Viking Expeditions Thread

[Catlover54]

11 minutes ago, sippican said:

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,

 

 

In my post #755, I questioned what else (if anything) might be going on with Polaris (but also with other lines) - is this all just coincidence?  Yes, right now it is of course just speculation, and we know we have to wait 1-2 years for the preliminary report on what went wrong.

 

But we now know what went on behind the scenes with the O rings malfunction , and with the 737 MAX, and some of us tend to be suspicious of coincidences.

[toseaornottosea]

chengkp75 how would you compare the Viking Polaris to the Seabourn Venture with respect to their sea and safety worthiness for cruising in Antarctica?  From what I can find online Viking Polaris length is 666'; beam is 79'; 30,150GT.  Seabourn Venture length is 558'; beam is 85'; 23,000GT.

[cachouonacruise]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

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?

Thank-you for taking the time of reading and correcting my post.

 

Your last paragraph hits the mark exactly on the point I was trying to make:

 

How do I know that Viking, Carnival, or any other transport organization provides only minimal adhesion to standards? The answer is: I don't know!!!
 

This is, what I would love to know, when making a choice of transport activity!!! 

 

Having been involved in the aviation industry for many years, I know that all operators are not equal when it comes to safety.

 

I also know that regulating agencies, investigation agencies are aware of who's first in class and who's borderline in terms of safety. However, for fear of lawsuits, they can't divulge that information.

 

Then, why is it that we don't have a public safety classification system for organizations?
 

We do have a star rating system for hotels and restaurants, we have a health related system, in the shape of published ship health inspection reports? But, to my knowledge....we don't have a public safety report system.

 

It's either meet standards allowed to operate or below standards and grounded! Yet, across the world, regulatory agency standards vary quite a bit... 
 

So why is it that as a passenger, when travelling, I am asked to trust blindly operating agencies using unspecified standards! 
 

In short, I would love to be able to make better informed decisions.

 

Paying more for champagne and caviar may be fun, but personally, I would prefer to pay more for safety.

[chengkp75]

21 minutes ago, toseaornottosea said:

chengkp75 how would you compare the Viking Polaris to the Seabourn Venture with respect to their sea and safety worthiness for cruising in Antarctica?  From what I can find online Viking Polaris length is 666'; beam is 79'; 30,150GT.  Seabourn Venture length is 558'; beam is 85'; 23,000GT.

I don't feel that size has any real effect on "sea worthiness", especially when the two ships are close in size.  Don't forget that GT (gross tonnage) is not a measure of the weight of the ship, but its enclosed volume.  Both ships have been classified, Polaris by DNV, and Venture by Lloyds, to be considered both sea worthy and safe for passenger carriage.   Both have Polar Class certificates, so both meet the Polar Code for operations in polar waters.

 

Yes, smaller ships "move" more in a seaway, but they are no less stabile or safe.  That is merely a factor of comfort, and the classification societies don't get involved with comfort.

[chengkp75]

21 minutes ago, cachouonacruise said:

Then, why is it that we don't have a public safety classification system for organizations?

There are.  Both the ISO 9001 certification (quality management) and ISO 14001 certification (environmental management) provide standards for organizations, in all industries.

 

In the maritime industry, there is the ISM (International Safety Management) Code, to which all ship owners must abide (since all flag states have adopted the ISM).  This code, which requires the company to write down virtually every step of every business process they do (from safety to operations to personnel to corporate culture) and then abide by what is written.  Each company's ISM can be different (they all handle some things differently than other companies), but the all must meet the framework outlined by the IMO, delineated by the classification societies, and audited by those same third party class societies on an annual basis.  The ISM governs every employee, shoreside or shipboard, every working day of their lives, and every action they take in those days.  The ISM has adopted a root cause approach to improvement, not a blame culture.

 

In this instance, if the Captain is found to have followed all the company's ISM policies and procedures, but the accident still happened, he will not be blamed for it, and no disciplinary action will be taken.  Why?  Because it has been found that if someone knows they won't be blamed for an accident, then they are more likely to be open and truthful in giving accurate accounts of what happened, so the root cause of the accident can be found.  When it is found, the ISM is updated to prevent it from happening again.  This is positive, proactive management.

[TrulyBlonde]

I must say that when we took our bucket list cruise to S. Georgia and Antarctica, we chose Ponant. They have been doing these cruises for many years and seemed quite accomplished.

