Vista damages Marina in Italy

[Organized Chaos]

As Loubetti mentioned these are common hydrodynamic forces. It happens a lot on the Houston ship channel. We had a ship 2 years ago pass another one and broke her moorings at the dock. Caused over 250k in damages.

Vista is the first of her class, dating back to the destiny, to have pods.

Except loubetti is insisting that it was not any kind of prop wash, but the "suction," as he called it, from the ship passing. He's referring to the action of the ship displacing water as it passes. The void created by the displaced water would then be filled by surrounding water, "sucking" it towards the ship. For this to be true in this case, the marina would've drained somewhat. All of it's water would've rushed towards the ship first, then came back. We see no evidence of any of the water within the marina being pulled out towards the ship. The water inside the marina was flat calm and undisturbed. The water level inside the marina remained the same until the wake from the ship hits. There's no doubt in my mind this is not a wave caused by displacement, but by the ship's wake.

[MsMot]

WOW!! It's just fortunate that there were no people in any of those boats:eek::eek::eek:

[les37b]

It will be a long time figuring this one out. It was almost like a "perfect storm" with a lot of other factors involved.

 

Nope. Very easy to figure out if you saw it live and posted it in cruise critic a few minutes after it happened!

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2395566

 

To summarise, the ships thrusters pushed away from the concrete dock walls.

 

It didn't really get far enough away. Vista moved forward turning slightly. As it moved away from the sea wall, it still wasn't far enough out to sea... It's a big ship! As it continued its turn, it's forward motion wasn't enough and the pilot eventually realised (and I will tell you... His realisation was after mine!!) the the stern of Vista was about to strike the floating pontoon. To counter this, he applied the stern thrusters which had the desired affect of moving Vista off its collision course, but of course the negative affect was the man made mini tsunami which swamped the platoon and overturned it sinking several boats in the wake.

 

Vista is due back in a day or so. When I left the ship CD Matt assured me Vista would be back. I suspect the enquiry might say different. In fairness, I do think it's tight, but safe. The pilot just really messed things up by misjudging the length of vista. I watched from the same vantage point as the pilot would have been, albeit one deck up on the overhang on the bridge.

[les37b]

Except loubetti is insisting that it was not any kind of prop wash, but the "suction," as he called it, from the ship passing. He's referring to the action of the ship displacing water as it passes. The void created by the displaced water would then be filled by surrounding water, "sucking" it towards the ship. For this to be true in this case, the marina would've drained somewhat. All of it's water would've rushed towards the ship first, then came back. We see no evidence of any of the water within the marina being pulled out towards the ship. The water inside the marina was flat calm and undisturbed. The water level inside the marina remained the same until the wake from the ship hits. There's no doubt in my mind this is not a wave caused by displacement, but by the ship's wake.

 

If you are calling the ships wake, it's thrusters, then you are correct. This was caused by the thrusters. If they were not used to correct the over steering from the ship, I'm certain there is no chance this would have happened.

[les37b]

With a very large ship, even going at a very slow speed, such can occur, and has in the past. Often the ship creates a "suction" that can pull things towards it.

 

One example, and it wasn't shown in the movie. When Titanic set sail on her fateful voyage, while moving slow departing Southampton, she passed the smaller liner "City of New York", which was tied to the pier. Even at "only" 45,000 tons, Titanic sucked the New York toward her, and the ship snapped her mooring lines. Quick action by Captain Smith and the tugs prevented a collision.

 

Here's an actual photo of the incident:

 

 

So until an investigation is complete, do not assume it was "prop wash", or attempt to place blame. As to someone paying, no doubt, but have you ever heard of insurance?

 

As someone who witnessed this first hand, I can definitely tell you no matter how many pictures you post and "stand by your views" you are wrong.

 

The ship was turning and was nowhere near being clear of the floating marina. The angle from the turn was making the ship get closer and closer..... Until it put on the side stern thrusters which did what it was meant to to and reverse the turn the ship was in and the ship then left with the stern significantly further away from the marina. Those thrusters are pretty powerful. They had hold this 140,00 tonne vessel to a halt. What do you think it would do to a floating jetty that's less than 40' away? I'll give you a clue.... Watch the video.

 

Now I posted in the original thread (less than 30 minutes after it happened) that who is responsible and if the pilots instructions were followed. What caused the damage isn't in question. Who is to blame seems to be. My personal thoughts are that this is not carnivals fault but the port authority of Messina pilot. I really can only think that the pilot was standing looking from the other side at its clearance of the port wall and completely forgot about the marina. Do I know that for a fact? Nope. But I can tell you that from the view looking at the marina, you would have to be blind not to know a collision was imminent.

 

BTW are you really suggesting this was staged for insurance? If not, can you explain what you meant?

