The Quantum class and the CRW25 Mega lifeboat

[troykahack]

Fire...... all the more reason to ban Vaping and Smoking on a cruise ship.

[chengkp75]

While I share Capt_BJ's professional concern over the size of the ships, as I've stated, to say that an incident "is going to happen" is quite true, regardless of the size of the ship. Along with the increase in size of the ships, there have been advances in design, such as the Safe Return to Port requirements, that make an uncontrolled fire like the Star Princess to jump fire zones, and for ships to be left without power at sea far less likely scenarios.

 

Let me ask you, what is so sacrosanct about the rule that lifeboats should not exceed 150 persons? Those same maritime experts that apparently have been "suborned" into allowing larger lifeboats were the ones who made the rule about the 150 person capacity. Where did that number come from? What is the reason given in the Rina article you cite for going to fewer, larger boats? The ability to have enough boats along the side of the ship. When cruise ships and ocean liners only had a few hundred passengers, did the lines save money by having two 150 person boats on each side, or were boats smaller at that time. There is nothing sacrosanct about the number 150. That number is based on the technology available at the time the regulation was last amended. Things change. Frankly, a larger boat is a safer boat in the ocean.

 

So, your basic argument is that you know better than the rest of the maritime industry, government safety agencies, and insurance underwriters. Okay, I'm just wondering why you continued to sail on a Quantum ship the second time, since you obviously discovered the fatal flaws of the ship's design the first time.

[chengkp75]

Fire...... all the more reason to ban Vaping and Smoking on a cruise ship.

 

And I will say that I have fought more fires on cruise ships that were not caused by smoking than those that were (in fact, I can't remember one from my personal experience).

[shellunderwater]

Okay. While fire at sea is always a grave concern, in 90% of fires at sea, abandoning ship is always the last resort. Look at the Star Princess fire, probably one of the worst in recent times for a cruise ship, and the Master never had the passengers get in the boats, even though they were mustered for hours.

 

Terrorist attack. While the amount of explosive required to take down an airliner can be contained in a man's underwear, the amount required to sink a cruise ship would be in the hundreds of pounds, spread throughout the ship in multiple locations, and even then, as witnessed by the Concordia, a two compartment ship (complete flooding of two adjacent watertight compartments does not result in sinking) that breached 4 compartments, took several hours before she actually capsized due to grounding. So, even an attempt to sink the ship would give time for orderly mustering and evacuation.

 

Collision at sea. In the middle of the ocean, as you state "hundreds of miles at sea", when was the last collision recorded? I can't think of one since the Andrea Doria, but maybe you can find one that fits the "hundreds of miles at sea" criteria.

 

And as you head to wherever you feel is safe, you will be delaying the completion of muster, and requiring crew, in some cases, crew responding directly to the emergency, to divert their attention to finding you and herding you back to the muster location. As fire onboard is the most common emergency, if my fire teams know that there are passengers unaccounted for, they have to divert some of their time and attention to searching the "hot zone" for potential victims, away from their primary objective of fighting the fire.

 

And my "armchair" is currently my office chair aboard my tanker, currently fog bound on the Mississippi River, looking forward to the final years of my 40 years at sea, having served on virtually every type of commercial vessel out there, including cruise ships.

 

I have fought shipboard fires. I have been on ships taking on water. I have been in a liferaft in 6 foot seas (don't think that's much, come try it in a raft), 30 miles offshore Halifax, N.S., in March. I'm not a theorist, I've been there, done that, and gotten more T-shirts than I care to think about. Come back and tell me I'm pontificating when you've done this.

Chengkp75, you forgot the mic drop.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Forums mobile app

[Biker19]

Some folks just watched Poseidon Adventure too may times.:rolleyes:

[greykangaroo]

 

Okay, I'm just wondering why you continued to sail on a Quantum ship the second time, since you obviously discovered the fatal flaws of the ship's design the first time.

 

I think sensible people know it won't happen too often and the risk is small.

We all love cruising and we are all prepared to risk it.

 

It is far worse to be driving on our highways. The most dangerous thing I do. But I do it because driving comes at the risk we have to take, as we have to get on with our lives and hope it never happens to us.

