Viking Expeditions Thread

[FLORIDA FLOUNDER]

1 hour ago, amyr said:

We were laughing about that too - a romantic cruise to paradise he called it.  He also drove himself out to RDU to do the reporting, despite the couple he was quoting being nowhere around.  They had left days earlier, and I’m not sure he knew when they were due home?  I guess it was as good a place as any to do a live shot 🤷‍♀️

 

We depart at 4:20 a.m. for our flight to Ushuaia. 

Soooo...Octantis is good to go? We leave on the 12/26/22 sailing and I'm not gonna lie, I'm kinda scared.😥

[formernuke]

7 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

There are multiple sources of early information about what happened, some posted on this CC thread below. We know a passenger's leg was severely injured by a malfunctioning Zodiak (someone called it "exploding"), but not what caused that.

 We have reports lay pax said the captain was rushing back to get that leg injured pax assistance (not necessarily rushing dangerously fast, or so fast that the act would result in inability to handle a rogue wave, which then killed 1 person and injured others when it broke windows -- we don't know if the so-called "rushing" event had anything to do with inability of the ship to handle the rogue wave).  We also don't know if it did not.  My understanding is there are not uncommonly rogue waves in the Antarctic, but they don't usually blow winodws out of cabins and thus kill passengers on cruise ships.  

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/topic/2897175-and-now-viking-experiences-tragedy/?_fromLogin=1#replyForm

 

There are also reports in Spanish papers and in other European languages, for those interested in digging into this some more.  I also read that Argentina is launching a criminal investigation.

 

The two men killed when the Zodiak tipped over on Quark last week (also in response to a rogue wave) were 76 and 80, but I don't know how old the dead and injured are on Polaris.

 

My guess is we will later have no access to any report on the series of events, much less on etiology or relation or capacity to assign blame.  Lawyers who sue cruise ships will have better luck if any of the pax injured or the estates of those dead are interested in  in suing. 

 

Any interest I had in going on Polaris is gone right now until I know more about what happened with the malfunctioning Zodiak, and why the rogue wave could not be handled properly.  I hope the report and explanations do not take years to receive.

 

 

 

Another note is though this has been reported as a rogue wave, there's no confirmation of that either (as opposed to just high sea state related). . It's another term people throw around causally.  If it was, in fact a rogue wave, there is nothing to do to 'properly handle' a rogue wave. It can't be predicted and it comes on too fast typically to do anything about it. Also likely has nothing to do with where you are or how fast you are going, necessarily. Many ships (of all sizes and types) have been damaged or sunk by rogue waves. Wikipedia article to give you a little taste of what this really is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave

[Clay Clayton]

Another article

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/expedition-cruising/1-dead-4-injured-viking-polaris-rogue-wave-incident?NL=ST-004&Issue=ST-004_20221202_ST-004_209&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1_b&utm_campaign=STRADE_News_Seatrade Cruise News Weekly Headline_News_NL_12022022_3963&utm_emailname=STRADE_News_Seatrade Cruise News Weekly Headline_News_NL_12022022_3963&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&utm_MDMContactID=db60c4e4-0afe-4832-ad88-83806cef368f&utm_campaigntype=Newsletter&eM=fe6114d63ee1af637c116a68ad60731963dbb02f790981a727f86217fc60c39d&eventSeriesCode=ES_SEATRDCRSCTNT&eventEditionCode=MTM00SCC&sessionCode=S_STRDCRSNEWS&sp_eh=fe6114d63ee1af637c116a68ad60731963dbb02f790981a727f86217fc60c39d

[Heidi13]

8 hours ago, cruiseej said:

 

I don't want to "police" anything, and I don't want to report anyone. I was only asking or suggesting to both posters, and any who might follow, to turn down the heat to continue discussing the incident in a calmer manner. 

 

 

That comes from direct accounts reported by people onboard. The exact method or nature of the leg injury has not been reported. It could have been from the initial rupture of the Zodiac compartment, or perhaps getting tangled in a rope while falling overboard. But I don't think there's any question that the leg injury occurred during the Zodiac incident.

 

 

We were using the term used by those onboard. You may be right that "explosion" may not be technically accurate terminology. However, "low pressure deflation" makes it sound like a slow leak in a tire, not a violent event that threw one or two people overboard, and caused one person to suffer a severe leg injury. 