Edited September 7, 2016 by les37b

[les37b]

Except loubetti is insisting that it was not any kind of prop wash, but the "suction," as he called it, from the ship passing. He's referring to the action of the ship displacing water as it passes. The void created by the displaced water would then be filled by surrounding water, "sucking" it towards the ship. For this to be true in this case, the marina would've drained somewhat. All of it's water would've rushed towards the ship first, then came back. We see no evidence of any of the water within the marina being pulled out towards the ship. The water inside the marina was flat calm and undisturbed. The water level inside the marina remained the same until the wake from the ship hits. There's no doubt in my mind this is not a wave caused by displacement, but by the ship's wake.

 

Apart from being periously close to the floating pontoon which you've correctly said was unaffected by the ships closeness..... Until the thrusters were applied to stop impact. Had they not done that, the ship WOULD have hit the pontoon. Those onboard I know that also saw it, said the exact same thing.

 

I wonder when the enquiry will be completed and if Vista will be allowed back in in a couple of days.

[les37b]

Isn't Carnival self insured? If not, insured with Lloyd's of London? I don't see it affecting my insurance premiums, but I do see it affecting stockholders of Carnival which I do not own. Stoickholders always take it in the shorts when stuff like this happens.

 

I don't think it will affect carnival at all as this is (I believe) all down to pilot and therefore the port authorities responsibility.

 

We shall see. Hopefully it will all come out in the wash. (Excuse the pun).

 

I've seen comments that Carnival Vista won't be allowed into Messina again because of this. This of course could happen, but I also don't think (given it wasn't carnivals fault) that the town of Messina would want to risk pissing Carnival Corp off given it could decide to remove all other lines ships from docking there. It's a tricky one, but I think I agree with Matt. Vista will be back. However.... Looking at the cruise on the 23 September which is doing the same ports ... Bar 1..... Using Palermo instead of Messina.

 

http://www.cruisetimetables.com/cruisesoncarnivalvista-sep2016.html

[mark290]

As someone who witnessed this first hand, I can definitely tell you no matter how many pictures you post and "stand by your views" you are wrong.

 

The ship was turning and was nowhere near being clear of the floating marina. The angle from the turn was making the ship get closer and closer..... Until it put on the side stern thrusters which did what it was meant to to and reverse the turn the ship was in and the ship then left with the stern significantly further away from the marina. Those thrusters are pretty powerful. They had hold this 140,00 tonne vessel to a halt. What do you think it would do to a floating jetty that's less than 40' away? I'll give you a clue.... Watch the video.

 

Now I posted in the original thread (less than 30 minutes after it happened) that who is responsible and if the pilots instructions were followed. What caused the damage isn't in question. Who is to blame seems to be. My personal thoughts are that this is not carnivals fault but the port authority of Messina pilot. I really can only think that the pilot was standing looking from the other side at its clearance of the port wall and completely forgot about the marina. Do I know that for a fact? Nope. But I can tell you that from the view looking at the marina, you would have to be blind not to know a collision was imminent.

 

BTW are you really suggesting this was staged for insurance? If not, can you explain what you meant?

 

Lou can't be wrong. He flies a little plane and has taken a trans-atlantic cruise.

How can you not believe his expert opinion ?

[chengkp75]

I will also have to disagree with lou. I will also disagree with some other comments here. Vista does not have stern thrusters, that is one of the benefits of having podded propulsion. What the pilot most likely did was to azimuth the pods from ahead to port to push the stern away from the pontoons. He then kicked them up in revolutions. This surge in revolutions creates a huge wash in shallow water, which is actually enhanced if the ship is moving slowly. I would suspect that the channel the Vista was in is pretty narrow, and the marina is in a non-dredged area. As this surge of water from the Vista's pods reached this much shallower area, the wave stacked up, just like how waves increase in height as they get closer to shore. This stacked wave washed over the pontoons and eventually overturned them.

 

What lou is describing is "canal effect", where the water flow between the two ships, or between a ship and the side of a channel, creates a low pressure, and the ship moves into the low pressure. However, I don't see any evidence of this in the video.

 

Yes, the pilot is responsible for the accident, but Carnival still is responsible for damages caused while under a pilot's orders. This is why a Captain can override or relieve a pilot at any time. This will be covered by Carnival's P&I (property and indemnity) insurance. P&I "clubs" are mutual insurance organizations of ship owners. The owners in any club look at past claims for damage caused by the members' ships, and then set premiums to cover this historical cost. If the members' claims cost more than what the premiums cover, they will raise the premiums, but if they are lower, the club may or may not return premiums, sometimes retaining cash for "bad" years. So, yes, Carnival is "self-insured" since they help to set their premiums, but the risk is spread over the owners in the club. Likely, the amount of damage here will be covered by the P&I premium, so it is already paid and reported on the earnings statements.