 

Most cruise liners will sail out their days without mishap, but changing designs and the subsequent watering down of safely laws for commercial purposes sets the stage for a disaster waiting to happen and this is all I have set out to say in my thread. Besides it made a change from the posts about what the gays wore in the night club.

 

Earlier on in my post I mentioned about the time it will take for rescue to arrive in the event of mishap.

I hope I'm not on a mega liner of the near future with ten thousand survivors in the boats.

I can see the naval frigate arriving now that can rescue five hundred.

[chengkp75]

I think sensible people know it won't happen too often and the risk is small.

We all love cruising and we are all prepared to risk it.

 

It is far worse to be driving on our highways. The most dangerous thing I do. But I do it because driving comes at the risk we have to take, as we have to get on with our lives and hope it never happens to us.

 

Most cruise liners will sail out their days without mishap, but changing designs and the subsequent watering down of safely laws for commercial purposes sets the stage for a disaster waiting to happen and this is all I have set out to say in my thread. Besides it made a change from the posts about what the gays wore in the night club.

 

Earlier on in my post I mentioned about the time it will take for rescue to arrive in the event of mishap.

I hope I'm not on a mega liner of the near future with ten thousand survivors in the boats.

I can see the naval frigate arriving now that can rescue five hundred.

 

I still fail to see where you present any evidence of "watering down of safety laws", either by incorporating larger boats or anything else.

 

As far as "rescue at sea", your naval frigate would still only be able to rescue 500, whether the ship was the Oasis of the Seas (8600 souls), or Majesty of the Seas (3500 souls). That is why professional mariners live by the code: "the ship is the best lifeboat". Just as if given the choice between being in the ocean in a 15' Whaler or a 150' motor yacht, you would always choose the larger yacht, why trade a ship for a small lifeboat. To this end, the IMO's Safe Return to Port regulations have significantly improved the survive-ability of today's cruise ships. Even if enough ships got to the scene quickly, by no means would "rescue" from the lifeboats be a quick and easy thing. The navies and coast guards of the world know this, and so unless the lifeboats were in danger of sinking from bad weather, the survivors would most likely be kept in the boats until conditions were optimum, as transfer from small boats to ships in an open seaway is a very dangerous operation, with the risk of massive loss of life (and just a note, but the larger, more stable catamaran hulled, and more maneuverable twin engine mega-boats would accomplish this better than the older, smaller boats).

[A&L_Ont]

Some folks just watched Poseidon Adventure too may times.:rolleyes:

 

Biker, did you notice the OP's avatar pic by chance?;)

[BillOh]

Do these lifeboats have their own Windjammer, or is one the designated WJ ;)

[robtulipe]

Biker, did you notice the OP's avatar pic by chance?;)

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1357514/Terror-on-the-Atlantic-as-50ft-wave-batters-Oriana.html

 

:D

[Paulxyz2004]

Do these lifeboats have their own Windjammer, or is one the designated WJ ;)

 

Yes they do and they also have that gigantic wavepool;):p

[mollyeilis]

It never fails to amaze me how the ninety percent will seek immediate shelter from any ridicule that their utterances might collect.

 

Don't worry about the bigger picture. Potentially the life of your wife whilst cruising...

 

I'm unselfishly making for the top with my wife to give you all more room.

 

 

Yes it's amazing how you're avoiding the facts that you got wrong and are giving as a basis for your nonsensical rants. Glad you see how silly you're being.

 

Does your wife know of your plans? Does she know she's married to someone who will literally put her into more danger? Actually, does she know she's married to someone who has a caveman mentality of "man knows best" and the thought process that he is the one to save her? What if she has other opinions?

 

I'm now picturing the argument as you try to take her up above the lifeboats, where as you've pointed out there are no life preservers, as the trained crew enacts their safety measures below...

 

 

If I were that scared of a ship I would go on that ship. If I were that untrusting of a company I wouldn't give money to that company.

[Paulxyz2004]

The controlled hordes moving in an orderly fashion down the stairs to the locked cupboards won't obstruct me. I'll be OK. I'm unselfishly making for the top with my wife to give you all more room.