 

 

I assume a ship's Master, like an airline captain, can be cleared or held responsible at the conclusion of an investigation. With airlines, a captain may make a decision in the moment which is later found to have been incorrect or not optimal — but the captain is cleared because it was an appropriate decision based on the information available and the captain's experience. Or a captain may be held accountable for making an incorrect decision which went against policies/procedures/best judgement based on the information which was available. But unlike an airline pilot who may have mere seconds to make life-changing decisions (like "Sully"), the cruise ship captain in this case undoubtedly had the opportunity to talk to the company's operations base for weather and medical advice, and to consider with local Argentine/Chilean authorities various alternatives like heading to a base in Antarctica or a medevac flight from Ushuaia. The captain's decision to depart the peninsula and head north to Ushuaia was not a split-second decision, and was almost certainly informed by collaboration with the home office and local authorities. 

 

Based on the pax reports received, I am not disputing that a pax suffered a broken leg as a result of an RHIB incident. What I am questioning, is the lack of facts provided in the post I copied, that alleges the Viking Zodiac malfunctioned and therefore Viking is liable. Prior to making those allegation, I'll suggest waiting to know what actually happened and also the maintenance records of the boat. Since these inflatable collars are degraded by UV, I suggest where they are stored is also a key issue.

 

Based on the collar pressure, I am suggesting regardless of whether it was a slow leak or large puncture, it is hardly an "Explosion". A large puncture will result in rapid (instant) deflation and since the collar is secured inboard, anyone sitting on the collar will probably end up in the water. I wasn't going to speculate about the becketed lines, but you have a reasonable probability of being correct, as that is definitely a possible contributing factor. 

 

Many of the top marine companies have moved on from the "Blame Game" and company post incident investigations are held to determine the root cause and any additional factors, so they can be incorporated into the SMS, to reduce the potential for future incidents. Providing the Master and Officers performed in accordance with the SMS, or where safety and/or pollution was an issue, in accordance with the ordinary practice of seamen, then their performance is not culpable and no disciplinary action is taken.

 

Yes, the Master did not make a split-second decision to return to Ushuaia early and prior to making that decision will have conversed with the company and the local authorities, determining the available options. Once the options are known, the Master makes the decision and advises the company and relevant authorities. 

[noe4laj]

We are due to be on the 12/17 sailing of the Polaris. I do not see a chance that they get needed repairs complete before we fly out and/or are due to embark.
 

I’m not sure either option is great - extreme disappointment if trip is ultimately canceled, esp so close to departure and the holidays vs sailing goes on schedule and dealing with anxiety related to the recent events and questions if are we safe.
 

No word whatsoever from Viking, other than VMAIL today that I can only hope was a poorly timed automated message from our original salesperson saying they were “Wishing us bon voyage” on our impending sailing.

Their tone was peppy, clearly sounded like they had no knowledge of the incident. If they did know, it was extremely tone deaf. If they didn’t know, why not? People are surely reaching out now for rebookings/refunds on the 12/6 sailing now.

Edited December 2, 2022 by noe4laj

[Pushka]

On 12/2/2022 at 5:34 AM, sippican said:

 Where did you get your information regarding the next cruise being cancelled? 

As a TA booked to depart 12/6, there has been no such notification or information from Viking. Their official statement says the next sailing will go as planned.  (although that seems impossible).

It has been confirmed by passengers on that sailing in a FB page. With copies of the emails advising. It's a private group so can't repost here. The repairs also can't be done in Ushuaia but needs to be completed in a larger facility on the SA continent. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Pushka

[mariavii]

5 minutes ago, Pushka said:

It has been confirmed by passengers on that sailing in a FB page. With copies of the emails advising. It's a private group so can't repost here. 

It's also on Viking's website:

https://www.vikingcruises.com/expeditions/my-trip/current-sailings/index.html

[AussieBoyTX]

We were about six hours behind Polaris on Ponant's Le Lyrial and experienced eight meter swells and 50+ kt winds. Some crew members reported it was among the most "vigorous" they had experienced.

 

 

 

[Heidi13]

10 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

There are multiple sources of early information about what happened, some posted on this CC thread below. We know a passenger's leg was severely injured by a malfunctioning Zodiak (someone called it "exploding"), but not what caused that.

