Celebrity in Hot Water - Edge sailed too close to Kauai’s NaPali Coast

[NMTraveller]

19 minutes ago, jelayne said:

I was there, we were never within a ships length of shore from our view.  

Not according to the photos from above.  Unless they were doctored by Hawaii News...

 

You mean from the shore or hitting a rock.  LOL

 

Didn't you say they were in deep water 🤣

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4 by NMTraveller

[NMTraveller]

49 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

Same photo, same resolution. They're too close to shore, and I'm not an expert on interpreting overhead photography. The original article alleged 1000 feet. That's possible, but the distance will be distorted by the angle. Blowing up a 67 KB photo that appears to have been chosen because the original poster didn't have or didn't want to use any data isn't going to give you a better view. Apparently some of the recent Android phones use this as a file format. Or that's what Hawaii News Now uses on their web page. They should probably expect a subpoena from the investigators and maybe they actually have a real photo that can be examined. I'm assuming it hasn't been manipulated.

 

Those are reflections. They all follow the same curvature. The one "closest" to the ship actually overlaps the stern, so it's clearly not underwater. The tan has an unnaturally precise shape, and again, since it's on the same curvature as the other artifacts, it's a reflection of a manmade object. Almost certainly on the helicopter. It actually could be a human hand on a controller; that may be a thumb. Someone somewhere has pictures of the interior of tourist helicopters in Hawaii that will match that look; the helos I've flown in, long ago, had open doors and jump seats. 

 

But yes, they're too close to shore. And they may have damaged the sea floor. I'm far more interested in how it happened and how to prevent it in the future.

 

I think that if you look where the ship is heading to the rock you will agree that it is less than a ships length to the rock.  However if you measure the  angle to the closest point on shore it will be about 1000 ft.

 

If this is really a reflection then why does it have a water image over it?    Too me it looks like it is 1 to 5 feet underwater...

 

I would also like to see what kind of fish are on the reef.  The internet and all providers should provide more detail...

Edited May 4 by NMTraveller

[NMTraveller]

OK.  So the ship is about 1004 feet long.  With a rough guestimate it looks roughly like 700 feet straight to the rock.  Like if this really matters 

 

I would like this tour in a smaller boat with a smaller draft...

 

Edited May 4 by NMTraveller

[Steeler808]

7 hours ago, jwlane said:

Trying to imagine how that 16 feet would suddenly disappear....

So most people in Hawaii who boat and definitely surfers who surf at sandy spots do. The beach can and often is a changing thing. Entire beaches come and go..and I do mean entire beaches. 

 

That sand goes out to sea and often forms sand bars. 

 

YT- March 2024 sand update kua bay. Give it a watch for just the first minute and you'll get an idea of how much sand can move around in a few months.

 

In fact I hope a whole bunch people on here who think..."hey it's a known depth" will go watch and see why locals aren't happy with that answer. 

 

Understand that we have had more than a few sailboats and even mega yachts ground ashore in Hawaii the last couple of years...we are talking multi million dollar ships. 

 

Love Celebrity, best line I've been on in my limited experience but this was a mistake. Per people on the ship the captain even joked about it or mentioned it so there is no doubt it happened despite some people insisting their view from their stateroom says nothing to worry about...how was the drink package...worth it?

[chengkp75]

Okay, whole lot to unpack here, so I'll open this thread twice to try to answer things in order.  Apologies for not listed answers by username.  Lazy.

 

Post #9:  Yes, a passage plan must be made, and submitted to corporate showing the ships exact, planned routing, but this is typically done for just a couple of ports ahead of time, as the time from each port to the next is a separate "passage".  Not to have found the note on the chart regarding the protection zone (and if it's not on the chart it is in the "notice to mariners" or sailing directions publications) is a failure from the navigating officer (who prepares the passage plan) to the Marine Superintendent ashore who reviews it, though the vast amount of responsibility lies with the onboard staff:  Navigating Officer, First Officer, Staff Captain, Captain.

