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

[SeaDog-46]

Hagland Captain the small coastal cargo ship is still anchored off shore where it happened.

Looks like she may have a large list - cargo shifted - if so that could have caused engine sieze that has been reported.  It has a direct single GM diesel engine & single fixed propeller as do the vast majority of merchant ships.

The aurora having anything to do with Viking Sky blackout is in the realm of flying saucers!

[just_dont]

Hagland Captain the small coastal cargo ship is still anchored off shore where it happened.
Looks like she may have a large list - cargo shifted - if so that could have caused engine sieze that has been reported.  It has a direct single GM diesel engine & single fixed propeller as do the vast majority of merchant ships.
The aurora having anything to do with Viking Sky blackout is in the realm of flying saucers!

Hypothesis disproved! (at least for the freighter).
Thanks, SeaDog.
I'm no marine engineer - just someone who appreciates the scientific process. [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Heidi13]

On 3/23/2019 at 8:27 PM, AmazedByCruising said:

Looking at these pictures.. Why not let these people go back to their rooms after muster drill and head counting? It's not as if they're evacuated within the next hour. The ship is not sinking either. I fully understand that safety goes beyond comfort at any time, but I don't see how safety is helped by having people sleeping in the corridor instead of a bed.

 

 

 

This wasn't a Muster Drill.

 

The reason the passengers have not been released from the Assembly Stations is because the Master has determined that for their safety and comfort, it is best that they remain in the Assembly Stations.

 

The ship may not have been sinking, but we have no information on the conditions throughout the ship - water, toilets, lighting, A/C, etc. With limited main engines operational to generate power, limited power is available for hotel services.

 

In addition, if the situation deteriorated rapidly, having passengers in cabins causes unnecessary delays and also requires re-tasking hotel staff as stairway guides, etc.

[Heidi13]

21 hours ago, Krydstosser said:

I think the Captain should have waited in port instead of sailing through this storm. Why bring the passenger and the vessel through this uncomfortable experience even if all the engines running. 

 

In my opinion its very unprofessional,  dangerous and damaging to their brand.

 

They will be sued for billions now. 

 

Soeren

Unfortunately, this type of statement is so unnecessary and in my opinion without being privy to actual facts is highly un-informed.

 

Based on the media reports and Viking's statement the root cause was most likely a mechanical issue, which was compounded by weather. The weather in the vicinity of the ship was reported as 38 kt wind and 20 ft seas. If ships can't sail in these conditions, few ships will go to sea. 

 

Again, based on the media reports, I believe the Master and crew of this vessel has performed an amazing feat of seamanship in saving his/her vessel and with the exception of a few injuries, has saved over 1300 passengers and crew, returning them safely to shore.

 

If that's unprofessional conduct, I have different expectations of a ship's Captain. Having spent 28 yrs in command, of passenger carrying vessels, I might know a little of what the job entails.

[Heidi13]

11 hours ago, PelicanBill said:

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.

 

With liferafts, you have 3 methods of entry into the raft, but only 2 are normally available on a cruise ship.

 

Liferafts can be davit launched - they are placed on the deck underneath a davit and literally pulled overboard. They inflate outboard and are bowsed to the ship's side. Most DL's are 25 person rafts, although I believe Viking (Denmark) have 35 person D/L's. The rafts are loaded from the deck & when full are lowered to the water.

 

Liferafts can also be included in a Marine Evacuation System - this comprises a shute/slide and multiple rafts. Currently you have 3 major systems available in the market - Viking, RFD Marin-Ark II and Liferaft Systems Australia.

 

Liferafts can also be jumped into, but max height is 3', so not available on cruise ships.

 

Many cruise ships and ferries now use Marine Evacuation Systems and many ferries have eliminated the requirement for Lifeboats and are entirely liferafts. 