The waves we experienced were horrendous. When flying back to BA, our plane was still parked at the gate and it started shaking prior to takeoff due to the winds. This can be a dangerous part of the World. I would never do it again, especially after reading this.

 

A woman slipped getting out of the raft into the water, the seals are mean, the waves can be wild, and a man died on the 2nd night (most likely a heart attack).

 

Choose wisely 😉

 

 

[cachouonacruise]

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

There are.  Both the ISO 9001 certification (quality management) and ISO 14001 certification (environmental management) provide standards for organizations, in all industries.

 

Thanks and you are correct! 
 

This said, I worked for an organization which had different ISO certifications and I was trained as an ISO evaluator....

 

These standards can speak to people involved in the system, for example to regulatory agencies etc.

However, most transport organizations can choose to meet one or more ISO standards, nothing is regulated...

 

Then, if during an ISO evaluation review a deficiency is noted, the organization is privately granted a period of time to ...fix...the noted issue.... Then, it will only be verified again during the next cycle of evaluation.

 

For the layman or lay woman passenger, sadly, these ISO standards are not really indicative. Few peolple understand what they really mean or don't mean.
 

Besides, to find which cruise line adheres to which ISO standard and why or why not is not an easy task. If an organization fails to meet an ISO standard or fail to renew it....it will not really be published in the public domain.

 

So, sadly, despite my understanding and training in ISO certification processes, I would not be able as a passenger to rely on the ISO process to assess the safety of an organization.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

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.

 

To confirm the Chief's information, I have been on a banana boat (reefer) and we rolled 45 degrees either side, for a couple of days when crossing the Indian Ocean.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, sippican said:

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.

 

Sorry, but this is another incorrect assumption.

 

The IMO Polar Code Chapter 12 requires specific training for all Masters and Deck Officers navigating in polar regions. This requirement was also incorporated into the STCW Code.

 

The Viking Masters and Deck Officers may be new to the Viking ships, but they have the required experience and training to operate in these waters.

[CharTrav]

I must have forgotten to hit "submit reply" but let me post again . (or try again) to ask folks here not to forget the passengers affected by the incident last week.  Even tho my mind is intrigued by the discussion regarding shiphandling, ship construction, ship safety, and engineering etc issues, my heart is drawn more towards the passengers affected by this unfortunate incident.   Please don't forget them.  Thanks for letting me share this.

Edited December 3, 2022 by CharTrav

[Beachdud]

Sad to hear about the Viking Polaris situation, having taken 5 prior Viking ocean trips and 2 river.  I noticed in Amsterdam the Polaris unique bow configuration and wondered at that time of its suitability in offshore situations. Seems like this vessel would be taking more “green water “ in rough conditions than the more conventional bow design.  Although not a marine architect, I have sailed a few small boats offshore over many years.  So called rogue waves are not all that uncommon.  Can anyone add more information to this ?

[Heidi13]

4 hours 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.

As with most tragic accidents, the Titanic sinking and resultant loss of life had numerous causes, most of which are most likely irrelevant to the current incident. As the Chief posted, Classification Societies now provide shipbuilding standards and since they also insure the ships, they have some incentive to get it right.

 

4 hours 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.

Sorry, that isn't even close, as this would have resulted in the Costa and Carnival CEO's being in jail. Yet again, this incident had multiple failures, especially after contact with the shore.

 

4 hours ago, cachouonacruise said:

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

Probably nothing, as the design criteria could be investigated more than the actual building. Decision making, is always easier after the fact, especially by armchair experts. 

 

4 hours 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).

As the Chief noted, both are unrelated. I also note that the competence of the Master and Bridge and Engineering Teams, and the Viking SMS saved both ships, with 1 fatality and minimal injuries. Compare that to the Costa Concordia, which was a much more survivable incident, yet through human error had more loss of life. 

 

4 hours ago, cachouonacruise said:

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

I learned early in my career at sea that every company pays for safety and training, some pay a little up front, others pay more later.

 

When aboard a ship, pay attention to more than the glitz, look at the working aspects of the ship, get to know the crew, where do the officer come from, etc. You also have some resources on here and other marine related forums where lots of information is available.

[BobCatter]

3 hours ago, TrulyBlonde said:

I must say that when we took our bucket list cruise to S. Georgia and Antarctica, we chose Ponant. They have been doing these cruises for many years and seemed quite accomplished.