 

#16:  I see, from a professional mariner's viewpoint, the very close correlation between the Costa Concordia and this incident.  Both were dangerous, and both were "uncalled for" PR stunts.  One went horribly bad, one got lucky.

 

#18:  I don't know the chart, but it likely was not delineated on the chart, but was noted in fine print in the title corner of the chart, and was likely overlooked.  Still no excuse.

 

#24:  You are correct.  The investigation will almost certainly be of an ISM (International Safety Management Code) type, where the assigning of "blame" is not considered, but the finding of the root cause of the incident is of primary importance, so that policies and procedures can be amended to prevent it from happening again.

 

For all those calling for, or speculating on, the Captain being relieved because of this, again, that is not what an ISM investigation does.  Almost regardless of the outcome of any incident, if the Captain, or any officer or crew, are found to have followed the company's SMS (Safety Management System, that is created by the ISM) policies and procedures, however flawed those turn out to be, then no blame is assigned against him.  The only time a Captain would come under censure would be if he failed to follow the SMS policies and procedures.  Even in the case of the RCI Captain on Anthem (I believe) that is mentioned here, was found to not have violated SMS procedures, and is not an ex-Captain, he was however, relieved for PR reasons, to be reassigned later.

 

#45:  This is perhaps the most disturbing part of this thread.  If the Captain took this light-hearted approach to this incident, that is indeed worrisome.

 

#52:  While the Captain may not have started the cruise, apparently weeks before, it is his responsibility to review the passage plan, prior to each passage (i.e. before the ship left port to sail to the Na Pali coast) with the bridge team.

 

#58:  What is the date on the NOAA chart?  NOAA has started phasing out printing paper charts, back in 2021, so not sure when that chart was last published.  Navigating officers spend most of their days taking the "Notice to Mariners" updates and making corrections to the paper charts, and then noting on the chart the last date it was updated.

 

Various posters:  If the depth was as reported in this thread (no confirmation), then there was sufficient under keel clearance, but as others have noted, things change in the ocean.  One important note that is always on a chart, is the last date the area was surveyed, meaning the depths could change wildly (I've seen charts that casually mention that the area has not been surveyed (sonar mapping) in over 50 years). 

 

#76:  No one said they drove the ship at high speed into shallow water.  Just the fact they are shown using bow thrusters, shows the ship was stopped, or nearly so, as thrusters lose effectiveness above 3-5 knots.

 

Depths do change over time, and even when charted, the bottom profile is not a continuous map, but a series of data points that is extrapolated (educated guess) between.  As for depth sounder alarms, typically these are set for the minimum under keel clearance set forth by the company's SMS (for a ship this size, likely 2 meters)

 

#99:  By "rare and expensive" equipment that sees the depth ahead of the ship, I'm assuming you mean side scan sonar?  Because that is the only technology that does this, and I can assure you that even your highly regarded Edge does not have this.

 

I'm bothered that this happened in the first place, as the damage that can be done by a ship in shallow water to delicate underwater ecosystems is great (though this instance is probably less destructive than anchoring), but hope that this leads to changes in Celebrity's SMS to prevent it happening again.  I am also bothered by the Captain's lack of contriteness in discussing the incident, and apparent lack of concern for the why of the violation.  That may, in the end, get him into more trouble with Celebrity than the actual violation.

[cruisetonowhere10]

8 hours ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

Remove first, then investigate?  🤔 

I would…simply for liability reasons.  Suppose something additional happens and X knowingly left the captain in position that would be huge liability.  As I’ve stated before my opinion means zero but it is what I would do to prevent any further problems.

[Pushka]

11 hours ago, jwlane said:

Too bad Edge doesn't have such rare and expensive equipment.  Oh, wait......

So it seems they don't have this expensive equipment after all to see forward depth. Back to my original point then hey?

Edited May 4 by Pushka

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, cruisetonowhere10 said:

I would…simply for liability reasons.  Suppose something additional happens and X knowingly left the captain in position that would be huge liability.  As I’ve stated before my opinion means zero but it is what I would do to prevent any further problems.

