Anthem keeps docking us around

[foxgoodrich]

Yes, I knew that - that's why I used the word detective. I couldn't add the little smilie face with the tongue because I was on my phone app.

 

And I agree with your assessment of him - the thread where he found the owner of the camera he found washed up on the beach is worth the read. :)

 

Oh yes! I think that might be my all time favorite thread here. It still exists (it was 2010) so you can read it, but the photo links don't work. The video of the sea turtle swimming with the camera hooked on himself was truly unique! That camera traveled more than 1000 miles with no propulsion whatsoever...unless you count its brief encounter with the sea turtle...but of course it took months to arrive in Key West.

 

I've wondered if the owner of the camera in Aruba still has it. (Aquahound followed the clues and found the owner.) He should know that when he's ready to get rid of that camera he could probably sell it on eBay and get a lot of bids from CC members for such a famous collectible.:p

Judy

Edited February 12, 2016 by foxgoodrich

[bigeagle12]

I just listened to the interview posted on a newly created thread:

 

 

 

Exclusive Interview with Anthem Passenger (co-worker)

 

 

It is well worth hearing.

 

 

Here is the link .. long but good

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2314545

[chengkp75]

Here's the link and the text saying the Ship told Coast Guard the azipod was not working. If you click on the link now the story is changed, but I have the text saved in an email I sent.

 

Storm that damaged ship had damaged propulsion system

 

Bayonne, N.J. — The Coast Guard says the intense winter storm that battered a cruise ship and shortened its voyage also damaged part of the ship’s propulsion system.

 

Coast Guard spokesman Charles Rowe says the Anthem of the Seas’ left azipod was rendered inoperable during the storm, which packed hurricane-force winds and wave heights of 30 feet. An azipod is a propeller that’s mounted to a steerable pod that contains an electric motor.

 

Rowe says the Coast Guard was told about the problem before the 1,141-foot ship returned early to its homeport of Bayonne on Wednesday night with 4,500 passengers and 1,600 crew members.

 

The Coast Guard says the ship sustained largely cosmetic damage, including broken glass, china and balcony doors.

 

Rowe says the ship can safely maneuver with a single azipod.

 

Do you have the full text of the original article? Because this one is somewhat sketchy. It says that the USCG spokesman said the azipod had been replaced, and we all know that's not possible. Just wondering what else was done for "journalistic license"?

 

So now that we know the coast guard was informed about the damaged azipod, why did they risk traveling back up the coast toward the storm? The captain talked about this small pocket of clear weather between the old storm and the new storm. Sounds like a risk trying to travel btw 2 storms with damaged propulsion when they could have just docked in Port Canaveral safely, which would of had larger financial implications having to fly people home. Luckily the decision worked out for him.

 

And the timing of the notification is important. Again, this could be a matter of one azipod not tracking (steering) in exactly the same direction as the other, so that steering was compromised, but not propulsion. I don't know. But the USCG would be notified only within 24 hours of arrival at Ambrose of a casualty to steering or propulsion.

 

Being as there are no direct quotes in the article (may be in the original), I'm a bit leery of any description given, as the reporter may be trying to put it in layman's terms. As previously noted about this person's statements, he most certainly would not have said "left" azipod.

 

Not saying that the pod may not have been operable at all, but just that I would be somewhat leery of "technical" descriptions given in the media. And the fact that RCI planned to sail on Saturday from the get go, tells me that they knew there was no major damage to the pod, just something that could be fixed relatively easily. I'll wait for the BMA investigation, or if the ship is actually detained, a USCG report on the damage.

 

I just went to the USCG Port State Control Information Exchange, which lists all "contacts" (vessel boardings) by the USCG on all foreign vessels. Unfortunately, the list is updated weekly, last update was 8 Feb, so this won't be posted until next Monday. However, the USCG did a Port State Inspection on 6 Jan 2016 in San Juan.

Edited February 12, 2016 by chengkp75

[Paul65]

Do you have the full text of the original article? Because this one is somewhat sketchy. It says that the USCG spokesman said the azipod had been replaced, and we all know that's not possible. Just wondering what else was done for "journalistic license"?