 

Reading this I´ve a question for our experts Chengkp or Aquahound.

 

In a Situation where passengers are called to Muster, what will happen to non-compliant persons like the OP? Would security take care of him? Unfortunately that ould take them away from more important duties at that time.

 

I admit the thought is tempting that security would "secure him" in the same way they did with Jack;) but of Course I know this won´t happen.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Paulxyz2004

[Aquahound]

Reading this I´ve a question for our experts Chengkp or Aquahound.

 

In a Situation where passengers are called to Muster, what will happen to non-compliant persons like the OP?

 

Well, to put it bluntly, they die.

 

But from a more legal stance, there are laws prohibiting the intentional disregard of orders given by ship's officers. However, that part gets tricky because in the OP's case we're talking about an Australian national on a Bahamas flagged ship (or other flag depending on cruise line). I'm not sure what's written in Bahamas statutes regarding this matter.

[chengkp75]

Reading this I´ve a question for our experts Chengkp or Aquahound.

 

In a Situation where passengers are called to Muster, what will happen to non-compliant persons like the OP? Would security take care of him? Unfortunately that ould take them away from more important duties at that time.

 

I admit the thought is tempting that security would "secure him" in the same way they did with Jack;) but of Course I know this won´t happen.

 

First, crew would be dispatched from either a reserve of crew set up for this, or from the crew assigned to "clear" the guest cabins and public areas, to locate and bring them down to the muster locations. While the big thing is to get everyone accounted for, if the person/s resist the crew, then yes, security will be called to bring them to the muster. Zip ties are always a part of security's equipment.

 

This places more crew into the "boundary" areas adjoining the active fire, looking into cabins again, and placing them further at risk. Also, the Captain will most probably not consider ordering anyone into the boats until all are accounted for, dead or alive. Remember, the muster is generally long before a decision to abandon is taken, so they want to get a full muster before proceeding.

[Paulxyz2004]

Well, to put it bluntly, they die.

 

But from a more legal stance, there are laws prohibiting the intentional disregard of orders given by ship's officers. However, that part gets tricky because in the OP's case we're talking about an Australian national on a Bahamas flagged ship (or other flag depending on cruise line). I'm not sure what's written in Bahamas statutes regarding this matter.

 

Thanks. Especially for the first line:D

 

My thought was more along the line of a Situation when the ship is not actually going to sink or the call be given to evacuate, but still People are called to Muster for getting a complete head Count and having them in a secure place for whatever situaiton caused the Muster Call.

[Paulxyz2004]

First, crew would be dispatched from either a reserve of crew set up for this, or from the crew assigned to "clear" the guest cabins and public areas, to locate and bring them down to the muster locations. While the big thing is to get everyone accounted for, if the person/s resist the crew, then yes, security will be called to bring them to the muster. Zip ties are always a part of security's equipment.

 

This places more crew into the "boundary" areas adjoining the active fire, looking into cabins again, and placing them further at risk. Also, the Captain will most probably not consider ordering anyone into the boats until all are accounted for, dead or alive. Remember, the muster is generally long before a decision to abandon is taken, so they want to get a full muster before proceeding.

 

Thanks to you as well. I really appreciate yours and Aquahounds Posts on this and other matters.

[chengkp75]

Well, to put it bluntly, they die.

 

But from a more legal stance, there are laws prohibiting the intentional disregard of orders given by ship's officers. However, that part gets tricky because in the OP's case we're talking about an Australian national on a Bahamas flagged ship (or other flag depending on cruise line). I'm not sure what's written in Bahamas statutes regarding this matter.

 

As Paul says, they can die. The officers and crew will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening, but unfortunately, you cannot guarantee what a specific crew member will do in an emergency, any more than you can for the guests. So, crew sent to find the missing, may or may not accomplish this goal based on their personal bravery. Training is great, but until the excrement actually hits the fan, you never know whether anyone will run into the fire or away from it.

