First Person Account of the fire on the Star

[SingerEsq]

I hope it wasn't because Celebrity (Carnival) chose to charge WAY too much for a similar excursion.

 

One has to remember that the reason shore excursions are more expensive on the ships is that the cruise line has investigated the excursion provider, satisfied itself that it was not only a good product, but that they are licensed, insured, etc. Eliminating as much risk as possible is not cheep, and Americans esp. expect and demand a safe product, whereas other countries are not bound by our tort law system. It's tragic what happened to these folks, but that is why you have to be diligent about chosing indy provider. From what I understand, this tour company was not even licensed, let alone insured.

 

We were just in Ensenada at the end of our Hawaiian cruise. I did not go ashore, but my partner and our traveling companion did. You can imagine my horror when they described the $15 pp "shore excursion" they took which consisted of a delapidated jitney to and from the blow-hole near town. This was prior to the Chilean accident, and I still read him the riot act for doing something so foolish.

 

Anyway, my 2 cents.

 

Steven.

[sunshine426]

Hi Everyone, back in Atlanta, safe and sound! This is the first post I have read since I have been home, so I might be posting on a few more. I sure didn't see or hear of any life boats being launched. Asked my four family members and no one else saw or heard of that. I really think we would have at least heard about it. We were one of the last 240 or so PAX offthe Star Princess on Friday. Were taken to a resort (RIUS) in Ocho Rios for the night, then back to Montego Bay once we had flights. My two daughters had a great time in the Resort as it was all enclusive and had a lively Jamaican band playing! We were really just ready to hear about our flights and get home. We'll post a review both of the Star Princess and a first hand acct of our fire escape soon. Karen

[ckgonska]

I believe you when you say that your Travel Agent is reputable and doesn’t sensationalize things…but I wonder about her clients. I agree with Largin (and right – I normally do) that it sounds like rumor. If any of the survival craft were deployed they would have been filled to capacity – otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to get all of the passengers off the ship if with what was left. Perhaps your TA’s clients were watching Titanic (where the boats were deployed half full) in Jamaica – I heard it was being broadcast there. No one else who has posted here about the incident – who was there – has mentioned anything about survival craft being deployed. I thought we were over this one? I hardly think the two incidents compare in severity and in respect to those who have made it through the Star Princess incident, the Grand Princess emergency turn should be put aside.

I was there, Survival craft were deployed (at least two rubber and one large metal - it was dripping water when I walked under it) No passengers left their muster stations.

[judynorth]

I was there, Survival craft were deployed (at least two rubber and one large metal - it was dripping water when I walked under it) No passengers left their muster stations.

 

Thank you.

[Salty Dawg]

I was there, Survival craft were deployed (at least two rubber and one large metal - it was dripping water when I walked under it) No passengers left their muster stations.

Would it not be proper planning to have trained personnel in small watercraft hovering on the seas near the cruise ship, standing by & at the ready, in the event a crew member or passenger went overboard during the disaster? Since seconds count in an emergency it seems like a wise decision to me!

[JLC@SD]

Would it not be proper planning to have trained personnel in small watercraft hovering on the seas near the cruise ship, standing by & at the ready, in the event a crew member or passenger went overboard during the disaster? Since seconds count in an emergency it seems like a wise decision to me!

Or....to assess the situation with the fire, to spot flare ups etc.......like the forestry does from airplanes.

[chasetf]

One has to remember that the reason shore excursions are more expensive on the ships is that the cruise line has investigated the excursion provider, satisfied itself that it was not only a good product, but that they are licensed, insured, etc. Eliminating as much risk as possible is not cheep, and Americans esp. expect and demand a safe product, whereas other countries are not bound by our tort law system. ..... Steven.

You forgot the reason they are more expensive is they get their 50%+ cut of the take. As an example, we were on a private tour in Tahiti with our own driver and van and out driver told us they get $20 a head for a $45 ship tour.

[Voyager]

I guess I should have said "Grand's turn". The Grand Princess made a sharp turn at high speed last month to return to port after a passenger had a medical emergency. People thought the ship was turning over, TV's fell on people, lots of damage. Here's some pictures: http://www.princessshutter.com/coppermine/

 

Oh, I almost forgot about the pirates who tried to take over a Seabourn cruise a few months ago. I think it's going to be a set back for the industry - and just when it was coming back after losing business after 9/11.

 

FYI - I just noticed that Princess has their Bridge Cam back up from the Star. It was down earlier today.

 

http://webcam.princess.com/webcam/star_bridge.jpg

 

Paul, You seem to be very interested in this stuff. Heres a link that captures all the events at sea. My aunt is listed on this page as being injured on a Princess cruise.

