Anyone on BA in Winter Storm Grayson off Carolinas?

[Boatdrill]

I don't believe the ship sailed "through" the storm, they followed it up the coast. As for keeping further offshore, this would have placed the wind from the storm (since wind blows counterclockwise around a low) and the resulting seas on the Breakaway's stern. Any mariner out there will tell you that it is far better to have the wind and seas on the bow rather than the stern. The continual lifting of the stern by the wind and waves reduces the steering effect of rudders or azipods, making course keeping (and hence roll control) more difficult. It also presents a greater chance of the propellers coming close to the surface when the stern lifts, with the possibility of it overspeeding and shutting down, with resultant reduction in steering and propulsion power for a pod. Finally, ship's bows are designed to cleave and ride waves, while sterns are not, and had they had following winds of that velocity and following seas of that size, the ship would have been "rolling her guts out", with attendant damage to the ship and injuries to the passengers.

 

Excellent post. Thank you.

[bob brown]

Good to see a sensible and accurate statement. Whilst not on-board during the passage, as an experienced Master I can concur that to slow down and ultimately take the sea on the bow is standard practice. Taking water into the accommodation on the lower weather decks is inevitable with so many none weather tight doors. At no point would the watertight integrity of the vessel actually be compromised in such a scenario.

 

Reading through the comments, the issue appears to be the excessive rolling and slamming? We can't have everything...either these vessels are built with a deep draft and low centre of gravity or they are shallow draft to allow entry into tourist ports and ever expanding superstructures with huge windage and higher centre of gravity.

 

For people to demonize the Master is wrong and to assume that he or his senior officers would wilfully put the vessel and it's compliment in real danger is nonsense.

Thank you for your professional observation of this. Always educational to hear from those with real marine knowledge.

I am wondering why they couldn't "harden" ships that sail this route in the winter, to withstand the type of damage the Breakaway, and other cruise ships have endured in these extreme weather condition. For instance, instead of sliding balcony doors, use plug type doors, that are inherently easier to weather-proof, although a swinging door does have its own hazards, I suppose...

And the balcony divider's and other area's that typically sustain wind damage should be reinforced.

As for draft, and hardened hull, and reserve power, perhaps ships on this route should be built to the standards of the QM2, which is a sort of hybrid ocean liner/cruise ship, designed to take all that the North Atlantic can throw at her:confused:

[chengkp75]

Thank you for your professional observation of this. Always educational to hear from those with real marine knowledge.

I am wondering why they couldn't "harden" ships that sail this route in the winter, to withstand the type of damage the Breakaway, and other cruise ships have endured in these extreme weather condition. For instance, instead of sliding balcony doors, use plug type doors, that are inherently easier to weather-proof, although a swinging door does have its own hazards, I suppose...

And the balcony divider's and other area's that typically sustain wind damage should be reinforced.

As for draft, and hardened hull, and reserve power, perhaps ships on this route should be built to the standards of the QM2, which is a sort of hybrid ocean liner/cruise ship, designed to take all that the North Atlantic can throw at her:confused:

 

Balcony doors will always be a weak spot. Short of having self-closing mechanisms on the doors, which would make them more unwieldy than they already are, and would lead to more injuries and lawsuits, these will never be anything more than marginally weathertight. You could go with a multi-point locking system that would only be engaged when the handle is moved to a different location (relying on a single point lock for normal operation), but again, this would require conscious manual operation, which would not be fool proof.

 

For balcony dividers, I would bet that the ones that were damaged were ones that had been opened by cabin stewards for passenger convenience to make connected balconies, either on the present cruise or on one past, and the latch was never fully engaged. Again, not something you can foolproof, and because it is used for something it was never intended for (the opening capability of dividers was strictly for fire safety, not for passenger convenience), it can get worn out or improperly latched.

 

Not sure what a "hardened hull" means. Windows are also a perennial weak point, which is why cargo ships keep them to a minimum, but cruise ships have to work a balance between minimizing hazard and maximizing passenger comfort. This is why oceanview cabins in the hull will always have a bronze "dead light" or cover to be screwed in place over the window ("port light" being a non-opening window, while "port hole" is openable) in bad weather.

 

Now, draft. You can't just say I want to make a ship with a deeper draft and have it so. If you make a hull that you wish to have 30 feet of it underwater, but if you build it, and it only weighs enough to sink the hull 20 feet into the water, well that's it. The only way around this is to make the ship heavier, which means carrying ballast water around with you. So, you design in 10,000 metric tons of ballast tanks, and you fill these to get your ship to 30 feet of draft. You are now paying for the fuel to move 10k tons of useless water (probably more weight than all the passengers and crew, and food onboard) around the globe. Not real good for the bottom line.

