondering about for a long time. Since you apparently boarded the sip in Seattle and were medevaced at Sitka, you were technically in violation of the PVSA. I've looked at a couple of documents concerning the PVSA and have been unable to find anything that covers your situation. I know that the ship is charged the fine, for lack of a better word, for the violation of the act. I doubt very seriously that they forwarded the charge to you and I suspect that there is some provision that covers situations that are beyond the control of the passenger, such as your situation. Did you ever hear anything at all about any PVSA violation? Hopefully, common sense came into play and there was a way around the whole thing.

 

I noticed from the Stetson that you were Cav. Wouldn't have happened to have been in 7/1, 1/4 or 4/7 Cavs would you?

 

Tom

[caribill]

Ah, just the person I need to answer a question I've been wondering about for a long time. Since you apparently boarded the sip in Seattle and were medevaced at Sitka, you were technically in violation of the PVSA. I've looked at a couple of documents concerning the PVSA and have been unable to find anything that covers your situation.

 

Exceptions can be (and have been) granted for emergency situations.

[john watson]

Ah, just the person I need to answer a question I've been wondering about for a long time. Since you apparently boarded the sip in Seattle and were medevaced at Sitka, you were technically in violation of the PVSA. I've looked at a couple of documents concerning the PVSA and have been unable to find anything that covers your situation. I know that the ship is charged the fine, for lack of a better word, for the violation of the act. I doubt very seriously that they forwarded the charge to you and I suspect that there is some provision that covers situations that are beyond the control of the passenger, such as your situation. Did you ever hear anything at all about any PVSA violation? Hopefully, common sense came into play and there was a way around the whole thing.

 

 

Tom

 

 

The fine for landing passengers in violation of the Act I believe is $300 per passenger however there are exemptions for family emergencies. Similarly I believe you can put in a request for a waiver under the Jones Act to the United States Maritime Administration.

 

Regards John

[Keith1010]

Prayers and thoughts with the passenger.

 

Keith

[Pierlesscruisers]

The fine for landing passengers in violation of the Act I believe is $300 per passenger however there are exemptions for family emergencies. Similarly I believe you can put in a request for a waiver under the Jones Act to the United States Maritime Administration.

 

Regards John

 

Thanks for the reply. I knew what the fine was per passenger but couldn't find anything anywhere about exemptions. I don't believe a request for a Jones Act waiver would do anything at all for a PVSA violation as they are 2 separate acts.

 

Tom