Viking Sky survivors

[Squawkman]

6 hours ago, DGHOC said:

There was a cruise following ours OTJ, (not a NL one) it was obviously cancelled and as I remember the guests received a full refund and were compensated with the same amount (free cruise).

 

That cruise was “Scandinavia and the Kiel Canal” and it was supposed to leave Amsterdam 3/27. And we were supposed to be on it. And yes, we did get a full refund and credit for the cruise fare portion of the Kiel cruise. We did not get the free cruise you guys got (which you did deserve).

[DGHOC]

Yes I remember the discussion. Did you receive the full fare credit to pay for another cruise? I remember a conversation a group of us had whilst onboard, we were wondering whether you'd all been made away. My daughter (in France) told me it was splashed all over the news worldwide.

[Squawkman]

1 minute ago, DGHOC said:

Yes I remember the discussion. Did you receive the full fare credit to pay for another cruise? I remember a conversation a group of us had whilst onboard, we were wondering whether you'd all been made away. My daughter (in France) told me it was splashed all over the news worldwide.

We received a full refund for everything paid to Viking plus a surprise FedEx delivery of a $100 check for each of us. While the refund covered everything, the credit was for cruise fare only - no air, insurance, prepaid excursions, etc. We did rebook the Kiel cruise for March, 2020 - but Covid cancelled that one and that itinerary was never offered again.

[Heidi13]

7 hours ago, JDincalif said:

Request for our experts' consideration: On report page 101 under discussion of the decision to sail, there's a statement that, among the decision makers on board, "None have reported that not leaving port was an option (emphasis ours)." The report then provides some potential contributing factors, but is there any significance to that statement which suggests that remaining in Tromso wasn't even among the options considered?

 

How I read the report is that the Master, on reviewing the weather reports and condition of the vessel, did not consider that delaying departure was necessary. Since SRtP requirements were not known, the decision to sail, is at the Master's discretion. This is based on experience, feedback from Officers and Pilots, any relevant policies in the SMS and any weather forecasts or pertinent reports.

 

The SMS made no reference to SRtP requirements. I'll suggest the Master and Senior Officers did not have a sufficient working knowledge of the SRtP requirements, so this regulatory requirement was not included in the pre-sailing review.

 

This may surprise a number of pax, as many see the Master and Senior Officers as the resident experts that know everything. Unfortunately, with the complexity and ever changing plethora of International, National & Local Acts & Regulations, this is just not possible. To provide an example, I last studied Shipmaster's Business and Ship Construction back in 1984, when I completed my Masters. Sailing as an operational Master, I was updated on any new/updated relevant regulations by the company. In addition, I maintained a membership in the Nautical Institute, a professional organisation that assisted in promulgating changes.

 

I gained my additional regulatory knowledge from some projects I was assigned. Spent a number of years working for the VP Ops, with regulatory liaison being part of my role and then 2-yrs developing a new Level 2 Fleet Operations SMS.

 

When I started the SMS Project in 2010, I recall reading of SOLAS changes regarding SRtP, but since our ships were all existing prior to it coming into force, I didn't need to research the requirements and include SRtP factors in the sailing decision matrix. The sailing matrix was a comprehensive document with 3 levels - Do not sail, Master's discretion to sail and no issue with sailing. Had even a single vessel in the fleet been subject to SRtP I would have had to research the regulation and include every potential scenario, in accordance with the regulations, where the vessel couldn't legally sail. Since SRtP came out about 2010, I am surprised the Ship Managers missed including it in the SMS, which would have been developed for Viking Star, prior to 2014.

 

Each of the operational Masters and Chief Engineers cannot possibly be expected to have a detailed working knowledge of every regulation, which is why it is critical that the SMS is comprehensive and continuously updated, to provide the operating crews the correct information required to make informed decisions.

 

Viking Cruises employ the Ship Manager (Wilhelmsen Ship Management) to provide the Masters and Deck/Engineering Officers, and provide the required technical services to manage the vessel. This includes providing a comprehensive SMS and the ISM required Designated Person Ashore (DPA).