 

Reserve power. QM2 carries around the weight of the gas turbines, and all associated systems for the turbines, as well as dedicated fuel tankage (the turbines burn diesel fuel, not the residual fuel the diesel engines burn), so just like with ballast, you are carrying weight around for one or two times that they are needed. The additional power the QM2 has was added to allow her to go faster, not so much to provide a reserve in case of a storm. When a ship uses maximum power into a storm, she slows down as some of the power is used to counteract the storm forces. If you try to add power, to go faster, you run the risk of "driving the ship too hard" and putting the ship out of sync with the seas, creating more pitching and slamming, stern lifting and possible shut down of propulsion. This is why Captains will slow their ships below maximum power in storms, even though it means going slower, it places less strain on the ship and systems, and provides a better ride.

[Casino Comp Chick]

First of all...the cruise community is pretty heartless and reading some of these post I am shocked at some of the comments and assumptions. You should be ashamed of yourself. So here it goes (internt bullies);

 

1. It is NOT my first cruise I am a Latitude Gold member and cruised many times before. However I dont hoop on cruise board to talk **** or brag on each post.

 

2. YES I was nervous because I never been on ship in that type of weather and our captain offered VERY little useful or comforting announcements. Would be nice to hear “we attempted to pass the storm and sadly we are now in the midst of it. It will be an extremly bumpy ride for 36 hours but Please be assured that this ship is equipped to handle this and we are going to be OK.” We received NO info that we were heading towrads the storm or the storm. I learned more on social media.

 

3. I was traveling with 2 kids and one is autistic who was suffering from severe anxiety and I was helpless...any doctors on this post want to come comfirm that for the ones on this post that will question that too? Ugh

 

4. YES I was one of the only folks tweeting and posting because I was covering the trip for social media and had internet provided by NCL to document all the fun...but that turned sour on Wednesday night. My post had little text and they were more visual...so where did I mention “I am going to die”? Although I felt like I was.

 

5. If you were on the dam titanic and lived...awesome! I will send you a prize but dont down play someone eles experince because you dont know what other obsticles they were fighting within their cabins.

 

The end.

 

Ps: bring it on. Google me and feel free to contact me with the cyber bully directly.

 

If I was with 2 kids, one being autistic the last thing I would be doing is tweeting. But that’s just me.

[billslowsky]

If I was with 2 kids, one being autistic the last thing I would be doing is tweeting. But that’s just me.

 

She was also "covering the trip for social media"... is that like taking a trip and writing it off on your taxes too?

[mking8288]

... Captains will slow their ships below maximum power in storms, even though it means going slower, it places less strain on the ship and systems, and provides a better ride.

Thanks again, for these free lessons - learn something each & every time you post to address questions ...

 

Ship was "in danger", listing, tilting and they're posted and walking around, not even holding on to railings and while doing the stairs to video some of the public area. Still waiting for someone to address the long line at Guest Services for motion sickness meds.

 

River cruises, I think, would be better for some ... maybe.

[bob brown]

Balcony doors will always be a weak spot. Short of having self-closing mechanisms on the doors, which would make them more unwieldy than they already are, and would lead to more injuries and lawsuits, these will never be anything more than marginally weathertight. You could go with a multi-point locking system that would only be engaged when the handle is moved to a different location (relying on a single point lock for normal operation), but again, this would require conscious manual operation, which would not be fool proof.

 

For balcony dividers, I would bet that the ones that were damaged were ones that had been opened by cabin stewards for passenger convenience to make connected balconies, either on the present cruise or on one past, and the latch was never fully engaged. Again, not something you can foolproof, and because it is used for something it was never intended for (the opening capability of dividers was strictly for fire safety, not for passenger convenience), it can get worn out or improperly latched.

 

Not sure what a "hardened hull" means. Windows are also a perennial weak point, which is why cargo ships keep them to a minimum, but cruise ships have to work a balance between minimizing hazard and maximizing passenger comfort. This is why oceanview cabins in the hull will always have a bronze "dead light" or cover to be screwed in place over the window ("port light" being a non-opening window, while "port hole" is openable) in bad weather.