 We have reports lay pax said the captain was rushing back to get that leg injured pax assistance (not necessarily rushing dangerously fast, or so fast that the act would result in inability to handle a rogue wave, which then killed 1 person and injured others when it broke windows -- we don't know if the so-called "rushing" event had anything to do with inability of the ship to handle the rogue wave).  We also don't know if it did not.  My understanding is there are not uncommonly rogue waves in the Antarctic, but they don't usually blow winodws out of cabins and thus kill passengers on cruise ships.  

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/topic/2897175-and-now-viking-experiences-tragedy/?_fromLogin=1#replyForm

 

There are also reports in Spanish papers and in other European languages, for those interested in digging into this some more.  I also read that Argentina is launching a criminal investigation.

 

The two men killed when the Zodiak tipped over on Quark last week (also in response to a rogue wave) were 76 and 80, but I don't know how old the dead and injured are on Polaris.

 

My guess is we will later have no access to any report on the series of events, much less on etiology or relation or capacity to assign blame.  Lawyers who sue cruise ships will have better luck if any of the pax injured or the estates of those dead are interested in  in suing. 

 

Any interest I had in going on Polaris is gone right now until I know more about what happened with the malfunctioning Zodiak, and why the rogue wave could not be handled properly.  I hope the report and explanations do not take years to receive.

 

Based on the information received to date, the Viking RHIB experienced a failure of the inflatable collar. What caused the failure, to the best of my knowledge, has not been published. Failure of the fabric or the heat welded seams, or even the entire collar separating from the boat would meet the definition of a malfunction. However, if the collar was punctured by an external force, either from a pax, or rock/wood/flotsam/jetsam, this would be classed as human factors rather than malfunction. Therefore, without knowing the facts, we cannot make that determination.

 

Pax reporting the ship was "Rushing" back to Ushuaia is further proof that pax comments are most often unreliable, as I know of no mariner that would use that term. As I have no doubt the Polaris has a prudent Master, I expect she probably used a term such as, "Best speed". I can see why some pax could infer that as rushing, but that couldn't be further from the truth, as "Best Speed" takes into consideration navigational and weather challenges, and the ship's propulsion system, ensuring the passage is navigated safely.

 

You are correct that Rogue Waves don't always break windows, as some have resulted in ships experiencing major structural failure and sinking. Accepting the tragic loss of a pax, the ship was fortunate that it experienced minimal damage, so yet again I question your statement the ship was unable to handle the rogue wave. Whether that was as a result of the design and/or the Bridge Team's actions, we will not know until the final AIBN report is published.

 

Criminal investigation - this isn't newsworthy, as it is a fact of life all mariners have to live with. Almost every jurisdiction jumps at the opportunity to prosecute mariners.

 

Quark Incident - at the time of the incident, the winds were light and seas smooth. The reports state a breaking wave, which can be generated by a number of sources, including wash from other boats. As the boat was close to shore and shallow water, the height of a wave increases. Hardly a "Rogue Wave"

 

The Rogue Wave is a reportable shipping casualty and the Master must report it to the Flag State. Since it includes a fatality and damage to the ship, I expect the AIBN to convene a formal inquiry to determine the facts and  causes. This information is published and is available to the public, initially with a preliminary report and then a final report. The preliminary report can take 1 - 2 yrs and the final report 2 - 3+ years.

 

 

[sippican]

1 hour ago, Pushka said:

It has been confirmed by passengers on that sailing in a FB page. With copies of the emails advising. It's a private group so can't repost here. The repairs also can't be done in Ushuaia but needs to be completed in a larger facility on the SA continent. 

This was posted prior to any official notification. The e-mail came last evening. I am also a member of that page as well as a TA. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by sippican

[Catlover54]

Multiple news sites are reporting that the passenger killed was an unidentified 62-year-old woman and that she was hit and killed by "flying glass" from one of the shattered windows (I think they all share common news sources like AP, plus what Viking chose to say, since many use the same language).

 

News sources don't talk about the 11/30 Zodiak event  that led to  the woman's broken leg (since  no one died), I think that was just on Facebook, and the news stories typically  do not talk about the fact that the ship was heading back to Ushuaia early due to that injury.

 

I had assumed all the windows use tempered glass in modern construction, but I don't know, the news stories did not say.  

 

The youtube report below claims pax said they were tossed off their beds when water suddenly came gushing in through the broken windows.

 

Thank you Heidi 13 for commenting that  the reports on the investigation of what happened will be available to the public, and that  "The preliminary report can take 1 - 2 yrs and the final report 2 - 3+ years."