[les37b]

I will also have to disagree with lou. I will also disagree with some other comments here. Vista does not have stern thrusters, that is one of the benefits of having podded propulsion. What the pilot most likely did was to azimuth the pods from ahead to port to push the stern away from the pontoons. He then kicked them up in revolutions. This surge in revolutions creates a huge wash in shallow water, which is actually enhanced if the ship is moving slowly. I would suspect that the channel the Vista was in is pretty narrow, and the marina is in a non-dredged area. As this surge of water from the Vista's pods reached this much shallower area, the wave stacked up, just like how waves increase in height as they get closer to shore. This stacked wave washed over the pontoons and eventually overturned them.

 

What lou is describing is "canal effect", where the water flow between the two ships, or between a ship and the side of a channel, creates a low pressure, and the ship moves into the low pressure. However, I don't see any evidence of this in the video.

 

Yes, the pilot is responsible for the accident, but Carnival still is responsible for damages caused while under a pilot's orders. This is why a Captain can override or relieve a pilot at any time. This will be covered by Carnival's P&I (property and indemnity) insurance. P&I "clubs" are mutual insurance organizations of ship owners. The owners in any club look at past claims for damage caused by the members' ships, and then set premiums to cover this historical cost. If the members' claims cost more than what the premiums cover, they will raise the premiums, but if they are lower, the club may or may not return premiums, sometimes retaining cash for "bad" years. So, yes, Carnival is "self-insured" since they help to set their premiums, but the risk is spread over the owners in the club. Likely, the amount of damage here will be covered by the P&I premium, so it is already paid and reported on the earnings statements.

 

I have no idea what pods are and if Vista doesn't have stern thrusters (in name) then fair enough.

 

So these "pods" have the same effect? I'm saying that because what I saw was at the stern of the ship on the port side right at the back..... But definitely on the side. From what you are saying, it sounds like it's the case. The other thing I would say... Was the ships "puds" had previously been used to push the ship towards the pontoon from the starboard side as there was very little forward motion.

 

The floating marina was nigh blasted away!

 

I'm surprised that Carnival would need to pay for the damage if it was the pilots error (which I agree it definitely looked like from what I understand the purpose of the pilot is!) I suspect it would be a bit much to ask him to pay up! Lol I figured it would be the port authority, but can see why they might not have the necessary insurance for handling such huge ships, so I guess it makes sense if that is the case.

Edited September 8, 2016 by les37b

[chengkp75]

I have no idea what pods are and if Vista doesn't have stern thrusters (in name) then fair enough.

 

So these "pods" have the same effect? I'm saying that because what I saw was at the stern of the ship on the port side right at the back..... But definitely on the side. From what you are saying, it sounds like it's the case.

 

The floating marina was nigh blasted away!

 

I'm surprised that Carnival would need to pay for the damage if it was the pilots error (which I agree it definitely looked like from what I understand the purpose of the pilot is!) I suspect it would be a bit much to ask him to pay up! Lol I figured it would be the port authority, but can see why they might not have the necessary insurance for handling such huge ships, so I guess it makes sense if that is the case.

 

Pods are the "latest and greatest" in cruise ship propulsion. They are electric motors suspended under the hull that drive the propellers, but that can also be azimuthed 360* to provide thrust in any direction. While they have a marginal improvement in efficiency over shafted propellers and rudders, their main advantage is that you combine propulsion, steering, and stern thrusters in one unit. However, as with most new technology, they have had, and continue to have their problems with reliability.

 

There are only two places in the world where the ship owner does not retain financial responsibility for damages caused to or by their ship: the Panama Canal, and a drydock. The pilot is an advisor to the Captain on local conditions, but is never (except those two examples) "in charge" of the vessel, so the port authority or the pilot's association is rarely liable.

[FLSteve11]

Pods are the "latest and greatest" in cruise ship propulsion. They are electric motors suspended under the hull that drive the propellers, but that can also be azimuthed 360* to provide thrust in any direction. While they have a marginal improvement in efficiency over shafted propellers and rudders, their main advantage is that you combine propulsion, steering, and stern thrusters in one unit. However, as with most new technology, they have had, and continue to have their problems with reliability.

 

There are only two places in the world where the ship owner does not retain financial responsibility for damages caused to or by their ship: the Panama Canal, and a drydock. The pilot is an advisor to the Captain on local conditions, but is never (except those two examples) "in charge" of the vessel, so the port authority or the pilot's association is rarely liable.

 

I didn't think they were that new, wasn't the Elation the first ship to get Azipods? Carnival just got away from them when there were some issues with the earlier models I thought. Certainly other cruise lines have been using them for awhile now. Or are these a completely new set of pods that function differently?

[les37b]

Ok thanks for the explanation. And yes, your description 100% falls into visually what I saw. It might technically have been incorrect to use the term stern thrusters.... But these pods were thrusting at the port stern. (I've not studied the ship or propulsion system so easy error I think. Thanks for the technical info.