[heakja]

7 hours ago, uksimonusa said:

The European Union has exceptional consumer rights, BUT Norway is not a member of that Union, nor is Switzerland

 

As a member of the EEA, we have the exact same consumer rights as EU. In fact Norway is known to be more consumer friendly than EU. So this will not be an issue. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by heakja

[VK3DQ]

Hi Folks

 

Have a look at this

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by VK3DQ

[VK3DQ]

And this 

 

 

[Heidi13]

11 hours ago, GGrace said:

Is it a surprise to the shipbuilders that water could "come crashing through the dining room window" ? If not, why were there passengers in there? Makes me think twice and thrice about ever sailing in a balcony cabin in these days of climate change. Normally "portholes" (windows directly on the hull of the ship) are small and well-reinforced - even the square passenger windows.

 

Looking forward to hearing how passengers were mustered, whether there was the option of staying in an inside cabin in bed with tucked-in blankets, whether anyone was hit from stuff coming down from the ceiling. Good stuff here about deploying lifeboats in heavy weather (I've tendered in lifeboats: everyone would have been seasick and the smell would be terrible.)

 

For experienced sailors: where would you settle yourself for a long term heavy weather? Would you change this location if you knew running aground was a possibility? What happens if a modern cruise ship runs aground in windy weather - would it take on water and perhaps even sink? (Patrick O'Brian fan here - always curious about life at sea.) Apologies if some of these questions have been answered; will read the entire thread in a bit.

Having supervised the installation of these windows in a shipyard, I can assure you they are extremely thick and heavy. Each window was about 700 lbs in weight.

 

However, having experienced many storms at sea, I have seen thick steel plate bent and twisted from the force of water. Unfortunately, the windows, while strong, are not indestructible. However, it isn't an overly common experience, as in 40 years at sea, I recall breaking about 6 windows.

 

When the General Emergency Signal has sounded, the Captain has decided that for your safety and comfort, they require you to muster at your assigned Assembly Station. Therefore, no you have no option to stay in an inside cabin. Part of the crew duties is to physically clear every cabin, by zone, and report the fact indirectly to the Bridge.

 

Where would I go during a length emergency. As a passenger, I will follow the directions of the crew and render them with any assistance they may require.

 

What happens when a cruise ship runs aground has numerous variables with respect to extent of damage, systems available, type of shore, weather, rescue services, crew competency, etc. Therefore, I am unable to provide a definite answer.

[ditmar2007]

6 hours ago, Daniel A said:

So, I guess that means you aren't taking your children on a Viking cruise.  I don't blame you...

BOOOOORING!!!

[OnTheJourney]

10 hours ago, just_dont said:

 

 

I haven't heard anyone actually ON this cruise refer to it as "awful".
On the contrary, I have heard it called "amazing" and "beautiful."
And there are many reasons a ship may miss a port - weather being the most common.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

 

 

Still awaiting word on flights to Oslo. Very confused situation this morning but probably to be expected with many pax flights needing to be rescheduled. Hotel got us to the ship with not enough time to pack our room up.  As a result missed our flight. A good number of people complaining about Viking air services. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by gretschwhtfalcon

[VK3DQ]

11 minutes ago, gretschwhtfalcon said:

 

Still awaiting word on flights to Oslo. Very confused situation this morning but probably to be expected with many pax flights needing to be rescheduled. Hotel got us to the ship with not enough time to pack our room up.  As a result missed our flight. A good number of people complaining about Viking air services. 

Hi Is the cruise company laying on extra flights for you ??

 

Keep us informed and glad you are safe just relax and enjoy the ride 

 

Regards

John

[cruzzzinma]

5 minutes ago, VK3DQ said:

Hi Is the cruise company laying on extra flights for you ??

 

Keep us informed and glad you are safe just relax and enjoy the ride 

 

Regards

John

 

They have been working extra charter flights to Oslo and this morning, they are trying to arrange a charter to London for the 70 passengers going to London. Communion to the ship and to the passengers has been very poor so there is a lot of frustration.

 

IMHO, they didn’t start soon enough. My guess is that they’d say “we had to wait until there was certainty about arrival into port” and I have little sympathy with that approach. 