 

The DPA apparently did not have sufficient working knowledge of SRtP Regulations and also was lacking in not identifying the Master's failure to report the loss of a DG to Class, who would then report to Flag. It has been many years since I was involved in these details, but in addition to the reporting requirements of the defective engine, the vessel may possibly have required a Class issued, "Condition of Class" prior to sailing. Hopefully the Chief can confirm @chengkp75

 

Discounting the failure to comply with SRtP Regulations, the decision to sail is highly subjective, and is based on risk assessment, ship's handling characteristics and the experience of the Master and Senior Officers. I believe the Master was an experienced mariner on the Norwegian Coast and he was supported by 2 coast pilots. In a similar situation, as an operational Master with a similar ship in the local Canadian waters I know well, I would have no hesitation with sailing. I have sailed in similar conditions on the coast many, many times without incident. However, the final decision to sail would be based on any SMS restrictions and conducting a risk mitigations to lower the increased risk.

 

The report confirms that the vessel handled the seas well and the conditions were well within the design parameters. Since the root cause of this incident is faulty tank design and low oil levels, had all 4 engines been running, the ship would most likely still have blacked out. With 4 engines, the additional alarms may have increased the troubleshooting time, delaying the time to get 1 DG re-started and synchronised to the main board. Note - even before I retired, more weight was given to pax comfort, as while the ship can easily handle the seas, many pax could not.

 

I don't see any significance in the Master not having considered the option of remaining in port. As a Master, my job was to complete the scheduled sailings, safely and in accordance with the SMS. When I considered options, they were sailing options - depart as scheduled, delay departure, seek safe refuge in deep water, alternative routing, etc. Only when none of those options were safe, would I default to the stay in port.

 

To summarise, personally, I never considered staying in port as 1 of the potential options options, as it was the default, if no option was deemed acceptable.

 

 

[JDincalif]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

To summarise, personally, I never considered staying in port as 1 of the potential options options, as it was the default, if no option was deemed acceptable.

The 'thanks' button is woefully inadequate to express our gratitude for your thorough (*and* comprehensible!) explanation. Your professional expertise and experience, along with that of chengkp75, have been a gift to us here.

[DGHOC]

Andy, thanks so much from us too. Much of the report was unintelligible to me yet your detailed explanation and expertise much better clarifies things.

 

I totally agree with J and D. The sound and comprehensive advice and rationale you and chengkp75 so generously offered immediately after the event was enormously reassuring, at a time when we were all trying to make sense of what had happened to us. I think it was enormously important for us to be able to understand why and how this had happened. I have to mention too, your experience and unemotional delivery of fact contrasted dramatically with the inevitable 'disaster chasers' who were pounding our conversations with utter nonsense. Your responses offered a safe pair of hands.

 

In many ways we were awfully lucky. We were first time cruisers, (we'd never been remotely interested before and my husband had to be persuaded to agree to go) and we really had no idea how serious the situation was. I think I said to you way back that we were on the top deck of the E L thoroughly enjoying the roller coaster ride whilst many around were becoming increasingly anxious and green. We just thought that that was the norm and all really did seem well until suddenly it was not. It was only when the engines suddenly failed and the ship couldn't therefore manage to point into the waves, turning sideways, that all became tricky. It happened very quickly and the difference was profound. It caught many off guard, so much so that they continued sitting on moving sofas; I remember we were keenly trying to stop more of the huge ship display cabinets from falling over by wedging sofas against them. We were so naive! We bumped into a head waiter on our last cruise who had been in The Restaurant on the Sky. He was telling us about some diners who were refusing to leave their lunch table until they had been served their puds, even as he was trying to hold the fridges up as all was smashing everywhere. It was very sudden.

 

Chengkp75 has stated that this isn't a blame game and I do accept that but I don't understand why, if many others have contributed to this event through failings, that V is seen as solely responsible and has taken on the sole financial burden of correcting others contributing errors. Plus of course the expense of compensating us all so very generously. Surely this report will now lead to corporate litigation? Maybe I'm still not understanding.

[kcpvwill]

9 hours ago, Squawkman said:

That cruise was “Scandinavia and the Kiel Canal” and it was supposed to leave Amsterdam 3/27. And we were supposed to be on it. And yes, we did get a full refund and credit for the cruise fare portion of the Kiel cruise. We did not get the free cruise you guys got (which you did deserve).

We did the Kiel canal cruise in 2018 and really enjoyed it.  Viking doesn’t do it anymore which is a shame, perhaps it wasn’t popular.  

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

It has been many years since I was involved in these details, but in addition to the reporting requirements of the defective engine, the vessel may possibly have required a Class issued, "Condition of Class" prior to sailing. Hopefully the Chief can confirm

Andy, I can't say for sure what Lloyd's would do, but I know that DNV and ABS, the two Class societies I'm familiar with, would have issued a "condition of class" to have the engine repaired by a given date (set in conversation with Wilhelmsen and MAN regarding parts and technician availability), and with the notation that if another engine failed the ship could not sail, or if another engine came due for preventative maintenance that could not be accomplished during port calls, that the ship could not sail.