The waves we experienced were horrendous. When flying back to BA, our plane was still parked at the gate and it started shaking prior to takeoff due to the winds. This can be a dangerous part of the World. I would never do it again, especially after reading this.

 

A woman slipped getting out of the raft into the water, the seals are mean, the waves can be wild, and a man died on the 2nd night (most likely a heart attack).

 

Choose wisely 😉

 

 

We went with Lindblad Expeditions - they pioneered Antarctic travel in 1972. We had 30' seas and 110 kn winds. The captain told us it was the worst winds he had been in. We were gone 28 days to Antarctica, S Georgia and the Falklands. We only saw sun the 1st two days, and the last 2 days.  We had snow. We had katabatic winds. 

We also had the trip of a lifetime. Penguins, walrus, lifetime friendships. I truly believe that had the weather conditions been easy and fair the entire trip it would not have felt so much like Antarctica. The weather and the seas are what make the trip there so very much different from anywhere else.

 

It is a real tragedy what happened on the Polaris. No getting around how awful. That being said, I would go again in a heartbeat.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

"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.

 

There is no "Proper" way to handle a "Rogue Wave", as the Master or Senior Watchkeeping Officer will take action based on the circumstances. This also assumes the Bridge Team have prior warning and can actually observe the wave prior to impacting the ship.

 

I believe the incident was about 22:40, so even approaching the summer solstice, it would have been dark with visibility further reduced by rain and spray, so I doubt the Bridge Team had any time to react. Last I heard they still haven't installed headlights on ships.

 

Without knowing the facts how can you state this was a wrongful death. Fortunately, Admiralty Law does not consider every accident or incident to involve negligence.

 

4 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

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.

 

We have posted numerous times that expedition cruises carry a higher risk, but in saying that many thousands of pax complete these cruises without incident. Ships are no different to any other mode of transport, or even by walking out your front door, you assume some level of risk.

 

About 10 yrs ago, about 30 people died when a ship sank in the Meddy. Even considering this terrible accident, I am not aware of many pax that consider Meddy cruises as being unsafe. To also put it perspective, in the Meddy, I have experienced a storm where a wave came along the Promenade Deck, ripping away the gangway. Therefore, while cruises to the furthest reaches of the Earth carry additional risks, overall they are still as safe.

 

5 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

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).

 

Handling ships is a complex subject, which varies significantly on the ship design and equipment installed. A single screw ship with a single spade rudder will not handle that well, but ships with multiple screws, thrusters, high lift rudders, azipods, right-angled drive units are all extremely manoeuvrable. When encountering storms, in addition to considering the wave action, you also have to consider the ship design. Some ships with bow visors would not be good candidates to hit a massive wave head on.

 

 

[Heidi13]

5 hours ago, sippican said:

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,

 

 

I'm having difficulty understanding how a lower beam, which means a narrower ship has any impact on the ability to navigate low river conditions. It is the draught of a ship that impacts shallow water navigation. The beam of river ships navigating canal locks is determined by the dimensions of the locks. If the Viking ships are built to the maximum size of the locks, which is the case of the ships on the Rhine/Danube, then the competition are operating in different regions.

 

What is the under keel clearance metric that Viking and other river cruise lines use in their SMS. When river levels are low this is a major factor in determining if the Master can sail.

[RachelG]

I actually was in a cabin where the glass splintered due to high waves in Regent Navigator.  It was tempered glass, and there were no glass shards at all, it was just little chunks of glass.  And this was a huge glass lining door.  Not sure how this incident could happen.

[CharTrav]

42 minutes ago, RachelG said:

I actually was in a cabin where the glass splintered due to high waves in Regent Navigator.  It was tempered glass, and there were no glass shards at all, it was just little chunks of glass.  And this was a huge glass lining door.  Not sure how this incident could happen.

Read back thru the posts.  The window didn't shatter; apparently, the whole window was forced into the cabin and that's what struck the passenger.  And  with this -- I'm bowing out of this conversation -- will return to "readonly" mode.

Edited December 4, 2022 by CharTrav

[Host Jazzbeau]

Carnival does not have river ships.  @sippican switched from Carnival to Viking from one sentence to the next ["The comparison to Carnival is a somewhat valid point. They [he meant Viking] cram more passengers onto their river boat ships"].  