 

Now, draft. You can't just say I want to make a ship with a deeper draft and have it so. If you make a hull that you wish to have 30 feet of it underwater, but if you build it, and it only weighs enough to sink the hull 20 feet into the water, well that's it. The only way around this is to make the ship heavier, which means carrying ballast water around with you. So, you design in 10,000 metric tons of ballast tanks, and you fill these to get your ship to 30 feet of draft. You are now paying for the fuel to move 10k tons of useless water (probably more weight than all the passengers and crew, and food onboard) around the globe. Not real good for the bottom line.

 

Reserve power. QM2 carries around the weight of the gas turbines, and all associated systems for the turbines, as well as dedicated fuel tankage (the turbines burn diesel fuel, not the residual fuel the diesel engines burn), so just like with ballast, you are carrying weight around for one or two times that they are needed. The additional power the QM2 has was added to allow her to go faster, not so much to provide a reserve in case of a storm. When a ship uses maximum power into a storm, she slows down as some of the power is used to counteract the storm forces. If you try to add power, to go faster, you run the risk of "driving the ship too hard" and putting the ship out of sync with the seas, creating more pitching and slamming, stern lifting and possible shut down of propulsion. This is why Captains will slow their ships below maximum power in storms, even though it means going slower, it places less strain on the ship and systems, and provides a better ride.

 

Thank you for that detailed explanation...agian...it is great to hear from the 'pro's'.....:)

 

Interesting about that fire safety aspect of the balcony divider doors...if it was intended as a fire escape, shouldn't the passenger's be enabled to open them, themselves, as opposed to waiting to be 'rescued' from the adjacent balcony by crew...could be a big difference, timewise. The only time I have seen my balcony divider's opened, was for the convenience of the crews washing the balconies. Perhaps to address the 'foolproof' factor, the cabin stewards should have checking of that latch part of a 'checklist' when servicing the cabins? Still not 100%, I'll admit.

 

As for the 'hardened hull'....again I cite the Queen Mary 2...I believe she is designed with a stronger hull designed to handle huge waves. And perhaps the windows on the superstructure should be built as strong as the ones within the hull.

 

Now the deeper draft, agian citing the QM2....she seems to do pretty well with a moderately deeper draft.

Couldn't ships have 'reserve' capability of ballast tanks that would normally be empty, but if facing severe weather, could then be filled....not sure...please excuse my lack of knowledge in this...

 

And finally, the reserve power of the QM2....I do understand that they need to slow down in the weather for the reasons you mentioned, for safety and the best ride. The reserve power, is not to go faster through the weather, but to allow the ship to slow down, or, circumnavigate the storm, and once in the clear, recover the lost time to get to the next port on schedule. The QM2 can crank it up to 30 knots if necessary. Those gas turbine engines are also much lighter than the diesel's, but also much more expensive, both in cost, and in operation. And as for fuel...aren't more and more places requiring ships to now operate on cleaner fuels? Some newbuild's are now going to LPG, IIRC....

 

Appreciate your comments!:).

[chengkp75]

To save room, I won't quote, but will try to cover each item.

 

The balcony dividers are not designed to be opened for evacuation of persons, but to allow the fire teams to access from one balcony to the next, so that a cabin fire can be fought from two sides (the passageway and the balcony).

 

The QM2's hull is not really "hardened", nor is her hull plating significantly thicker than other ships. What she does have is more framing inside the hull to stiffen it, and prevent the hull plating from bending. "Normal" cruise ships do not have significantly, if any at all, less framing or strength in the bow area than any cargo ship, and these ships venture into more storms and high seas in a year than a cruise ship will do in a career.

 

The problem with glass, is that it is technically an "amorphous solid" (some call it a liquid), and it's strength decreases with size. The windows in the hull are kept small so that the dead light covers are manageable. The large windows above the promenade deck could not be made strong enough, and how would you handle the heavy metal covers, or where would you store them?

 

What you are describing is what we call "storm ballast". Now, you want to have large empty tanks for 90% of the ship's operation. Now, do you carve out these large unused volumes from the crew and engineering spaces, causing these to displace upwards in the ship, displacing and likely removing passenger space? That cuts revenue. Do you design a ship by adding these tanks to the hull, so that you get a wider or deeper hull? Then these empty tanks create more buoyancy than their weight, and the ship will actually decrease in draft. Do you partially fill these tanks to overcome their addition, but not enough to cause the drag that is desired in a storm? Then you are presented with "free surface effect" where liquid in a partially filled tank can slosh back and forth as the ship rolls, and this changes the center of gravity, and hence changes the stability and roll characteristics of a ship, and in the extreme case is what caused the Concordia to capsize. The whole concept of ballast is to compensate for lack of cargo weight (empty or partially empty cargo ship) to keep the ship at its designed waterline. Sailing at different waterlines (and different drafts) affects the stability and sea-keeping of the hull design, so you use ballast when there is no cargo, and no ballast when there is cargo. The only ships that use "storm ballast" are tankers, because their ballast tanks are so small in proportion to the cargo tanks, that in extreme cases the ship will load water into a cargo tank. This is done extremely rarely, because then the cargo tanks need to be cleaned out and the contaminated water processed to prevent pollution.

