Viking Sky position, adrift off Norway Coast and evacuating Passengers & Crew

[Clay Clayton]

20 minutes ago, just_dont said:

Although, you do have to pay it much farther in advance

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

Not if you don’t book until late! 

[Dekksguten]

14 minutes ago, ABoatNerd said:

 

The missed port just before the incident, that will be investigated. The high wind situation reported by posters on this thread are most helpful. 

 

 

I'm sure it will be part of the investigation, as will every part of the voyage, but you have to consider the distance between the missed port of Bodø and Hustadvika. They were supposed to dock at Bodø on March 22nd, and going 20 knots that's approx a 24 hour voyage to Hustadvika (very gross approximation).  If they were indeed having mechanical problems, there were pleny of opportunities to dock south of Bodø. No experienced captain would attempt to cross the treacheous waters of Folda or Hustadvika knowing of mechanical issues. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Dekksguten

[ABoatNerd]

Host Jazzbeau:

 

A 2017 ship loses propulsion. Big issue.

 

Another poster on the Viking board indicated that there has been similar (but less dramatic) propulsion issues within this class of ship.

 

The health and safety of the crew and passengers is paramount. If there is a systemic design/operational issue in this class of vessel, many entities wish to know.

 

There are many parties most interested in this situation.  

[zitsky]

4 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

 

99% of all lawyers – make the rest of us look bad...

 

Maybe there is nothing wrong with the ship or crew.  But it's the lawyer's job to ask.  But does anyone know, does Viking have an arbitration clause in their contract?

[just_dont]

Not if you don’t book until late! 

Touché!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ABoatNerd]

3 minutes ago, Dekksguten said:

I'm sure it will be part of the investigation, as will every part of the voyage, but you have to consider the distance between the missed port of Bodø and Hustadvika. They were supposed to dock at Bodø on March 22nd, and going 20 knots that's approx a 24 hour voyage to Hustadvika (very gross approximation).  If they were indeed having mechanical problems, there were pleny of opportunities to dock south of Bodø. No experienced captain would attempt to cross the treacheous waters of Folda or Hustadvika knowing of mechanical issues. 

 

Thank you so much Dekksguten.

 

First rule of law, assume nothing. This is a 2017 ship. New equipment, major mechanical failure. Something is amiss.

[Daniel A]

I have detailed my experiences with Viking and their customer service on other threads.  All I can say is I will never set foot on another Viking vessel again!  I suspect there are going to be another 900 people sharing my negative experiences with Viking failing to admit any responsibility to their PAX.  Oh, it was the weather, not the judgement of our Captain.  There is no reimbursement for weather related issues.  "Sorry, try another cruise line next time."

[Jim Avery]

2 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I have detailed my experiences with Viking and their customer service on other threads.  All I can say is I will never set foot on another Viking vessel again!  I suspect there are going to be another 900 people sharing my negative experiences with Viking failing to admit any responsibility to their PAX.  Oh, it was the weather, not the judgement of our Captain.  There is no reimbursement for weather related issues.  "Sorry, try another cruise line next time."

I saw a news report relating that Torstein Hagen met the ship and met with the passengers and crew.  He reportedly promised full reimbursement to the passengers along with a free future cruise.  If accurate reporting, I can't think of much else he can do.  But we all have companies that don't suit us and we all have the ability to spend our money as we see fit.  Just wanted to pass on this info.

[zitsky]

3 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I have detailed my experiences with Viking and their customer service on other threads.  All I can say is I will never set foot on another Viking vessel again!  I suspect there are going to be another 900 people sharing my negative experiences with Viking failing to admit any responsibility to their PAX.  Oh, it was the weather, not the judgement of our Captain.  There is no reimbursement for weather related issues.  "Sorry, try another cruise line next time."

 

To be fair to Viking, aren't they giving each pax a refund and a free cruise?  Pretty good customer service.

[Atocha Shipwreck Gal]

1 hour ago, azdrydock said:

My final 2 cents:

1) Weather conditions along the route (not storm center) appeared to be less then 35knts;  well within  safe limits for the Sky. 

 

2) The problem should be refered to as a propulsion failure due to all engines being offline. My guess is there were only 3 engines available with one out for routine maintenance (standard situation) It is yet to be determined why the others went offline. I doubt there were simultaneous failures in three, so the control systems would be suspect. Bringing them them back online requires workarounds or solving the initial cause and does not happen in a few minutes.

3) The fact that the ship was close to the rocks, it was wise to make a Mayday call as there was imminent danger of loss of life. 