 

Viking river ships have a lower draft than other river ships and are notorious for stopping sailing in low water conditions before any other river cruise line.  They try to make light of this by stressing that they have so many river ships that there's always another one on the other side of the obstruction and they can swap passengers between the two ships, which then turn around and complete the itineraries that each group of passengers was expecting.  But Viking is discovering that that doesn't help in cases where large stretches are too low to sail (the Elbe, and the Mississippi).

 

The comparison that I think may be valid to this thread is that Viking does things their own way and expects governments and nature to bend to their demands.  Neither plays out that way...  Paris refused to let them dock their 135m ships where everybody else docks (their 110-125m ships) because there isn't enough clearance to turn around safely; Viking finally gave in and built 125m ships.

 

So the question is whether these Viking expedition ships show the same hubris in their design, or whether this was just an unfortunate sequence of bad luck?

[Jacqueline]

When we decided to go to Antarctica, we selected Hapag Lloyd’s Hanseatic for our voyage (been sold to Heritage cruises). With over 150 successful trips and a seasoned crew and captain we felt as confident as we could that we would be safe. We had thirty foot waves for over a day which was considered nothing special by the captain. Rough weather is common in the Drakes passage. High winds and seas are to be expected.
When it came time to go to the approved landing sights were were able to see more and take advantage of the expertise of the captain in securing an additional landing. We crunched thru the ice in the Wendell sea.

We toured the engine room where some of the people have been working together for decades and said that they could manufacture anything that they needed onboard to repair or replace the engine and associated mechanical parts. 
Many of the ships that have been doing this for decades were icebreakers in another life and constructed to those standards,

The same season we sailed, the refurbished Silversea ship didn’t make it out of the harbour. And a captain of another well regarded ship died of a heart attack on the return voyage to Ushaia. There is no intensive care at sea. Any accident can have serious consequences. Definitive help can be over a day away,

I also feel that all these new gimmicks like kayaks and submarines are asking for trouble for these reasons, not to mention the advanced age of the passengers onboard.

The industry has rushed to do excursion cruising and I agree with the previous poster who commented that there is no substitute for experience. Most of us will pick an experienced surgeon, not someone whose training has recently been completed but lacks experience. Antarctica has unique challenges and risks. Just got off the QM2 this morning and we had a helicopter evacuation in the Atlantic, not gonna happen on your Antarctic cruise. We did have someone loose a finger in a door and managed to get it reattached on the Hanseatic which was pretty amazing.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Jacqueline

[Heidi13]

25 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Viking river ships have a lower draft than other river ships and are notorious for stopping sailing in low water conditions before any other river cruise line.  

 

If the Viking River ships have a lower draught than the competition, why do they stop sailing first. Ships with a deeper draught are constrained by shallow water before lower draught vessels.

 

The Master must also comply with any mandated minimum under keel clearance standards included in the SMS, which can have more impact than draught, when navigating in shallow waters.

[Heidi13]

37 minutes ago, Jacqueline said:

When we decided to go to Antarctica, we selected Hapag Lloyd’s Hanseatic for our voyage (been sold to Heritage cruises). With over 150 successful trips and a seasoned crew and captain we felt as confident as we could that we would be safe. We had thirty foot waves for over a day which was considered nothing special by the captain. Rough weather is common in the Drakes passage. High winds and seas are to be expected.
When it came time to go to the approved landing sights were were able to see more and take advantage of the expertise of the captain in securing an additional landing. We crunched thru the ice in the Wendell sea.

We toured the engine room where some of the people have been working together for decades and said that they could manufacture anything that they needed onboard to repair or replace the engine and associated mechanical parts. 
Many of the ships that have been doing this for decades were icebreakers in another life and constructed to those standards,

The same season we sailed, the refurbished Silversea ship didn’t make it out of the harbour. And a captain of another well regarded ship died of a heart attack on the return voyage to Ushaia. There is no intensive care at sea. Any accident can have serious consequences. Definitive help can be over a day away,

I also feel that all these new gimmicks like kayaks and submarines are asking for trouble for these reasons, not to mention the advanced age of the passengers onboard.

The industry has rushed to do excursion cruising and I agree with the previous poster who commented that there is no substitute for experience. Most of us will pick an experienced surgeon, not someone whose training has recently been completed but lacks experience. Antarctica has unique challenges and risks. Just got off the QM2 this morning and we had a helicopter evacuation in the Atlantic, not gonna happen on your Antarctic cruise. We did have someone loose a finger in a door and managed to get it reattached on the Hanseatic which was pretty amazing.