 

I believe just about all maritime nations have laws like Paul mentions, which is why deck and engine officers are licensed. Just did a quick google search, and found this in the Bahamian Penal Code:

 

" 109. The master of a vessel, or any person acting by

his order, may justify the use of any such force against any

person on board the vessel as is necessary for suppressing

any mutiny or disorder on board the vessel, whether among

officers, seamen or passengers, whereby the safety of the

vessel, or of any person therein or about to enter or quitting

the same, is likely to be endangered, or the master is

threatened to be subject to the commands of any other

person; and may kill any person who is guilty of or abets

such mutiny or disorder, if the safety of the vessel, or the

preservation of any person as aforesaid, cannot by any

means be otherwise secured. "

 

Note the section I bolded.

[troykahack]

And I will say that I have fought more fires on cruise ships that were not caused by smoking than those that were (in fact, I can't remember one from my personal experience).

 

I am not going to go against your experience. However, don't the new fires that are occurring with Vape Pipes not worry you? Are you saying smokers don't create fires? Is it not possible or more likely than those that don't smoke in places not allowed?

[Biker19]

Biker, did you notice the OP's avatar pic by chance?;)

 

Yeah, I missed that.:eek:

[chengkp75]

I am not going to go against your experience. However, don't the new fires that are occurring with Vape Pipes not worry you? Are you saying smokers don't create fires? Is it not possible or more likely than those that don't smoke in places not allowed?

 

I don't have a lot of experience with Vaping, but I can tell you that I've fought more than a couple of fires in the incinerator silos caused by a common AA battery going through the shredder and sparking. Virtually anything can cause a fire.

 

Do smokers cause fires? Sure. Have I experienced one in 40 years at sea? I think one. Way more fires from cutting/welding, or spontaneous combustion of oily rags. Candles in rooms, electrical equipment like extension cords in poor condition, these I have seen cause more fires, in my experience, than smokers, and up until the last few years, mariners were particularly heavy smokers.

 

Realistically, the "allowed" and "not allowed" smoking places are for passenger comfort, not so much for safety.

[troykahack]

I don't have a lot of experience with Vaping, but I can tell you that I've fought more than a couple of fires in the incinerator silos caused by a common AA battery going through the shredder and sparking. Virtually anything can cause a fire.

 

Do smokers cause fires? Sure. Have I experienced one in 40 years at sea? I think one. Way more fires from cutting/welding, or spontaneous combustion of oily rags. Candles in rooms, electrical equipment like extension cords in poor condition, these I have seen cause more fires, in my experience, than smokers, and up until the last few years, mariners were particularly heavy smokers.

 

Realistically, the "allowed" and "not allowed" smoking places are for passenger comfort, not so much for safety.

 

Oh, I agree that non smoking areas are for passenger comfort (the non smokers). I remember when smoking was once allowed in cabins and later moved to balconies. I was one.

 

I am just curious, how much fire resistant is the in the linens and materials used in a cabin? I believe the airlines have been forced somewhat to buy planes with flame retardant materials.

 

I am still concerned about the recent fires and burns caused by Vape Pipes. Maybe it is just that there is a camera everywhere these days.

[Biker19]

I am still concerned about the recent fires and burns caused by Vape Pipes. Maybe it is just that there is a camera everywhere these days.

 

And media outlets that may have an agenda pushing those videos.;)

[chengkp75]

Oh, I agree that non smoking areas are for passenger comfort (the non smokers). I remember when smoking was once allowed in cabins and later moved to balconies. I was one.

 

I am just curious, how much fire resistant is the in the linens and materials used in a cabin? I believe the airlines have been forced somewhat to buy planes with flame retardant materials.

 

I am still concerned about the recent fires and burns caused by Vape Pipes. Maybe it is just that there is a camera everywhere these days.

 

The linens and materials in cabins do not need to be fire resistant, due to the presence of the fixed sprinkler system. (Not something you'd want on an airliner :D).

 

It is interesting to note, as I posted on another thread with you, that in testing the cigarette theory during the Star Princess fire, they were not able to ignite a Princess towel with a cigarette.

[repo-cruiser]

I am not going to go against your experience. However, don't the new fires that are occurring with Vape Pipes not worry you? Are you saying smokers don't create fires? Is it not possible or more likely than those that don't smoke in places not allowed?

 

You forgot to ban Samsung exploding phones and catching fire. In fact nothing but apple phones allowed.:D