4) Lifeboats. The Sky and probably every ship since the Titanic have over capacity on life boats and life rafts. Not being a mariner I suspect the entire crew is trained on using the inflatable life rafts and since many are involved in launching the lifeboats. the life rafts are their primary escape mechanism. If you don't think the life boats were a risk, a ship headed to aid the Sky had to be abandoned with all 9 crew members choosing not to use the boats and going overboard instead. 

5) Helo  Always risky especially at night but if you noticed on the videos once the Sky was under power and properly positioned it was very stable. If this wasn't being managed by one of the best and experienced rescue organizations in the world. the Captain may not have made the decision to continue to evacuate.

 

The seamanship involved in keeping a powerless vessel from going into the rocks is as good as it gets, can't wait for the movie. 

 

Sailed on the Sky summer of 2017 and  booked for November this year.

 

 

 The incredible seamanship displayed by the captain is incredible! I agree with you. This will be a movie one day and I hope that Tom Hanks plays the captain!

[Hlitner]

4 hours ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

The crew was highly professional throughout the ordeal. Even brought hundreds of heavy, warm blankets as we waited on the stairs close to the open door on deck 8. And even passed around plates of cookies from World Cafe while we were waiting.  Calm and orderliness was maintIned by all involved, though things did get a little crazy when water came crashing through the dining room window. 

All our prayers were answered when we heard all of you were rescued of made it to Molde (we had two family members on the cruise).  As a certified "cruiseophile" I was watching all the various social media and following along with your ordeal.  One thing that stands out is that the crew received very positive comments from every poster (who mentioned the crew).  For those of us who cruise this is important since we all depend on the cruise...especially when things go wrong.  So Kudos to the Crew of the Viking Sky and we hope that Corporate rewards those folks with a big bonus.  

 

Hank

[molymoo]

10 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I have detailed my experiences with Viking and their customer service on other threads.  All I can say is I will never set foot on another Viking vessel again!  I suspect there are going to be another 900 people sharing my negative experiences with Viking failing to admit any responsibility to their PAX.  Oh, it was the weather, not the judgement of our Captain.  There is no reimbursement for weather related issues.  "Sorry, try another cruise line next time."

 

Okay ... B-bye!

[RDC1]

4 hours ago, PelicanBill said:

Someone was asking about lifeboat deployment on the Costa Concordia.  There were 3 lifeboats that could not be deployed due to the severe list.  But 23 of 26 were deployed plus the life rafts. There was a very hard time getting off the ship into rafts and boats after they were dropped.  and the seas were calm. The boats and rafts had 125% capacity total.

 

If you look at the area around lifeboats you will see some large cannisters, often in clusters in racks. These are the life rafts. What I don't know is how people are expected to get in these since they drop into the ocean.

 

I think this incident will cause some serious thoughts about emergencies in storm conditions.  It is clear that you cannot drop life boats when the ship is rolling side to side as Sky was doing. The boats would be slammed against the ship and thrown into the waves.  

The problem of deployment applied more to the life rafts (only 6 of 70 launched) than to life boats where 20 out of 23 launched.

 

 4229 persons were board ; 3206 passengers and 1023 crew

 

The capacity was 3720 in life boats and 2395 in life rafts  (125% of max lives).

 

So when one looks at it depending upon which life boats did not launch (all 150 size or 2 150 and 1 60) then at most 3360 was the most that could have evacuated by life boat (no documentation of if they were all at capacity or not). That leaves 869 for rafts.  Since rafts were at most 35 person, the 6 that launched would have had a max capacity of 210.  that left at least 659 that did not make it onto either life rafts or life boats.

 

The above information came from The Royal Institution of Naval Architects - Costa Concordia Passenger Evacuation.

[zitsky]

3 minutes ago, molymoo said:

 

Okay ... B-bye!

 

I think we should be mature enough to handle a little criticism.  No cruise line is perfect.

[ABoatNerd]

molymoo, it is a reasonable response to have concerns about the Viking product.

 

Reasonable consumers, not "obedient consumers", question every aspect of a purchase.

 

This is a new ship. A major mechanical failure is highly suspect. It is a blessing that the Captain and crew did so well.

 

Viking is not off the hook yet, the insurance adjusters and lawyers will examine every aspect of this vessel and its sailing history.

 

 

[Daniel A]

1 minute ago, Atocha Shipwreck Gal said:

 The incredible seamanship displayed by the captain is incredible! I agree with you. This will be a movie one day and I hope that Tom Hanks plays the captain!