 

http://www.cruisejunkie.com/events.html

[CruisinBrett]

I appreciate all the crew did in these circumstances, but I am more concerned with the bigger questions:

 

1. Why didn't the automatic sprinklers take care of this fire at the onset?

2. Why are cruise lines allowed to not sound audible alarms? Any hotel in the US is required to immediately evacuate if a smoke detector is tripped. Cruise lines, not based in the US, simply alert the bridge of the fire and allow them to investigate. Passengers have NO idea there may be a fire unless the bridge decides to alert them.

 

I am VERY concerned that this incident is but a forewarning. As a country, we have chosen to allow cruise lines to avoid US regulations (labor, safety, environmental, etc). We should not fool ourselves...this comes with a price. As these ships get bigger and bigger, our risk of loosing hundreds of passengers to fire IS real and should not be ignored.

 

Don't get me wrong...I love cruising...but lets looks at these incidents realistically....

[JLC@SD]

I appreciate all the crew did in these circumstances, but I am more concerned with the bigger questions:

1. Why didn't the automatic sprinklers take care of this fire at the onset?

2. Why are cruise lines allowed to not sound audible alarms? Any hotel in the US is required to immediately evacuate if a smoke detector is tripped. Cruise lines, not based in the US, simply alert the bridge of the fire and allow them to investigate. Passengers have NO idea there may be a fire unless the bridge decides to alert them.

 

1. Because....from the reports, the fire started on the outside.........sprinklers are located on the inside.

 

2. I thought the six short blasts and one long blast was the audible alarm. On a ship you do not evacuate, they want you to go to Muster Stations.

[sunnymagenta]

I was a passage on the Star Princess. We were awoken at 3 am, contrary to what so are implying we could here all messages clearly. There was no panic the crew did their jobs, they knew exactly were they should be and what to do. I saw no panic amongst the passengers. We quietly and descended to our muster station (I was on the 12 floor). You might laugh but I had the presence of mind to soak towels to use on our nose and mouth for the smoke. We were in the muster station for 7 hours, yes but the crew was fighting the fire. I preferred to be safe and we were. The boats were ready to go in the water if it became necessary to abandon the ship. My husband and I have been on 11 cruises this is the first time something like this has happened. We are not worried about cruising as we have already booked our next cruise. The captain was very informative and as soon as possible they let us know what was happening. As for no food, who cares what was more important the fire or cooking breakfast, no one died of hunger. We got a little water at first as there was too much smoke to get to the supplies; people came together and shared what was available. Yes one gentleman died of a heart attack, but that is all. The injured were sent to hospital in Jamaica. The crew is my heroes.

The cruise had to find hotel rooms for 150 cabins and perhaps more that were damaged by smoke or water.

They found transportation back to our home town for 2,900 passengers and who knows how many crew.

We were fairly compensated. You will always find those who have but negative things to say no matter what the situation.

[Ethel5]

I am VERY concerned that this incident is but a forewarning. As a country, we have chosen to allow cruise lines to avoid US regulations (labor, safety, environmental, etc). We should not fool ourselves...this comes with a price. As these ships get bigger and bigger, our risk of loosing hundreds of passengers to fire IS real and should not be ignored.

 

It is my understanding, that while they don't have to follow US labor laws, the certainly do have to follow safety and environmental laws. A while back, RCI was socked with major fines for dumping garbage. All shis coming into US ports are inspected by the USCG and must follow SOLAS requirements.

[MizzouMary]

I have taken a number of cruises and have never seen a smoker drop a cigarette on the deck, flick them overboard or fail to use an ashtray. Perhaps the ships should have more ashtrays available in each cabin. Nor have I ever smelled smoke except in a smoking area. Unless someone is smoking a cigar I have never noticed the odor of smoke on a balcony. Of course the vigilantes jump on evry smoker every chance they get.

If the fire was at 3:10 am there may be a way to find out why the room sprinkler didn't put it out and how could it spread so fast? What was someone doing smoking at that time? My companion smokes and no matter the hour goes onto the balcony.

I am sure the ship would like to blame a single smoker rather than investigate the real cause of this widely effective fire. Was only outer cabins affected by the fire or did it start in an inside cabin or did it start from an electrical malfunction?

Let's see what the fire investigation shows rather than further attacks on smokers, drinkers, gamblers and whatever else the haters choose. It could have been "an act of God", now whose God can they blame?

 

On our May Valor cruise last year, we had one of the 9A wraparound balconies on the back of the ship. Every day we found cigarette and cigar butts and even broken glass (that I cut my foot on) on our balcony. If you must smoke, please use an ash tray instead of throwing your butts over the railing.