 

I will mark my calendar to check back in 1-2 years for the preliminary report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

Just to give a little perspective, scientists have stated that a "normal" breaking wave of about 20' height (not one storm driven, adding additional force), can exert 6000 pounds of force, per square inch against a surface.  Looking at the photo above, I'd say the window is 36" x 36".  That means a wave striking the window can exert 3800 tons of force just against the window.  This is very near the tensile strength of tempered glass, so any storm force the wave had, or any height above 20' would surely break the best designed glass.  As Andy has said, the power of the sea is enormous, and I have been in storms, without rogue waves, where the superstructure of the ship has been folded in.

 

And, the current wisdom is that there are 10 rogue waves somewhere on the world's oceans at any given moment.  Rogue waves, by definition, are at least twice as high as other waves in the storm, and can come from totally different directions than the rest of the seas.  The fact that side windows were struck supports this, as the ship would have been heading mostly directly into the prevailing seas, and the rogue wave came from the side.

[Clay Clayton]

7 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

Multiple news sites are reporting that the passenger killed was an unidentified 62-year-old woman and that she was hit and killed by "flying glass" from one of the shattered windows (I think they all share common news sources like AP, plus what Viking chose to say, since many use the same language).

.

I had assumed all the windows use tempered glass in modern construction, but I don't know, the news stories did not say.  

 

19 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Just to give a little perspective, scientists have stated that a "normal" breaking wave of about 20' height (not one storm driven, adding additional force), can exert 6000 pounds of force, per square inch against a surface.  Looking at the photo above, I'd say the window is 36" x 36".  That means a wave striking the window can exert 3800 tons of force just against the window.  This is very near the tensile strength of tempered glass, so any storm force the wave had, or any height above 20' would surely break the best designed glass.  

Based on the interior photographs of the staterooms, I suspect the window is much larger than 36” x 36” which means the force that impacted the glass could be significantly greater than what you described. 
 

But tempered glass glass usually shatters into small pebble-like pieces so it seems to me that if ship windows are made of tempered glass it’s unlikely that the cause of death was flying glass. Like Catlover posted, I assumed the windows would be of tempered glass but if the cause of death was indeed flying glass, it seems likely my assumption was wrong. 
 

As Andy has suggested, until the report is issued we just won’t know. 

[chengkp75]

I know of no ship's windows that are not tempered glass, and most have a film sandwiched in them to keep the pebbles together.  It may be that the bulkhead was warped by the wave, and the entire window and frame flew into the cabin.

[Jim Avery]

Sadly, I have had a crewman killed just by the force of the water.  Or more accurately by the force of the water slamming him into a bulkhead.  The forces involved are massive.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Jim Avery said:

Sadly, I have had a crewman killed just by the force of the water.  Or more accurately by the force of the water slamming him into a bulkhead.  The forces involved are massive.

Yes, as I said, if the wave can generate thousands of tons of force against the window, if it breaks free, it will slam into whatever is in its way with the same thousands of tons of force.  Given a figure I found of 0.7m2 as the frontal area of a human, that is again over 3000 tons that struck that crew member.

[Clay Clayton]

Just saw this in a CNN report. Sounds like chengkp’s theory that maybe the whole window and frame gave way is perhaps a good one. 

[CurlerRob]

Just a question for @chengkp75, @Jim Avery or @Heidi13 - I happened to look at the weather in the Drake about the time of the incident - it showed a serious blow at 50 - 55 knots from the west with a slight touch of north.

 

While the news reports and the Viking statement mention a "rogue waves", it struck me that the weather at the time was would have generated very large "standard" seas from the west, any of which might be capable of the damage shown.

 

Not minimizing the tragedy or the event, but to my eye, the damage did not look widespread or severe enough to necessarily suggest a massive rogue. Polaris was heading nearly north, which would have put the seas on the port beam throughout.  I wondered if this was simply terrible luck in being hit by a large breaker just as a roll to port occurred.

 

All speculation, of course. 🍺🥌

[Heidi13]

15 minutes ago, CurlerRob said:

Just a question for @chengkp75, @Jim Avery or @Heidi13 - I happened to look at the weather in the Drake about the time of the incident - it showed a serious blow at 50 - 55 knots from the west with a slight touch of north.

 

While the news reports and the Viking statement mention a "rogue waves", it struck me that the weather at the time was would have generated very large "standard" seas from the west, any of which might be capable of the damage shown.