 

Reserve power. If you want to add power to a ship, you need to design the ship for optimum performance using that power. Look at the SS United States, which at 53,000 GT, required 240,000 hp to push her to 32-38 knots (depending on weather and hull condition). Now look at QM2, at 149,000 GT (three times the size) only requires 86 Mw (116,000 hp, or half power) to reach 30 knots. Why? Because hull design has gotten so much better? Nope. It's because the SSUS was "overpowered" and to push the hull faster than it was designed for requires vast amounts of power. And just like the QM2, you are paying a lot of money in capital expense and upkeep even when the turbines are not running (and they represent 42% of the ship's power plant) for use if/when a storm causes you to slow down and you want to return to schedule? There is a reason there is only one ship currently like the QM2, and that is that it is not financially sound (ticket prices must be kept high to cover the higher operating and capital costs).

 

Yes, there are ECA's now (Emission Control Areas) that require either cleaner fuel like diesel or LNG, or as in the case of the North American ECA, the use of a scrubber to allow continued burning of residual fuel oil. Most cruise ships are going the way of scrubbers, rather than permanently committing to the higher priced diesel fuels. LNG is still a very new fuel for ships, there are not that many that use LNG due to the lack of fueling infrastructure, and in many places around the world, LNG is less cost effective than residual fuel. No cruise ship is yet operating on LNG (there are a couple of large ferries in Scandinavia that do, but on short runs). I would be surprised to see if the new cruise ships actually operate full time on LNG, due both to the storage problem (LNG requires 6 times the volume of residual fuel for the same amount of energy), and due to the slow progress of bunkering infrastructure. Also, these engines are "dual fuel", meaning they can run on any combination of residual fuel and LNG, from straight fuel oil, to straight LNG, and I would believe that there will be a financial balance somewhere in there precluding full reliance on LNG.

 

Sorry, got carried away.

[bob brown]

Don't be sorry....I love it!:cool:

Has anyone told you, you should write a book?;):)

[Enavigo]

Don't be sorry....I love it!:cool:

 

Has anyone told you, you should write a book?;):)

 

 

 

I'll second that! He reminds me a lot of a very popular poster on a flyer forum I also frequent (fly a ton for work). That guy is an active 767 pilot for a mainline airline (he does not state is affiliation). He comes on regularly to gives us a pilot's perspective of that latest controversy of the day or just to share his knowledge. I have learned so much for both of them.

 

My biggest lesson learned ... leave the professional decisions to the professionals. Their training, knowledge and experience is what we are paying for.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[AmazedByCruising]

And when it doesn't "get better" in 2 hours? You then get into the place of "did the Captain lie when he said it would get better", etc. And it is not so much that the Captain is consciously thinking of lawsuits, though in the US's society, any supervisor who does not consider legal ramifications for virtually any action is naive. It is more that the ISM covers the legal responsibilities, and tells the Captain how he/she should deal with most situations. The Captain, as well as all officers, supervisors, and crew, to varying degrees are responsible for learning their responsibilities under the ISM, and following the ISM. ISM systems are incredibly detailed documents that dictate how virtually every aspect of operations are handled on ships, from voyage planning, safety protocols, HR, deck and engine operating and maintenance procedures, etc, etc. The ISM is required to be basically a "write what you do" and "do what you write" document covering the company's business.

 

Then document that you will not make promises you can't keep but will keep pax informed in case of a storm. "The ship is designed to handle much worse than this", "Based on the weather reports we received 20 minutes ago we now think", etc.

 

I'm glad that tight procedures are in place, apparently even more than I'd expect on the high seas. I hope someone will research this case to maybe come up with even better procedures and I think that would include telling what's going on. For instance, I think that well-informed guests would stay in their cabin instead of blocking the hallways which can be seen in recent videos. I also guess that crew had better things to do than consoling passengers seeking at least some authority for answers.