 

We are staying in London until March 31 and had perfectly fine return air reservations. They cancelled it and booked flights home for us leaving at 7:45 this morning.

[philsuarez]

UK press seems have a lot of opinion why the ship sailed but it has to be remembered that Sky is considerably larger than a Hurtigruten vessel which is typically 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes. 40 knot winds whilst significant is only a Force 7 so with everything working correctly should not be an issue for a modern cruise ship. I can remember a force 10 across the Bay of Biscay on Oriana. Lots of motion but she handled it well. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing but the main issue will be to fully understand what caused the multiple engine failure. I'd rather be on a ship that suffered such a failure than a plane. This incident seems to have caused massed hysteria amongst the anti cruise lobby including many friends. Funny how they all still fly

[Grandma Cruising]

3 hours ago, OceanPatter said:

Also appreciate Chengkp75’s objectivity and expertise.

 

BTW, has anyone explained how the engines could have all failed? It’s interesting that the cargo ship that tried to aid the Viking Sky also cited engine failure. Coincidence?

One news bulletin said water in the fuel

[Haworth]

9 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

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.

 

9 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

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.

I was there and yes he did, 

 

i will wait for the outcome of any investigation to understand what happened and why.

 

TH, reacted and dealt with the issue in a timely manner and has offered compensation that we find very acceptable, what would be offered and when by some other large lines.

 

I will not debate further until the facts are known, but if you had been on the ship then you would know what the vast majority of passengers think of TH, the Captain and the crew.

[Grandma Cruising]

8 hours ago, uksimonusa said:

The European Union has exceptional consumer rights, BUT Norway is not a member of that Union, nor is Switzerland

 

No but it does have an agreement with the EU that means it is subject to EU law.

[Haworth]

34 minutes ago, cruzzzinma said:

 

They have been working extra charter flights to Oslo and this morning, they are trying to arrange a charter to London for the 70 passengers going to London. Communion to the ship and to the passengers has been very poor so there is a lot of frustration.

 

IMHO, they didn’t start soon enough. My guess is that they’d say “we had to wait until there was certainty about arrival into port” and I have little sympathy with that approach. 

 

We are staying in London until March 31 and had perfectly fine return air reservations. They cancelled it and booked flights home for us leaving at 7:45 this morning.

I am updating this from home, we were on the Viking flight to London Gatwick, we took the option of a taxi home rather than overnight in an airport hotel and then onward travel home, they were expecting 108 people on the flight according to one of the many Viking reps at Gatwick, we were met at the baggage carousels and V staff were organising trolleys etc to help make life as easy as possible.

 

Agree that commnuication, even on the ship was not ideal, we knew about our flights fro:our son who had been contacted by Viking, without that I doubt we would have known about the flight without being pro active on board

 

[steamboats]

31 minutes ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

No but it does have an agreement with the EU that means it is subject to EU law.

 

But... which consumer law comes into action depends on where the customer did "sign" his contract. So all US pax are a subject to US law. The Brits onboard are a subject to EU consumer laws.

 

The flag of the ship is not important regarding consumer laws. Same for the location of the company´s headquarter (which is Basel, Switzerland).

 

@chengkp75 Isn´t it a standard emergency manoveur to drop both anchors for an emergency stop? For a regular anchorage one anchor is the routine. But here they wanted the ship to get to an immediate stop to prevent a grounding.

 

steamboats

[chengkp75]

Back again.  Restarting where I left off in the thread.  If I'm repeating answers found later in the thread, I apologize.

 

The main reason the ship was going slowly after the restart was to optimize the power required to handle the seas, and to optimize the speed of the ship in relation to the waves, much more on this later.