 

Might just be misunderstanding rather than journalistic license. Perhaps there was a part that was replaced, which could be done easily from inside the ship. Don't think they'll be completely changing out an azipod without it being done in dry-dock.

[Ocean Boy]

 

 

 

And the timing of the notification is important. Again, this could be a matter of one azipod not tracking (steering) in exactly the same direction as the other, so that steering was compromised, but not propulsion. I don't know. But the USCG would be notified only within 24 hours of arrival at Ambrose of a casualty to steering or propulsion.

 

 

We need some of your help on this thread......

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2314372

[KarinaGW]

So now that we know the coast guard was informed about the damaged azipod, why did they risk traveling back up the coast toward the storm? The captain talked about this small pocket of clear weather between the old storm and the new storm. Sounds like a risk trying to travel btw 2 storms with damaged propulsion when they could have just docked in Port Canaveral safely, which would of had larger financial implications having to fly people home. Luckily the decision worked out for him.

 

Did you even read what you posted?

 

 

The Coast Guard says the ship sustained largely cosmetic damage, including broken glass, china and balcony doors.

 

Rowe says the ship can safely maneuver with a single azipod. <emphasis mine>

 

He would have had to go through the second storm that he believed was developing to get to Canaveral. He did not want to put us through that, so he, in conjunction with both the Coast Guard and the home office decided to slipstream behind our old nemesis (my phrasing, not theirs) and bring us back to Bayonne.

 

Y'all are arguing that he entered the one storm deliberately with foreknowledge despite the storm warning, but yet you wanted him to do the same to go to Canaveral. You can't have it both ways.

[njbrandon]

Do you have the full text of the original article? Because this one is somewhat sketchy. It says that the USCG spokesman said the azipod had been replaced, and we all know that's not possible. Just wondering what else was done for "journalistic license"?

 

The link to the original story is the same, so it was rewritten. The original didn't mention anything being replaced yet. I only have this original text because I emailed it to someone.

[Paul65]

You can't have it both ways.

 

That's not fair! :mad:

[njbrandon]

Did you even read what you posted?

 

 

 

He would have had to go through the second storm that he believed was developing to get to Canaveral. He did not want to put us through that, so he, in conjunction with both the Coast Guard and the home office decided to slipstream behind our old nemesis (my phrasing, not theirs) and bring us back to Bayonne.

 

Y'all are arguing that he entered the one storm deliberately with foreknowledge despite the storm warning, but yet you wanted him to do the same to go to Canaveral. You can't have it both ways.

 

We were close to Port Canaveral when they turned around. There was no second storm forecasted until possibly the following day. We would have made it to PC. It was more of a risk to turn around and go back up the coast in that small pocket of weather he talked about, especially with a propulsion issue.

[Paul65]

We were close to Port Canaveral when they turned around. There was no second storm forecasted until possibly the following day. We would have made it to PC. It was more of a risk to turn around and go back up the coast in that small pocket of weather he talked about, especially with a propulsion issue.

 

If only they had consulted you . . . .

[reallyitsmema]

We were close to Port Canaveral when they turned around. There was no second storm forecasted until possibly the following day. We would have made it to PC. It was more of a risk to turn around and go back up the coast in that small pocket of weather he talked about, especially with a propulsion issue.

 

How about the storm out there now?

 

http://www.intellicast.com/National/Radar/Current.aspx

 

Maybe they looked at the long range forecast and felt Bayonne made more sense.

 

None of us know all the details that went into their decision and really not worth speculating.

[shaun07]

I needed a break from Rccl so stepped out for lunch [emoji17]

 

 

 

[Paul65]

Not sure if this one's been posted yet, but USCG is saying that the ship is likely to be ready to go tomorrow.

 

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/02/coast_guard_deems_storm-damaged_cruise_ship_seawor.html

[cpufrost]

Not sure if this one's been posted yet, but USCG is saying that the ship is likely to be ready to go tomorrow.

 

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/02/coast_guard_deems_storm-damaged_cruise_ship_seawor.html

 

 

Well that's good news, right?

 

Remember "The China Syndrome"?

 

Steady as a rock, Jack.

[poncho1973]

Not sure if this one's been posted yet, but USCG is saying that the ship is likely to be ready to go tomorrow.