[zackiedawg]

1. Why didn't the automatic sprinklers take care of this fire at the onset?

 

As mentioned by many others and on many other threads...it seems most likely that this fire originated on a balcony, which does not have smoke alarms or sprinkler systems. The fire was likely able to become fully involved on the balcony and probably intrude onto others before breaking into any cabin. The fire appears to have traveled extensively aft down the ship along the outside balconies, but does not seem to have traveled at all - each cabin is still separated by walls and roofs, and even the cabins in the heart of the worst burnt sections can still be seen to have intact couches and fittings, with only scorch marks along the sides. This would indicate that the misting sprinkler systems did exactly their job, and prevented the fire from hopping to any other cabin or to the hallway. Each cabin that experienced burning appears to have been burned from the balcony doors giving way in the heat of the fire.

 

2. Why are cruise lines allowed to not sound audible alarms?

 

They are allowed - however the logic would be to prevent injuries or deaths due to panic and misdirection. By sounding a shipwide alarm the moment a fire is detected, without crew preparation, you end up with 3,000 people bailing out of all rooms and rushing for the staircases to get to muster. Invariably, some will not know where to muster, while others might decide to go for the open decks. Those who are actually IN the fire-affected area, and needing to clear out of those hallways and rooms, instead find themselves stuck in a long line, stretching back down the smoking hall, waiting for everyone to filter down the stairways, clogged with people from the starboard side and well fore and aft of the fire danger. This can lead to many deaths for those who MUST get out first. By waiting until the location and severity of the fire can be assessed, and crew is in position, they can evacuate the urgent danger zones first, then have crew stationed to calmly organize and guide other passengers in less danger to their proper stations.

 

I am VERY concerned that this incident is but a forewarning. As a country, we have chosen to allow cruise lines to avoid US regulations (labor, safety, environmental, etc). We should not fool ourselves...this comes with a price. As these ships get bigger and bigger, our risk of loosing hundreds of passengers to fire IS real and should not be ignored.

 

True, nothing should be ignored. But we should also not assume that any regulations not created by and enforced by the U.S. are substandard. While some may be, there are very stringent requirements required of all ocean-going vessels regardless of registration, and in order to operate out of certain ports. If cruise ships were flouting regulations to the point of creating a danger to passengers in the U.S., the ships would not be allowed to call at U.S. ports, and likely many other countries' ports.

 

This is where mathematics should be applied more often...too many times we scare ourselves into overreacting to perceived dangers, while routinely accepting dozens of others. How many cruise ships are currently in service around the world? How many passengers do they carry in total? How many cruises per year do all of these ships take, circulating that many passengers each cruise? The number would be staggering. Multiply that by the number of years cruise ships have been in operation, and then compare that to the number of fires which have broken out during cruises which endangered passengers.

 

Considering the odds of getting in a car accident, slipping in the shower, getting cancer, or even having a greater risk of fire every day in your own house...all higher than the odds of having a life-threatening incident on a cruise ship...we should be able to feel quite safe while cruising. It doesn't mean something can't happen - but the odds are much like winning the lottery.

 

We too often fall for the sensationalism of our media, and the lawyer-trained obsession with placing blame and seeking fault for anything and everything in our world which might present a threat, regardless of odds - terrorism, airplane crashes, cruiseship fires...all pretty low odds. Yet we can somehow easily justify hopping in a car or overloading a household electrical outlet despite the greater odds of being in an accident or starting a fire at home.

 

That's what I would consider looking at these 'events' realistically - weigh them against the number of cruises that went without incident (hundreds of ships times thousands of passengers each times dozens of cruises per ship each year times decades of cruising).

[telephoneman52]

We were deck 8 on the star and heard the alarm at about 3:10 followed by a annoucement about about a fire on 11. A few minutes later the sounded the general alarm and told us to go to our muster stations. We were in the princess theater. They announced that the life boats had been deployed just in case.

They kept us informed the whole time by letting us know the fire was contained then out but there were hot spots yet. we were able to leave the muster station at around 10:30 am. I thought the crew was very organized. They also had to do a roll call and would not release us until all were accounted for.

[lawyerrose]

MIgirl,

 

I'm not going to bash you at all - as a matter of fact I want to thank you :) for considering the safety aspect in spite of your choice to smoke.

 

I wish that smoking was prohibited from ALL the cabins.

 

On an NCL cruise (that we often refer to the cruise from hell) we had the misfortune of occupying a cabin just vacated by smokers. When we arrived into the cabin there were cigarette butts and ashes all over the floor and the room REEKED of smoke. After complaining to the Purser's desk - it still took the housekeeping staff more than 6 hours to arrive to deal with the odors. To make things worse, the steward put our luggage into the room BEFORE it was cleaned and we ended up delaing with our own luggage stinking the whole week. I could go on - but you get my driift. All of this would not have occured had there been NO SMOKING in the cabin (and it being enforced - of course).