 

14 minutes ago, DGHOC said:

Chengkp75 has stated that this isn't a blame game and I do accept that but I don't understand why, if many others have contributed to this event through failings, that V is seen as solely responsible and has taken on the sole financial burden of correcting others contributing errors. Plus of course the expense of compensating us all so very generously. Surely this report will now lead to corporate litigation? Maybe I'm still not understanding.

I guess I gave the wrong impression.  The report does not seek to assess blame, but there is no reason that Viking could not file civil action against Lloyds, Wilhelmsen, or Fincantieri for breach of contract.  I'm not a lawyer, just a simple boat mechanic, but it would depend on how strong a case Viking felt they had as to whether they pursue it (they do share some responsibility as well), in my opinion.  Further mitigating the liability of the various players other than Viking, are the facts that it appears that even the IMO bears some responsibility for not promulgating clear procedures for implementing requirements they set in SOLAS.  This, to me, shows that "industry standard" was similar to what Lloyds and Fincantieri did with the design of the sump tanks (see the El Faro, mentioned in the report, a much older ship that had similar design problems and was lost due to low oil levels), and so there are likely many ships operating out there today that don't actually meet SOLAS requirements, since no one thought their design philosophy was wrong.  The purpose of the recommended actions from the NSIA is to make both Lloyds and the IACS (the governing body for Class societies) make changes in how they approve a design pursuant to SOLAS, and apply this to all existing vessels, so that there may be new operating limitations, or maintenance requirements, to mitigate a potential problem, if an existing ship's sump tanks are found to be non-compliant.  As NSIA noted, a flag state can grant an exemption to certain items regarding SOLAS, if a sufficient reason is given, and mediation measures listed in the vessel's certificate of class (seaworthiness document).

[DGHOC]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Andy, I can't say for sure what Lloyd's would do, but I know that DNV and ABS, the two Class societies I'm familiar with, would have issued a "condition of class" to have the engine repaired by a given date (set in conversation with Wilhelmsen and MAN regarding parts and technician availability), and with the notation that if another engine failed the ship could not sail, or if another engine came due for preventative maintenance that could not be accomplished during port calls, that the ship could not sail.

 

I guess I gave the wrong impression.  The report does not seek to assess blame, but there is no reason that Viking could not file civil action against Lloyds, Wilhelmsen, or Fincantieri for breach of contract.  I'm not a lawyer, just a simple boat mechanic, but it would depend on how strong a case Viking felt they had as to whether they pursue it (they do share some responsibility as well), in my opinion.  Further mitigating the liability of the various players other than Viking, are the facts that it appears that even the IMO bears some responsibility for not promulgating clear procedures for implementing requirements they set in SOLAS.  This, to me, shows that "industry standard" was similar to what Lloyds and Fincantieri did with the design of the sump tanks (see the El Faro, mentioned in the report, a much older ship that had similar design problems and was lost due to low oil levels), and so there are likely many ships operating out there today that don't actually meet SOLAS requirements, since no one thought their design philosophy was wrong.  The purpose of the recommended actions from the NSIA is to make both Lloyds and the IACS (the governing body for Class societies) make changes in how they approve a design pursuant to SOLAS, and apply this to all existing vessels, so that there may be new operating limitations, or maintenance requirements, to mitigate a potential problem, if an existing ship's sump tanks are found to be non-compliant.  As NSIA noted, a flag state can grant an exemption to certain items regarding SOLAS, if a sufficient reason is given, and mediation measures listed in the vessel's certificate of class (seaworthiness document).

Chengkp75, you are kind to try to further clarify here. I suppose what was worrying me was that if these recommended changes were not policed in some way, if nobody had to accept responsibility when errors or weaknesses were recognised, why should they change? 

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, DGHOC said:

Chengkp75, you are kind to try to further clarify here. I suppose what was worrying me was that if these recommended changes were not policed in some way, if nobody had to accept responsibility when errors or weaknesses were recognised, why should they change? 