[chengkp75]

I didn't think they were that new, wasn't the Elation the first ship to get Azipods? Carnival just got away from them when there were some issues with the earlier models I thought. Certainly other cruise lines have been using them for awhile now. Or are these a completely new set of pods that function differently?

 

Not that new, probably since 2000 or late 90's. In terms of ship's propulsion systems, that is very new, particularly as they continue to exhibit reliability issues, though as expected, these are getting better.

[nybumpkin]

I realized I took a couple of pictures of the marina when we were in Messina on Vista July 24, a few weeks earlier:

 

240 Leaving Messina by baxted, on Flickr

This picture shows the bow of the ship at the dock with the marina ahead.

 

237 Leaving Messina by baxted, on Flickr

The marina.

[GregD]

A new video just surfaced from a pax onboard. It's NSFW-L (language). Hope that's alright.

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

If the embedded video doesn't work, here's the link:

Edited September 13, 2016 by GregD

[les37b]

A new video just surfaced from a pax onboard. It's NSFW-L (language). Hope that's alright.

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

If the embedded video doesn't work, here's the link:

 

Greg, this got posted in another of the vista/Messina threads, but always useful for anyone who hasn't seen it.

 

It does however clarify why I was convinced (from my vantage point at the aft of Vista) that it was going to hit.

 

If I could work out how to upload to YouTube the video I did shortly after the damage was done, I'd upload.

[Organized Chaos]

A new video just surfaced from a pax onboard. It's NSFW-L (language). Hope that's alright.

 

If the embedded video doesn't work, here's the link:

I was just getting ready to post this. The embedded video didn't work for me, but the link does. Confirms my thoughts about what actually happened.

 

Believe what you wish, but at just a few knots speed, it was not prop wash. I stand by what I stated.

Care to revise your statement? Please watch the new video taken by a passenger on board. I believe you'll find it helpful.

 

(Warning: A little bit of strong language)

[jsglow]

I'll respond to the new pax video this way. Clearly the ship was out of position and in trouble. Not speculating how or why that might have happened. But once in that position and with that motion the pilot was left with no alternatives. Hit the gas and get the heck out of there. Now somebody writes a 7 figure check. I'm assuming there were no injuries. The destroyed property will be replaced.

[garycarla]

I find it interesting how many people came here with their "100% positive" statements about what happened.

 

This latest video shows the obvious "wash" from the ship. It was not the result of the ship going too fast or the "suction" from the ship passing by.

 

False statements from "experts". Ha!

 

This happens over and over on these boards.

Edited September 14, 2016 by garycarla

[jimbo5544]

I find it interesting how many people came here with their "100% positive" statements about what happened.

 

This latest video shows the obvious "wash" from the ship. It was not the result of the ship going too fast or the "suction" from the ship passing by.

 

False statements from "experts". Ha!

 

This happens over and over on these boards.

 

 

Hmmmmm as does posts like yours, you must have forgot the typical closing line of I told you so.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone

[GregD]

I'll respond to the new pax video this way. Clearly the ship was out of position and in trouble. Not speculating how or why that might have happened. But once in that position and with that motion the pilot was left with no alternatives. Hit the gas and get the heck out of there. Now somebody writes a 7 figure check. I'm assuming there were no injuries. The destroyed property will be replaced.

 

Just to clarify, the pilot doesn't actually control the vessel. It's the Captain (maybe Chief Mate but doubtful) that would have his hands on the controls as the ship leaves port.

The pilot just stands with them. He usually has his laptop and just advises or guides the crew. Some ports they take a more 'authoritative' role than others, but they never control the vessel. Exception is the Panama Canal.

[mark290]

 

Care to revise your statement? Please watch the new video taken by a passenger on board. I believe you'll find it helpful.

 

(Warning: A little bit of strong language)

 

He's an expert on almost everything and right about almost nothing.

I believe he used to wash Amelia Earhart's airplane.

[chengkp75]

Just to clarify, the pilot doesn't actually control the vessel. It's the Captain (maybe Chief Mate but doubtful) that would have his hands on the controls as the ship leaves port.

The pilot just stands with them. He usually has his laptop and just advises or guides the crew. Some ports they take a more 'authoritative' role than others, but they never control the vessel. Exception is the Panama Canal.

 

Even in the PC, the pilot never touches the controls. Because in the PC, the Canal Authority takes financial responsibility for the vessel, the pilot has command. In all other cases, the pilot is usually granted the conn (he is the person to give orders), but may be overridden or relieved at any time by the Captain. And only for actually docking and undocking would the Captain or Staff Captain be on the controls. Once away from the dock, it resorts to the traditional pilot orders to the helmsman for steering and the senior officer of the watch (Second Officer or First Officer) for throttle commands.