 

The lifeboats are not useless, they just represent a larger risk to passengers than a winch rescue to a helicopter.  The lifeboats are virtually unsinkable, even if filled completely with water, but these are not "totally enclosed" lifeboats, they are classed as "semi-enclosed".  Only totally enclosed lifeboats will right themselves if turned over, but this also requires that everyone be seat belted into the boat, as it is the weight of the people who provide the force to return the boat upright.  If the boat were overturned, and everyone fell to the "top" of the boat (now the bottom), there would be no force to right the boat.  The boats can be loaded and launched in this kind of weather, as can the life rafts for the crew, but the weather makes their deployment more risky, and the incident commander (likely Norwegian Coast Guard or Navy) along with the cruise line, and the Captain decided the risk of helicopter evacuation was safer.  Even if all the passengers and crew were safely evacuated to the boats, what happens then?  They are still in a raging storm, near a lee shore, with a low powered boat, which will likely suffer the same fate as the ship, running aground, and the passengers would then be subject to breaking seas over the grounded boat.  And, the people get into the boats first, and then are lowered to the water and released, not lowered and then loaded.  Yes, the boats would be safe, if you keep them off the shore.  It wouldn't be an enjoyable ride, everyone would be sick all over themselves, others, and the boat, and they would be wet and cold, but most (those with severe medical issues (heart conditions) may not make it) will be alive, just wishing they were dead.

 

Someone brought up the Concordia, and said the "boats couldn't be used", which is not correct.  23 of 26 boats on the Concordia were successfully launched.  And the boats that weren't launched were not on the "low side" or under water, they were on the "high side", and could not be lowered over the sloping side of the ship.  The only reason the remainder of the boats, and the majority of the rafts, could not be launched, was the severe list the ship took.  However, the point that everyone misses with the Concordia is that the ship did not list more than 10* (lifeboats are designed to be able to be launched up to 15*) until she grounded the second time on the island of Giglio.  It was the second grounding, after flooding introduced free water into the ship, that caused the ship to list over to starboard.  Had she not touched ground, she would have sunk upright, going down stern first.

 

Just look at the cargo ship that also was abandoned.  She has a "free fall" lifeboat, the safest means of launching a boat there is, but they felt that putting the crew into the water and rescuing them by winch from the water was safer for the ship's crew and the flight crew, than trying to lift them off the moving deck of a small ship without power, and also safer than launching that boat near shore in that storm.

 

I, too, will laud the Norwegian Coast Guard, and all SAR (search and rescue) crews around the world.  As the USCG SAR motto says "you have to go out, you don't have to come back".

 

The "well respected travel correspondent" is just that, a correspondent, not a mariner or a weather expert.  The article states that forecast was for "gale force winds", which are common during cruises everywhere in the world, and if cruise ships stopped their itineraries every time there was a gale warning, none would ever sail.

 

 

[G.M.T.]

One aspect of this incident that we can be thankful for are the helicopters and the very short range to and from the ship.

 

Norway has a large fleet of high capacity helicopters used to service their oil rigs in the North Sea and Atlantic and with such short distances involved did not have to refuel so often. Respect to the pilots and crews of the helicopters.

 

The other side of the coin where there are not enough helicopters available is being played out in the tragedy where the cyclone hit Mosambique.

[chengkp75]

13 hours ago, ABoatNerd said:

 

Thank you very much CharTrav.  This information is not aligned with the earlier post that I quoted about Bodo being missed due to a lack of tugs. These are 2 very different explanations.

 

A key question will be - did the Sky have mechanical issues before the incident or did the engines suddenly and without warning fail.  This is a huge question and points right at the heart of Viking Ocean corporation.

I will give my hypothesis on what caused the failure, and why, in a later post, but wondering why you are fixated on "previous" mechanical issues, and how do you lump all "mechanical issues" together.  This could be like saying your car had worn brakes (a "previous" problem), and then had an ignition computer failure, that caused an accident on the highway when your car stopped running, and you would blame the manufacturer that your worn brakes caused the accident?

12 hours ago, ABoatNerd said:

Insurance and legal entities will investigate the mechanical history of the Sky and the track history of adhering to port schedules. 

 

Outside the actual event - the question are:

 

1) Did Viking Ocean know their ship had mechanical issues? 

 

2) Or did the mechanical issues suddenly, and without warning, just happen on March 23, 2019?