The recommended changes are policed for the various players by various third party auditors now that deficiencies in their practices have been noted by NSIA.  For Fincantieri, their ISO certification depends on the ISO auditor agreeing that the changes made are sufficient to prevent a recurrence, and become an new industry standard.  For Lloyds, the IACS audits their rules, and will see that the changes are made, and consistent with the findings of NSIA.  For Wilhelmsen and Viking, Lloyds will audit their SMS programs to see that the changes are made.  All of these third party audits are renewed at least annually, to ensure continued compliance, and to find any further discrepancies from industry best practices.  Each player accepts responsibility not for causing the incident, but for having a deficient system or process (their SMS or ISO programs) and responsibility for changing the process.  If each player is found to have followed their SMS/ISO/IACS codes, policies, and procedures, and those followed industry best practices, at that time (so, before the incident), then negligence is hard/impossible to prove, and financial responsibility difficult to apportion.

 

Just so you know, loss of things like an ISM certificate (International Safety Management Code, set by the IMO, which requires the companies to set up their individual SMS (Safety Management Systems), results in the ship/company losing its ability to operate ships of the flag nation (so almost a kiss of death for ships or shipowners, as Class certificates are required to be checked by port states before allowing a ship to enter their waters), and the same applies for ISO certificates, as flag states can approve or disapprove of Class societies to survey and certify ships flying their flag.  Loss of ISO certification can result in customers taking their shipbuilding business elsewhere, to a competitor that does meet standards.  Andy probably has more personal experience with certification at the shoreside level.

Edited March 22 by chengkp75

[DGHOC]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The recommended changes are policed for the various players by various third party auditors now that deficiencies in their practices have been noted by NSIA.  For Fincantieri, their ISO certification depends on the ISO auditor agreeing that the changes made are sufficient to prevent a recurrence, and become an new industry standard.  For Lloyds, the IACS audits their rules, and will see that the changes are made, and consistent with the findings of NSIA.  For Wilhelmsen and Viking, Lloyds will audit their SMS programs to see that the changes are made.  All of these third party audits are renewed at least annually, to ensure continued compliance, and to find any further discrepancies from industry best practices.  Each player accepts responsibility not for causing the incident, but for having a deficient system or process (their SMS or ISO programs) and responsibility for changing the process.  If each player is found to have followed their SMS/ISO/IACS codes, policies, and procedures, and those followed industry best practices, at that time (so, before the incident), then negligence is hard/impossible to prove, and financial responsibility difficult to apportion.

 

Just so you know, loss of things like an ISM certificate (International Safety Management Code, set by the IMO, which requires the companies to set up their individual SMS (Safety Management Systems), results in the ship/company losing its ability to operate ships of the flag nation (so almost a kiss of death for ships or shipowners, as Class certificates are required to be checked by port states before allowing a ship to enter their waters), and the same applies for ISO certificates, as flag states can approve or disapprove of Class societies to survey and certify ships flying their flag.  Loss of ISO certification can result in customers taking their shipbuilding business elsewhere, to a competitor that does meet standards.  Andy probably has more personal experience with certification at the shoreside level.

Thanks so much for clarifying in such detail, we're enormously grateful.

[OnTheJourney]

4 hours ago, DGHOC said:

We were first time cruisers

Wow! I had not remembered that. What an introduction to cruising!!!

 

4 hours ago, DGHOC said:

we were on the top deck of the E L thoroughly enjoying the roller coaster ride

I was on the lower deck listening to glass shatter and watching people ride the chairs. The staff member told everyone to "move back to here..gonna get worse", but hardly anyone listened to him and instead some people were still up at the windows taking pics and video (not a great idea in retrospect)

 

4 hours ago, DGHOC said:

I remember we were keenly trying to stop more of the huge ship display cabinets from falling over by wedging sofas against them. We were so naive!

Again, wow! I have a picture (taken from a picture I came across online) of all those glass cases with the ships laying over and millions of glass pieces all over. Good you weren't injured by all that was going on up there! I will never forget the sound of all the glasses and dishware, etc. smashing. Probably some of what I heard was from upstairs where you were.

 

4 hours ago, DGHOC said:

He was telling us about some diners who were refusing to leave their lunch table until they had been served their puds,

Outside of the actual seriousness of the situation, that's almost humorous. Like a scene out of a 'Three Stooges' episode.

 

4 hours ago, DGHOC said:

It was very sudden.

I left the lounge once stuff started falling out of the ceiling and then headed down to the theater where Joan was. She had been watching the movie that was being shown that afternoon. We heard these loud booming noises every so often - likely the anchors (?) or else just the waves pounding the hull. At one point I said to her something to the effect of "I think we're in trouble here and will probably have to declare an emergency". Immediately after that we heard the general alarm sound. Ah yes...5 years tomorrow. Glad we're all here to talk about it.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, DGHOC said:

Chengkp75 has stated that this isn't a blame game and I do accept that but I don't understand why, if many others have contributed to this event through failings, that V is seen as solely responsible and has taken on the sole financial burden of correcting others contributing errors. Plus of course the expense of compensating us all so very generously. Surely this report will now lead to corporate litigation? Maybe I'm still not understanding.