 

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/02/coast_guard_deems_storm-damaged_cruise_ship_seawor.html

 

That doesn't fit the agenda of many posters! *shock* *awe*

[drarill]

Not sure if this one's been posted yet, a professional time-lapse video of the voyage recorded by a team of advertising and marketing consultants.

 

http://myfox8.com/2016/02/12/amazing-time-lapse-video-captures-cruise-ships-violent-travel-through-storm/

 

BTW, was the guy smoking on his balcony during the storm?

Edited February 12, 2016 by drarill

[BecciBoo]

Now that was fascinating and tells it like it was....I never noticed a very bad heel though. But impressive wave action! And the glass panels that were broken on the pool deck. Wow.

 

Glad the predictions of weeks in dry dock were officially debunked and Anthem is able to follow through for those this next week. It would've been a bummer not to be able to cruise as planned.

 

Carry on....

Edited February 12, 2016 by BecciBoo

[shaun07]

Not sure if this one's been posted yet, but USCG is saying that the ship is likely to be ready to go tomorrow.

 

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/02/coast_guard_deems_storm-damaged_cruise_ship_seawor.html

 

I think thats great news. I truly hope Rccl and all cruise line have learned to be more cautious when it comes to weather.

 

Doesn't explain why rccl denied there was any serious damage to the ship

[Langley Cruisers]

BTW, was the guy smoking on his balcony during the storm?

 

Yes, he absolutely was.

[chengkp75]

I think thats great news. I truly hope Rccl and all cruise line have learned to be more cautious when it comes to weather.

 

Doesn't explain why rccl denied there was any serious damage to the ship

 

Notice that the USCG stated the port pod was shut down "as a precaution".

[KarinaGW]

I think thats great news. I truly hope Rccl and all cruise line have learned to be more cautious when it comes to weather.

 

Doesn't explain why rccl denied there was any serious damage to the ship

 

I would tend to think serious damage would be a hole in the side of the ship. A glitchy pod is a serious inconvenience as there was a fully functioning pod that could carry us safely if at a slower rate. Kinda like riding your car's spare donut til you get to the mechanic.

[shaun07]

I would tend to think serious damage would be a hole in the side of the ship. A glitchy pod is a serious inconvenience as there was a fully functioning pod that could carry us safely if at a slower rate. Kinda like riding your car's spare donut til you get to the mechanic.

 

I guess but I wouldn't want to sail on a ship with a broken pod. But I am a little gun shy :o

[beachnative]

I guess but I wouldn't want to sail on a ship with a broken pod. But I am a little gun shy :o

 

I was wondering about clutches myself and their effect on propulsion. This was just posted on another thread by chengkp75 and hopefully set you at ease on that thread. I'm posting it here to help others:

 

The clutches are over-torque protection for the steering motors that rotate the pod. They have nothing to do with the propulsion motor or the pod's ability to provide propulsion. These clutches are only on steerable pods, and are there to prevent damage to the electric motors and reduction gears should the pod be rotated in such a way that the pod or propeller struck an obstruction, so that you could not continue to turn the pod further and cause damage. Sort of like an oscillating desk fan, and you stop it from going back and forth, eventually the gearbox will strip out.

 

The side and steering forces required to keep the ship's heading wore out the clutches.

 

The pod was usable, and even steerable, but they didn't want to damage anything further. End of discussion.

Edited February 12, 2016 by beachnative

[Ocean Boy]

I guess but I wouldn't want to sail on a ship with a broken pod. But I am a little gun shy :o

 

Some of the ships have sailed for months with a pod shut down until it could be repaired. Though those ships all had three pods instead of two like Anthem.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Ocean Boy

[Clarea]

Some of the ships have sailed for months with a pod shut down until it could be repaired. Though those ships all had three pods instead of two like Anthem.

I wonder if any of the Voyager or Freedom class ships every sailed for a long period of time (weeks/months) with one of the rotatable pods shut down? My recollection of Indy's pod problem was that it was the center fixipod.

 

Reason I'm curious is another post I read from chengkp where he mentioned that Anthem needed a tug to approach Cape Liberty because it only had one steering mechanism, and rules require redundancy in steering.