 

I wish you well on future cruises, and thank you for your consideration, as well as hope that you will continue to consider the safety factors, before lighting up.

 

Keep Smilin' :) and KEEP Cruisin':D

 

roger1955

 

I for one hope they NEVER decide to ban smoking in the cabins! Smokers are getting hounded to death, with new laws being passed every day to limit where and when they can smoke. People treat the subject as though it were a moral issue. I cringe when I think that smokers who take long flights must go hours and hours without a cigarette - and in a situation where they might be anxious about flying and crave a cigarette even more than usual. As an ex-smoker, I can totally understand how difficult that would be. As a country, we've gone positively nuts over this issue! If we're so concerned about "clean air" there are a whole lot worse offenders polluting our environment, including ourselves with our resistance to eco-friendly public transit and attachment to cars. It's just easier to control and blame smokers. Hopefully, people will quit smoking for their own health reasons. I'm in favor of helping anyone who wants to quit. But I hate the punitive, blaming attitude so many have towards smokers and the plethora of laws banning smoking. I just read a town has passed a law prohibiting smoking in public! So a person could be arrested or fined for smoking in their own yard!! Where will this insanity end?!

 

Life comes with perils. Dispite what some people would like to believe, there are simply no guarantees that nothing bad will ever happen to us. We can't legislate a "perfect society" where nothing bad ever happens. Remember, none of us are getting out of here alive. So stop with the smoking hysteria and judgmentalness and blame towards smokers! Geez, they should be able to take a vacation and smoke in their own rooms!!

 

OK, that's my rant. Thanks for listening.

[CruiserGreg]

Well said lawyerrose. Well said.

[potton]

Life comes with perils, but we were not born with cigerattes hanging out of our mouths. It was introduced.

[phillipahain]

Dead right Potton ......we are not born with cigarettes hanging out of our mounths and sadly the USA is the home of gas guzzling motorists

 

In Europe we have no option but to have cars which are as friendly as poss to the environment and our pockets since Gas is $8 a gallon here

[CruisinBrett]

Justin...very well put and I appreciate the time you took to respond to my post. Now that I read it again, it is reactionary. Thanks for raising the bar!

[zackiedawg]

No problem at all, Brett. Your observations were reasonable ones, but maybe not based on all of the previous threads and posts on the subject. There are so many threads out there right now that you could publish it as a book...so I don't blame you for not having had a chance to read it all first! I have been in some of these threads and reading them as they grow, so I had the advantage of a little more information and the various theories bouncing around (including my own).

[ssbeagle]

The cruise ships must meet certain criteria set by the Coast Guard. They have evaluations all the time when they reach port. We were held up getting off the Grand in November because of an exercise they had about two hours after the ship docked in Galveston. Caused us to be late disembarking which was not Princess's fault. They were practicing for a simulated fire that time. It's good to know crews are trained and know what they are doing.

[Olwyn]

We had a wonderful cruise aboard the Star Princess in October,

4 balconies in a row on the Baja deck...did this fire happen on the Port or Starboard side of the ship?

Just curious.

What a heartbreaking loss to a beautiful ship!:(

Olwyn

[sunshine426]

The fire was on the port side of this ship. Our cabin on the port side. Lido 234 unaffected by the fire. No smoke damage or water damage. Still counting our blessings.

[cruisindolls]

When we heard about the fire we were on the Summit on our way to Hawaii ... as you can imagine, we heard all kind of stories about what happened on the Star. I'm glad that so many have posted the real story and am so glad that no more were injured or lost their lives as this could have been much worse.

The smokers won't like my next comment but I really wish they would restrict smoking in the cabins. This fire is but one reason for that. We've cruised many times and have had a cabin that had smokers in it before us and it's uncomfortable as I'm asthmatic and smoke really gives me a fit. Because of this, we don't use the disco, the casino or any lounge that allows smoking. This is fine as we find other areas that are smoke free. I understand that smokers are upset w/the restrictions being placed on them but I hope they can understand that those of us with sensitivities to smoke have a bad time under certain conditions. Also, this past winter we have had numerous apartment fires due to cigarettes and if you think about it, a cruise ship is a floating apt complex! I really do hope the cruise lines will reconsider their smoking policy and ban smoking in the cabins. As someone mentioned, this may be a wake-up call for them.

Hope I didn't offend anyone with my comments but if I did, remember that smokers offend people by leaving a smokey cabin ... I really do like to breathe!!!