 

Tugs might have assisted in docking in contrary winds. Most ships can dock without assistance despite wind. The Captain's "tugs" comments will also be investigated.  Notwithstanding, it appears the Captain and crew did a great job in this unfortunate incident.

 

Guess we will hear in the future.

Of course an investigation will look into the state of the ship before the incident, not sure that a missed port would be significant.  But they will look at whether a "mechanical issue" was relevant to the incident or not.  The cause of the incident indeed, in my professional opinion, happened without warning on March 23, just like your car can break down without warning.

11 hours ago, ABoatNerd said:

Insurance and lawyers have very specific questions regarding this ship.

 

The entire history of the vessel, the # of missed ports/late ports, the mechanical inspections, the US Coast Guard Inspections, will all be evidence.

 

For a new vessel to have a sudden mechanical failure, without warning, is most interesting.

 

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

 

What is key is that this vessel was without power. There was a risk of capsize. It did not happen and that is something we are all most thankful for. However, the bald fact is a very new vessel lost power and therefore propulsion.. 

 

I believe another poster on this board indicated that loss of propulsion has happened before to this class of ship. If so, big issue for Viking, a private holding company.

 

 

Lots of misconceptions here.  Not sure why you place so much emphasis on USCG inspections.  USCG inspections are merely "port state control" inspections to ensure that foreign ships operating in US waters meet SOLAS and other international requirements, not the more stringent USCG regulations, and any nation can make these exact same inspections.  Norway, however, as "flag state" can set more stringent requirements on their ships than SOLAS, and the class society can as well.

Without a more major loss of watertight integrity than a few broken windows there was no risk of capsize, even without any power onboard.  A study of the SS Badger State, which was abandoned in the Pacific in a typhoon, with no power, and large holes in the side and still found afloat days later after the typhoon, will show how hard it is for a non-flooding ship to actually capsize.

10 hours 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 admit that I've skimmed some of the posts here, but I don't remember anywhere where it was confirmed that the ship was sailing without full power.  I saw a post that referenced my observations in previous threads that ships frequently sail with an engine out for overhaul, but I don't recall seeing this as stated fact for the Sky, so please guide me there.  And, again, sailing with 3 of 4 generators in service is not considered "unseaworthy"  or "risky" by any maritime authority or class society.  Most ships don't even have that much redundancy.

10 hours ago, ABoatNerd said:

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. 

Again, in a later post I will discuss "full power" and heavy weather.

[chengkp75]

21 hours ago, PelicanBill said:

For those who were asking if the sea conditions could have caused the engine failure, the answer is no.  Go back and read post #182 by Capt_BJ for an expert opinion on "all engine failure" - this is a new ship and these systems are so redundant it just should not happen without a people failure, or explosion/fire, or collision.

 

So glad the ship is in protected water now.  Hope that Molde harbor Cam can hold up for us!

 

19 hours ago, Gail & Dan said:

what takes out 4 engines water in the intake or a fuel problem as one poster suggests :

 the vessels where fairly new and have a diesel-electric drive system. In both cases it was bad weather with a heavy rolling ship. My feeling is that fuel oil got mixed with available water, air and tank residue causing a foam type slurry that upsets fuel filters and centrifuges. Let's wait and see what the investigations will show

 

10 hours ago, BoundForSea said:

I would moreso be interested in knowing how a vessel with 4 Generators, can in this day and age can be without power to the propulsion. Yeaterday the brand new Fincantieri Nieuw Statendam lost all power, as far as I know, with limited or no propulsion. Why is there not a standby Generator, with a seperate fuel supply (optional crossfeed to the main fuel supply if no fuel contamination is a factor), which is isolated from the main electrical system, that can supply power, limited if need be to the main propulsion and vital life systems, to keep the ship moving albeit slowly so it can be stabilized in high seas or moved very slowly toward land or safer waters. 

 

We’ve seen now a few instances lately where Fincantieri builds, new and old, are suffering from carastrophic or partial power issues. 