 

One of the key changes in the Marine industry has been eliminating the "Blame" culture, especially with the national accident/incident investigation organisations. By eliminating the "Blame" culture, it improves the chance of thoroughly investigating incidents to determine the facts, root cause and the often multitude of contributing factors.

 

When I started sailing as Master back in the 1980's, the saying that you were only as good as you last docking was very relevant. Note - my first command included 16 dockings per day. The blame culture was very much in force those days and it didn't matter how many perfect dockings you made, a single bad one could impact your career.

 

With the elimination of the "Blame" culture, provided you perform in accordance with the company policies and procedures, as outlined in the SMS, your job is generally safe. By reporting incidents and participating in fact finding, we improve the quality of incident investigations, so changes can be made to procedures to reduces the probability of it happening again.

 

With respect to the investigation, it also does not focus on assigning blame. The primary function is to determine the facts and consequently the root cause and contributing factors. Once this is known, commercial litigation may result over the next many years.

 

From a customer perspective, the passenger purchased the cruise from Viking Cruises, who must take all reasonable measures to protect the brand and reputation. I'll suggest Viking were very generous in initially caring for the pax and repatriating them home, then went well above the contractual requirements with the compensation provided.

 

Yes, this was a huge financial cost to Viking Cruises, some of which may have been covered by insurance, but I suspect a significant portion was an operational cost. The report highlights errors by the shipyard, Class Society and the Ship Managers, so Viking may have legal recourse against any/all of those parties to mitigate their financial loses. However, the contacts hiring each party will be scrutinised, as will the oversight of each contractor by Viking Cruises. Another possible curve ball is a shipyard trick to mitigate liability during a design/build contract - once a drawing is complete, it is sent to the owner for review and approval. If the shipyard sent the non-SOLAS compliant tank drawings to Viking, or the Ship Manager and the drawings were signed off as approved, the shipyard may have transferred the liability. 

 

If Viking Cruises initiate proceedings against other parties it could potentially drag on for many years, as there are no doubt many legal avenues that I don't know.

[OnTheJourney]

4 hours ago, kcpvwill said:

Viking doesn’t do it anymore which is a shame, perhaps it wasn’t popular.  

Goes without saying I suppose that all cruise lines run the numbers on which itineraries are popular and which aren't, and then adjust accordingly. Still wish Viking came into either Baltimore or Bayonne. That'd be so awesome for us since both are in fairly easy driving distance.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Andy, I can't say for sure what Lloyd's would do, but I know that DNV and ABS, the two Class societies I'm familiar with, would have issued a "condition of class" to have the engine repaired by a given date (set in conversation with Wilhelmsen and MAN regarding parts and technician availability), and with the notation that if another engine failed the ship could not sail, or if another engine came due for preventative maintenance that could not be accomplished during port calls, that the ship could not sail.

 

 

Having worked mostly with LR & ABS, I found LR to be a little more diligent than ABS, so I figured it would need a Condition of Class, just wasn't 100% certain.

[OnTheJourney]

12 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

I'll suggest Viking were very generous in initially caring for the pax and repatriating them home, then went well above the contractual requirements with the compensation provided.

 

Understated even, especially speaking for those - like myself - who were airlifted and transferred to hotels. The treatment we got was 'first class' for sure. And, the amazing effort by the CHC for doing nearly 18 hours of transporting pax during such difficult circumstances can't get enough credit. The assessment report of Sept. '21 presented the very detailed level of response and how many agencies, etc. had to be notified and quickly mobilized into action. As always, a terrific post on your part to continue to help explain things mentioned in the report. There is far too much "blame culture" still prevalent in all walks of life. Glad to hear the Marine industry has moved beyond that. 

Edited March 22 by OnTheJourney

[OneSixtyToOne]

14 hours ago, Squawkman said:

We did rebook the Kiel cruise for March, 2020 - but Covid cancelled that one and that itinerary was never offered again.

We did the Kiel passage in 2019 and thoroughly enjoyed it. The “Trade Routes” cruise is identical except it includes Bergen instead of Kiel and Copenhagen. I believe it is no longer offered because it was a repositioning cruise that eventually went between Copenhagen and St. Petersburg for the summer. That obviously is no longer an option. The new “Homelands” cruise is based out of Bergen instead of Copenhagen.