You folks understand the Captain took that vessel into treacherous waters knowing he didn't have FULL engine power - one engine out for maintenance and he took 900 souls into treacherous waters not having his full compliment of power.  That is called arrogance.

 

See if Viking offers to replace computers and other personal belongings that were tossed around in the cabins while the PAX were waiting at the lifeboat stations...

[ABoatNerd]

Daniel A - excellent analysis.

 

Without full power, taking this vessel to sea is suspect.

 

This will be a key element in the litigation to follow. 

 

Given the weather, a vessel without full power engages an enhanced risk and  creates a liability risk.

 

This file is getting more interesting by the moment, but the folks are safe and that is the key. 

[azdrydock]

11 minutes ago, Atocha Shipwreck Gal said:

 The incredible seamanship displayed by the captain is incredible! I agree with you. This will be a movie one day and I hope that Tom Hanks plays the captain!

err... Tom Hanks like in Sully? same theme and results

[RDC1]

3 hours ago, gatour said:

Have you heard of the Costa Concordia?  It basically did a close pass near an island on Captain's orders to either impress someone or some other reason.  The ship ran across rocks which caused a gash which caused flooding.

 

The ship engines shutdown, the ship then drifted for a few hours at the mercy of the currents/winds (there was no storm going on).  The ship eventually drifted into a reef which caused it to list and partially sink.

 

About one third of the passengers had just boarded the ship and had not gone through muster drill (at the time muster drills had to occur within 24 hours of sailing)

 

The captain never ordered passengers to muster stations.  There is a protocol where an immediate inspection needs to take place in these type of instances.  Based on the inspections which would be around 15 minutes, the captain should have ordered people to muster stations.  Between the time that the inspections would have occurred and the time when the order to abandon ship, would have given time to get passenger to the correct muster stations even if they hadn't attended the muster drill.

 

There was a 2-3 hour gap between initial incident and the order to abandon ship with no call to muster stations.  I believe if the captain had called people to muster stations, there would not have been 32 deaths.

Not quite  on the Costa Concordia 696 out of the 3206 actually on board had not yet been to must drill

 

Collision occurred at 21:45 General alarm was given at 22:48.

Edited March 24, 2019 by RDC1

[SeaDog-46]

During the Costa Concordia rescue - some lifeboats returned from the port that was nearby for several loads of passengers.

Some others swam ashore to join capt. coward.

Others were evacuated from ladders on the port side by shore boats after the capsize.

2 others were rescued the next day from their cabin.

Most of the 32 who died were found onboard - the last 3 when vessel was righted.

[Dekksguten]

5 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

You folks understand the Captain took that vessel into treacherous waters knowing he didn't have FULL engine power - one engine out for maintenance and he took 900 souls into treacherous waters not having his full compliment of power.  That is called arrogance.

 

Has this been confirmed anywhere? All I've seen is speculation. 

[sbrayr]

Reported on US network news tonight that the ship was within 300 ft of hitting rock. Is that mentioned already in this long thread?

[Richard2]

None of us has enough information to either condemn or exonerate anyone. This has become nothing more than a massive trolling opportunity. 

[Jim Avery]

8 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

You folks understand the Captain took that vessel into treacherous waters knowing he didn't have FULL engine power - one engine out for maintenance and he took 900 souls into treacherous waters not having his full compliment of power.  That is called arrogance.

 

See if Viking offers to replace computers and other personal belongings that were tossed around in the cabins while the PAX were waiting at the lifeboat stations...

I cannot speak to the loss of personal items but in a diesel electric propulsion arrangement there are multiple diesel generators.  This ship has 4.  QE2 was one of the earlier diesel/electric conversions and had 9.  At any given time one is typically off line for service.  This is necessary as all diesel engines are controlled by hours of use.  At X hours they need servicing.  At minimum oil/filters and inspection.  So having one off line for maintenance is SOP, not some conspiracy.

[kathy49]

23 minutes ago, zitsky said:

 

To be fair to Viking, aren't they giving each pax a refund and a free cruise?  Pretty good customer service.

Again...they are being pro-active....they have to be..they hope each and every passenger takes the offer. The free cruise probably does not excite many of them ......airfares should all be reimbursed as well.  I am sure they have to sign something which means they can not sue or otherwise hold Viking responsible for the injuries and mental stress during and after.  There will be some that want more. These passengers and crew are very lucky they did not go into the rocks...very lucky.