 

Not minimizing the tragedy or the event, but to my eye, the damage did not look widespread or severe enough to necessarily suggest a massive rogue. Polaris was heading nearly north, which would have put the seas on the port beam throughout.  I wondered if this was simply terrible luck in being hit by a large breaker just as a roll to port occurred.

 

All speculation, of course. 🍺🥌

 

Rob - It is tough to speculate and we won't know for sure until the AIBN report is published. I have also read a comment from a pax onboard that the impact felt like the ship hit something (they mentioned an iceberg, which clearly wasn't the case). That tends to indicate an order of magnitude higher than the prevailing seas, or a unique set of circumstances.

 

Once the information is known from the Bridge Team, as to what they saw, if anything, since it was at night, and also any CCTV images, hopefully they can determine the cause.

[Gourmet Gal]

On 12/2/2022 at 1:59 AM, Catlover54 said:

Any interest I had in going on Polaris is gone right now until I know more about what happened with the malfunctioning Zodiak, and why the rogue wave could not be handled properly.  I hope the report and explanations do not take years to receive.

Understandable to be hesitant about any Antartica cruise but I didn’t know it was possible to handle a rogue wave, properly or otherwise.  How does that work?

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, Gourmet Gal said:

Understandable to be hesitant about any Antartica cruise but I didn’t know it was possible to handle a rogue wave, properly or otherwise.  How does that work?

Any ship, with "intact stability" (meaning there are no holes in the hull), can survive a wave rolling the ship over pretty much to 45* or more, the limitation being whenever the non-watertight decks (those from the promenade or boat deck upwards) start to submerge and you get resulting down flooding.  Until you reach that point, the ship will roll back upright, contrary to "The Poseidon Adventure".  The further a ship rolls over, the greater force it generates to roll back upright.  Think of the ship as one of those inflatable "punching clowns" that always rocks back upright.

 

Now, the window breakage did cause flooding, but once the wave was past, the flooding stopped, so down flooding causing loss of stability was minimal.

 

Many ships have "handled" rogue waves, some have not, but for the most part they do.

[cachouonacruise]

First, I would like to offer my deepest condolences  to the family of the deceased passenger, and my best wishes for a full return to health and safe way home, to injured and fellow cruise passengers. 
 

This said, when Titanic sank, we learned after the fact that the ship operator had taken "cost cutting" measures which either contributed or compounded the impact of the event.

 

When Costa Concordia sank, we learned after the fact, the the ship operator allowed captains to disregard safety procedures to please the crowd.

 

What will we learn about this event about ship building? Decision making process etc? 

 

In recent years, It's the second major event involving Viking Ocean. ( the event off the coast of Norway and this event in Antarctica).

 

These events, including the recent ones, raise questions in my mind about the ability of regulation agencies to properly enforce passengers and crew safety and the ability of ship operators to really enforce a strong safety culture.

 

Don't take me wrong, I love cruising! 
 

All marketing material from all cruise lines, airlines, as well as their official public communication always state something like : safety, first priority!

 

However, history of more than 100 years seems to disprove these "official" statements and other priorities often come into play in the business of passenger transport. Then, after an event, and its two year investigation, we hear that it will not happen again and then ... it does.

 

From the passenger perspective, why js there no tool to differentiate organizations taking safety seriously, versus those providing minimal adhesion to published standards?
 

We have all kind of information about itineraries, food, prices, entertainment....yet, we're led to believe that safety adhesion is the same for all!  I know for a fact, it's not true in the airline business, I am suspecting the same in ship operation business....

 

So, besides not flying and not cruising, what can I do as a passenger to only deal with corporations with a strong and real safety culture versus others only providing lip service to it! 

[Catlover54]

Just now, Gourmet Gal said:

Understandable to be hesitant about any Antartica cruise but I didn’t know it was possible to handle a rogue wave, properly or otherwise.  How does that work?

 

1. "Properly" in this lay context would likely be an expectation that there are no passengers killed.  I believe that not dying is a common expectation of luxury (and other) passengers when they are simply sitting in their cabins, even in the Antarctic in a storm, but maybe that's just me.  

I understand that Viking is a foreign line, and I don't know how wrongful death law suits work out in such cruise situations, but in the U.S., "res ipsa loquitor" is a commonly invoked term.