 

The Hanseatic in now the Heritage Adventurer and since it predates the Polar Ice Code, had a classification society rating. Compared to modern ships built under the new Polar Ice Code, it is the equivalent of PC6, which is the same as Viking Polaris.

 

Ships with this type of rating are not true "Ice breakers" as they are limited to operation in moderate 1st year ice and only during the summer and autumn months. True ice-breakers are normally PC 2 or 3.

 

Making parts in the Engine Room, this is common on every ship I have worked on. The E/R have most tools available to make parts. This is the mark of a good seaman.

 

Intensive Care - When we were on Viking Sun with only 8 pax, we received tours of every part of the ship. In the Medical Centre, the doctor proudly showed us the ICU room. So yes, they are available at sea, accepting for limited periods.

[Host Jazzbeau]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

If the Viking River ships have a lower draught than the competition, why do they stop sailing first. Ships with a deeper draught are constrained by shallow water before lower draught vessels.

 

The Master must also comply with any mandated minimum under keel clearance standards included in the SMS, which can have more impact than draught, when navigating in shallow waters.

Sorry for getting the technical language wrong.  They have a deeper draft, meaning [to this layman] they sit lower in the water.

 

Our experts on the River Cruising forum have never been able to get comparable specifications to compare river ships, but it is well documented that Viking stops sailing before anyone else when water levels get low.  Our considered opinion on the forum is that this means they must have a deeper draft, although some AmaWaterways captains claim that they [AMA] keep sailing longer because they [the AMA captains] have better knowledge of the rivers. [German rivers are never closed by the authorities due to low water, only for high water.]  {striving for exactitude here, to avoid further confusion...}

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, Jacqueline said:

We toured the engine room where some of the people have been working together for decades and said that they could manufacture anything that they needed onboard to repair or replace the engine and associated mechanical parts. 

 

5 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Making parts in the Engine Room, this is common on every ship I have worked on. The E/R have most tools available to make parts. This is the mark of a good seaman.

Far be it from me to disagree about praise for the engine staff, but we are not miracle workers.  While many "jury-rigged" things can be made in emergencies, and while a lot of structural and piping repairs can be simply done, we cannot, for instance fabricate a piston or crankshaft for an engine.

[Jacqueline]

No one said that they were miracle workers. But ten to twenty years working in the same ship gives one a high level of expertise. He was allowed to assemble his team and had control over who worked on the ship. Do we have to take every post to a ridiculous? I never said that these were the only people that ever fabricated a part.. There is a lot to be said for German engineering.

Hapag Lloyd was running three ships every season in the Antarctic. Our cruise was 20 days.  This level of commitment and experience was important to us when we chose a vessel. Other companies have similar levels of experience in the region.

An ICU room is whatever you want to call it. The Queen Mary has a well equipt medical CENTER with multiple doctors and nurses and they evacuate passengers on a regular basis. I worked as an EMT and in a serious emergency you went to a trauma center, not a local hospital. Medical care is extremely limited on these ships, which off the bat makes them inherently more dangerous.

Good luck when your kayak flips over.
And yes, while not the highest level of ice breaker, it was for a CRUISE SHIP. We were able to navigate thru ice fields. 
In two decades over there fleet, They didn’t loose a passenger to a “rouge wave” . Which are not uncommon in this region.

 

[Heidi13]

8 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Sorry for getting the technical language wrong.  They have a deeper draft, meaning [to this layman] they sit lower in the water.

 

Our experts on the River Cruising forum have never been able to get comparable specifications to compare river ships, but it is well documented that Viking stops sailing before anyone else when water levels get low.  Our considered opinion on the forum is that this means they must have a deeper draft, although some AmaWaterways captains claim that they [AMA] keep sailing longer because they [the AMA captains] have better knowledge of the rivers. [German rivers are never closed by the authorities due to low water, only for high water.]  {striving for exactitude here, to avoid further confusion...}

 

Yes, with everything else equal, a vessel with a deeper draught will be constrained before a shallower draught vessel. However, as I posted previously, any minimum under-keel clearance included in the Safety Management System is another key factor, especially if some companies provide guidance to the Masters and others don't.

 

I knew the waters I sailed in extremely well, but I was still limited by the guidelines issued by the company. In these days of risk management and human factors, ship safety is much more involved than local knowledge.