Here are some photos of the Kiel transit. Notice the people on land waving Norwegian flags.

 

 

 

 

 

We were also on the Viking Copenhagen extension. Our room overlooked Tivoli Gardens:

 

 

Edited March 22 by OneSixtyToOne

[OnTheJourney]

I may have posted this somewhere along the way but if so I don't remember and hence apologize in advance for likely repeating. With the 5th year anniversary coming up tomorrow, however, I thought I'd share some personal recollections. The local newspaper interviewed Joan and I (I'm sure the same happened for others). I am still admittedly nearly brought to tears in watching her read her journal entries.

 

[OnTheJourney]

A few more, especially since DGHOC referred to the broken display cases on the lounge upper level. That pic is simply a screen shot from a video.

 

 

 

Edited March 22 by OnTheJourney

[DGHOC]

We were appalled at the damage being done around us thus we tried to stop it. One glass case fell and there was a couple sitting right in front of another. Whether shocked or terribly optimistic they just continued to sit there, we barked at them to move because if the next case had come down on them I think their injuries would have been immense. We couldn't use either glass staircase to get down as each had been smashed by falling furniture. We had to exit by the room corridor on the 8th floor. 

 

The devastation was truly shocking to see the following day, we took a wrong turn going to have dinner and walked through the restaurant which looked like an explosion had occurred.

[TexasTraveler54]

2 hours ago, OnTheJourney said:

Wow! I had not remembered that. What an introduction to cruising!!!

 

I was on the lower deck listening to glass shatter and watching people ride the chairs. The staff member told everyone to "move back to here..gonna get worse", but hardly anyone listened to him and instead some people were still up at the windows taking pics and video (not a great idea in retrospect)

 

Again, wow! I have a picture (taken from a picture I came across online) of all those glass cases with the ships laying over and millions of glass pieces all over. Good you weren't injured by all that was going on up there! I will never forget the sound of all the glasses and dishware, etc. smashing. Probably some of what I heard was from upstairs where you were.

 

Outside of the actual seriousness of the situation, that's almost humorous. Like a scene out of a 'Three Stooges' episode.

 

I left the lounge once stuff started falling out of the ceiling and then headed down to the theater where Joan was. She had been watching the movie that was being shown that afternoon. We heard these loud booming noises every so often - likely the anchors (?) or else just the waves pounding the hull. At one point I said to her something to the effect of "I think we're in trouble here and will probably have to declare an emergency". Immediately after that we heard the general alarm sound. Ah yes...5 years tomorrow. Glad we're all here to talk about it.

Luckily we were in our cabin.  The week I got home, I had all the windows in my house replaced.  Experienced some definite PTSD when they started breaking all the old windows!  

[DGHOC]

Lovely to hear from you, hope you and your sis are both well. We were looking at some of our Searching for the NL excursion photos recently and were remembering you both. Sending all good wishes your way!

[TexasTraveler54]

1 minute ago, DGHOC said:

Lovely to hear from you, hope you and your sis are both well. We were looking at some of our Searching for the NL excursion photos recently and were remembering you both. Sending all good wishes your way!

Both good.  Looking forward to our Iceland cruise in July.  Hope everything is well across the pond!

[OnTheJourney]

18 minutes ago, TexasTraveler54 said:

Experienced some definite PTSD when they started breaking all the old windows!  

I'm sure. For quite some time following the incident, DW and I used to feel unsettled every time a chopper flew overhead, and also during grey and stormy days. It really took some time to effectively cope with it all. The real test was going on another cruise the following October (which ironically ran into a storm system that necessitated changing the itinerary). To this day, we still feel a bit unnerved when they do the lifeboat drills and sound the general alarm.

 

27 minutes ago, DGHOC said:

Whether shocked or terribly optimistic they just continued to sit there, we barked at them to move because if the next case had come down on them I think their injuries would have been immense.

Wow. You did a great thing by telling them to move! Amazing how they got that ship ready to sail again in (I think?) just a little over a week. Must have been a huge crew in there working 24/7.

Edited March 22 by OnTheJourney

[LindaS272]

55 minutes ago, OnTheJourney said:

Amazing how they got that ship ready to sail again in (I think?) just a little over a week.

We were on the Sky in July 2019 (Homelands to St. Petersburg) for our first cruise in decades. We knew about your debacle but there was no indication by July—all was repaired. We also had the very capable Capt. Olav.