 

I believe the focus on the vessel and what happened to it as well as its design should be the focus. Im certain is was maintained properly, but what happened to caused a complete lack of available power. 

 

(keep in mind that the motors that turn the propellers are electric and powered by giant diesel generators) 

Okay, here's my take on this incident.  I am a person with knowledge of ship's power generation and propulsion equipment, and who has personally experienced both total loss of propulsion and partial loss of propulsion due to heavy weather.  Let me start out with what I consider to be the scenario given what I've read.  The ship experienced either a total blackout or a major reduction in power capacity (haven't noticed confirmation that there was even a short total blackout) in heavy weather, and drifted towards shore.  Ship managed to anchor and power was started to be restored within 2-3 hours.  If I'm off on this scenario, could someone who was onboard correct me?

 

Okay, lets deal with a couple of ideas that have been floated.  I seriously doubt the aurora could have caused this problem, while I do know that it can affect electronics, I've never heard of it affecting ships.  Could be, just doubt it.

 

Water in fuel.  This I discount as well, knowing the fuel pre-treatment a ship uses.  While there is always some water in the fuel as it comes from the refinery, the fuel is transferred before use to a "settling" tank, where it can "rest" for a day and let the water separate from the fuel and settle to the bottom of the tank, and then be manually drained off daily.  From the settling tank, the fuel goes through a centrifuge that is designed to separate fuel from water based on their difference in density, and these remove 99.9% of water from the fuel.  Then, the fuel is heated and pressurized to 280*F and 100psi before being pumped to the diesel engine, and water would flash to steam in these conditions and not cause significant problems for a large diesel engine.

 

There is also a lot of talk of "repeated" "mechanical issues" and "engine failures" and "propulsion problems".  From what I've read, the previous problems with Viking ships' propulsion has been in the electrical control systems for the electrical propulsion motors, though many sources call these "engine problems" and the like.  In this instance, a near or total power failure, with a relatively quick restoration of power does not lend itself to a "failure" at all, or a serious systemic failure.

 

The relatively quick restoration of power also leads me away from a failure of the electrical distribution system, as this would take longer to repair, if not be impossible at the moment, requiring materials not available onboard.

 

When a ship is in heavy weather, the best thing is to head into the seas.  This reduces rolling, but increases pitching.  When a ship pitches, the stern rises and falls, with the propellers coming near the surface when the stern rises and going deeper in the water when the stern falls.  Anyone who has been on a small boat in seas will know this phenomenon, where the propeller speeds up when it gets closer to the surface (less water resistance) and slows down when it "digs in" again when the propeller is deeper in the water.  Further, the wind and seas being on the bow, causes a larger force that the ship needs to overcome to move forward, so once the ship reaches her maximum power on the propulsion motors, or the capacity of the generators to provide power, the ship starts to slow down.  Now, the ship is operating at full power, and the propellers dig in deeper, calling for more power, and you get into an overload situation, so in heavy pitching you will normally slow the propellers down to reduce the power, so that you don't run the risk of overloading the motors or generators and shutting them down.  In the extreme, this is the classic "hove to", where the ship is slowed down to where it is just holding a steady position while heading into the seas.

 

Another problem the ship and Captain face is the wave period and ship speed.  If you try to drive the ship "too hard" (too fast), then the ship will not be rising and falling at the same speed as the seas, and you will start to "catch" waves on the bow, where the bow of the ship is dropping when a new sea comes along, and the bow digs deep into the wave, causing a slamming against the hull, and problems all along the length of the ship.  Slowing the ship further will put the ship's motion back in synch with the seas, and reduce this slamming.

 

So, what does this have to do with the Sky?  I believe that something in the weather, either the known and familiar 10th or 100th wave phenomenon (the waves are known to be greater or faster than the ones preceding or following), or a confused sea state due to wave echoes from the near shore, caused the ship to slam into a wave, dig deep, and cause the propellers to rise very near the surface, losing resistance, speeding up and the safety system tripping the propulsion motors to prevent damage due to overspeeding.  This sudden loss of the majority of the electrical load caused the generators on line (and as I've said, there is no documentation that there were not all 4 on line at the time), to overspeed for the same reason (loss of resistance as the load on the generator dropped), shutting all the generators down.  This, coupled with the restoration of power within a couple of hours is how you can have a multiple engine, multiple propeller failure.