 

However,  I am learning  that passengers should not expect that they will not be killed, despite aggressive marketing by cruise line spokesmen (not just Viking, BTW -- it's all of them), which tell  us in sales pitch presentations  that such journeys are safe.  Just the information posted by cheng75 reporting the tremendous forces involved with storm waves, i.e.,  that they can predictably bust through specially reinforced cruise ship windows (and despite tempered glass, still lead to death), are quite sobering.

 

Apart from that, though my extensive scientific background is not in marine maneuvering,  I have recently read some opinions that IF a captain is in a storm,  AND has suspicion/warning a "rogue wave" (or a bigger wave, if a wave did not meet rogue critera)  is coming, he can try and  turn into the wave to mitigate damages (I have no idea if that is just theory or even possible to have enough warning to do anything about it, especially with a good-sized cruise ship like Polaris).

 

2. A few ad libs: my main worries about going to Antarctica, apart from Covid related disruptions,  so far had been that I might have trouble getting in and out of the Zodiak and might land up breaking a leg or hip getting in or out in choppy waters (rather than breaking a leg after capsizing, or dying from flying window pieces, as happened on the Polaris).  Though I did very well on the Crystal Endeavor in Iceland, and was encouraged, the waters there were very calm at the time.  The Zodiak incident with the woman with the broken leg suggests I should worry (at least a little) about more than just the getting in and out of Zodiaks .  I have been on ships around South America in big storms and though a bit nauseating, never felt worried about being killed by flying window pieces and actually overall enjoyed the ride as I was oblivious.  But as I said, I am learning, and though I cognitively still understand that statistically the odds of severe injury, much less death, have been miniscule on an Antarctica trip (compared with many other activities I have engaged in during my life) , I find it odd that we had two bad incidents, close together, on one ship (coincidence or related, we do not know). 

 

These events were also just a week after the Quark Zodiak capsize which killed two, and the lesser known Scenic Eclipse incident where the submarine was unable to surface for two hours (though there were no injuries, so it was not in the news much).

 

There is also some speculation  that global warning is leading to more unstable seas in the Antarctic, and if true, have to wonder if the good old days of Antarctic cruises with near zero ship-related (as opposed to passenger health and behavior related)  passenger injuries are over, but that is another topic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sippican]

Interesting discussion!

I am wondering if anyone is even considering that the company is very new to expedition cruising, having only a partial season with Octantis under its belt. The crews are not seasoned veterans of those conditions.

They have a huge customer base that will remain their loyal cheerleaders.

The comparison to Carnival is a somewhat valid point. They cram more passengers onto their river boat ships, which are designed poorly (they have a lower beam which limits their capability to navigate low river conditions). They are the first line off the European rivers, placing their passengers on buses, while other companies continue to cruise. I wonder what cost cutting measures, if any, were considered during the construction of these ships? Pure speculation,

 

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, cachouonacruise said:

This said, when Titanic sank, we learned after the fact that the ship operator had taken "cost cutting" measures which either contributed or compounded the impact of the event.

And, as a result of the Titanic, the classification societies were created as third party underwriters to determine what is safe shipbuilding and what is not.  All modern ships are classed by these societies.

 

10 minutes ago, cachouonacruise said:

When Costa Concordia sank, we learned after the fact, the the ship operator allowed captains to disregard safety procedures to please the crowd.

No, we did not learn that.  We learned that certain Captains disregarded company policy to do these things.

 

11 minutes ago, cachouonacruise said:

In recent years, It's the second major event involving Viking Ocean. ( the event off the coast of Norway and this event in Antarctica)

And, the two are completely unrelated.  One was an operational error, one was a weather incident.  Yet, you don't mention Carnival, which had almost identical fires on both the Splendor and the Triumph (within 3 years), and that kind of interrelated incidents calls into question their commitment to safety far more than Viking.

 

14 minutes ago, cachouonacruise said:

However, history of more than 100 years seems to disprove these "official" statements and other priorities often come into play in the business of passenger transport. Then, after an event, and its two year investigation, we hear that it will not happen again and then ... it does.

How many serious incidents have there been of passenger vessels in those 100 years, out of all the passenger miles covered?

 

16 minutes ago, cachouonacruise said:

From the passenger perspective, why js there no tool to differentiate organizations taking safety seriously, versus those providing minimal adhesion to published standards?

And, as I've said to the other poster, how do you know that Viking, or any line is merely "providing minimal standards"?  And, if you don't trust the classification societies (whose specialty is ship design and safety) to police the cruise lines, who are you going to trust?