 

Someone mentioned an auxiliary generator.  Yes, there is an emergency generator, which will automatically come on line within 45 seconds of losing power, but it is designed by regulation to only provide power to the essential loads needed to abandon the ship (reduced lighting, communications, navigation equipment, steering, fire pumps, bilge pumps, lifeboat and life raft winches).  This will also provide power to just enough engine room auxiliary systems (fuel pumps, lubricating oil pumps, for one or two engines) to "bootstrap" restart the ship's power.

 

So, everything has tripped off line and the emergency generator comes on line.  The engineers will work to ensure that all necessary systems are available, and reset an engine, and restart that engine, then connect it to the power buss, and then start to reset all the power user circuit breakers that tripped in the blackout in priority, to get to restart another generator, so that with two online, you can likely start propulsion at slow speed, and then carry on until full power is restored.  The time window of 2-3 hours that I've read to get propulsion back is pretty standard for something like this, where you have to go around and check everything before putting power back to it, and then starting systems one at a time.

 

The fact that a cargo ship responding in the area also suffered a power failure puts some more strength to my argument.  That ship would have had a diesel engine connected to their propeller, and if it shut down due to overspeed, it would likely turn broadside to the seas, and start rolling sufficiently that their generators would shut down on loss of oil pressure due to the oil rolling in the engine.  The cruise ship's larger generator engines are different in that they use a separate oil tank and not the crankcase of the engine, like your car, for oil storage.

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, steamboats said:

 

But... which consumer law comes into action depends on where the customer did "sign" his contract. So all US pax are a subject to US law. The Brits onboard are a subject to EU consumer laws.

 

The flag of the ship is not important regarding consumer laws. Same for the location of the company´s headquarter (which is Basel, Switzerland).

 

@chengkp75 Isn´t it a standard emergency manoveur to drop both anchors for an emergency stop? For a regular anchorage one anchor is the routine. But here they wanted the ship to get to an immediate stop to prevent a grounding.

 

steamboats

As I stated, I think in an earlier post, but timing is getting bad for me on this thread, dropping both anchors runs the risk of entwining the chains and not being able to retrieve them due to this tangling.  Heidi13 and SeaDog can talk about this better, but there are times when you can do a "hammerhead" anchoring, where you let out nearly all of one chain and drift back on it, and then drop the other anchor directly under the ship and put a pile of chain on top of it to merely act as a weight.  Anchoring without power is a pretty difficult business, and can get pretty hairy even just putting out one anchor.

[chengkp75]

Further with regards to life boats, life rafts, and MES systems, the MES systems shown are only one type, and not the most common on ocean-going cruise ships.  Those are more commonly seen on ferries.  The more common MES systems seen on cruise ships have an enclosed chute that goes straight down (with baffles inside to slow you down), and the rafts are covered.

 

Remember, when the Captain decides to "abandon ship" for the passengers, that is not really "abandon ship".  The vast majority of crew, aside from the 2-3 assigned to each lifeboat (or the 16 crew assigned as crew on the 350 person boats on the mega ships), will remain at their emergency stations until all passengers are evacuated, and only then will the abandon ship signal be given, and the crew will report to their "boat" stations (at the life rafts).

 

As Heidi13 has said, the most common life raft on cruise ships is davit launched, where the crew gets into the raft at the embarkation level, just like the passengers getting into the lifeboats, and are then lowered to the sea and released.  The wire is winched back up, and the next raft hooked on and inflated, and the crew repeat this until all are evacuated.  MES systems using rafts are allowed for passengers, since they can get 5-600 people in the rafts in 30 minutes, while davit launched rafts are much slower (regulations are tighter for passengers with regards to time to get everyone away than they are for crew).