This is precisely why a root cause investigation does not assign any blame, or suspicion of blame.  It is found that when participants know that there will be no blame assigned, they are more likely to give truthful recounting of the facts of the incident.  As I said, the "root cause" or "ISM" culture is designed to fix the problem, by making it almost impossible to have the same incident happen again.  Assigning blame, firing a Captain, doesn't do that.  Again, if the Captain followed SMS policies and procedures, he is not to blame, the SMS system is, and needs to be revised.

[hcat]

14 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This is precisely why a root cause investigation does not assign any blame, or suspicion of blame.  It is found that when participants know that there will be no blame assigned, they are more likely to give truthful recounting of the facts of the incident.  As I said, the "root cause" or "ISM" culture is designed to fix the problem, by making it almost impossible to have the same incident happen again.  Assigning blame, firing a Captain, doesn't do that.  Again, if the Captain followed SMS policies and procedures, he is not to blame, the SMS system is, and needs to be revised.

I was waiting for you to post

.will spend some time reading through your points  Thank you fir taking the time...with detailed commentary.

hcat

 

[KelJ]

On 5/2/2024 at 2:41 PM, yogini06 said:

Agree.  This was put into place beginning in October to substitute for the Lahaina port closure. I believe another ship did this lat October.  I’m not sure if there was a pilot onboard.  Ship went very slowly and did a 360° off Na Pali.  

We were on Royal’s Ovation this past October and sailed around the Na Pali Coast. It took most of the day. We didn’t get anywhere near as close as what’s shown in many of these Edge pictures. I never saw a pilot boat, so I assumed the captain was doing the navigating. 

[chengkp75]

11 minutes ago, KelJ said:

I never saw a pilot boat, so I assumed the captain was doing the navigating. 

Correct, these are not pilotage waters.  When I worked for NCL, we used to stop on the Big Island's south shore to view the lava flow into the ocean, but never got closer than half a mile (3000 feet), and our time to stop and spin was limited due to the high water temperature causing the engines to overheat.  We were in deep water, though.

[cruisefam38]

16 minutes ago, hcat said:

I was waiting for you to post

 

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Okay, whole lot to unpack here

I join hcat in appreciating your ever thoughtful and deeply informed posts on cruise ships and cruising, chengkp75

[Georgia_Peaches]

@chengkp75 your insights and commentary on all things cruise ships is both fascinating and greatly appreciated.  Thank you for the detailed breakdown.

[Liao]

10 hours ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

Remove first, then investigate?  🤔 

That's SOP in many fields.

[NMTraveller]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

  Assigning blame, firing a Captain, doesn't do that.  Again, if the Captain followed SMS policies and procedures, he is not to blame, the SMS system is, and needs to be revised.

IFF the Captain followed SMS polices ...

 

So this beach day at Lahaina is standard SMS operating procedure? 😁

 

I suppose that we will not hear from Celebrity what happened here.  But it seems like a breakdown in common sense.  Let alone procedure...

[chengkp75]

And, for those commenting on how accurate ship's equipment is, remember that maritime GPS, depending on satellite coverage at the location, is only accurate within about 15-25 meters (50-80 feet), 95% of the time.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

IFF the Captain followed SMS polices ...

 

So this beach day at Lahaina is standard SMS operating procedure? 😁

 

I suppose that we will not hear from Celebrity what happened here.  But it seems like a breakdown in common sense.  Let alone procedure...

Not sure what "beach day at Lahaina" you are referring to?  But, if there was nothing in the SMS that precluded taking the ship this close to the Na Pali coast, then yes, it is standard procedure.  If there was a missed note on a chart or sailing directions posted by NOAA and USCG, then there would have been a failure to follow procedures, most notably on the part of the navigation officer (the Captain relies on the navigator to provide him/her with all the pertinent details), and there will be amended procedures to double check charts for accuracy, and changes to improve passage planning.

 

If you mean a day in Lahaina instead of the Na Pali sail by, then it is more likely that it is a change to allow local tempers to cool down, and also since they can't provide what they I guess promised in the Na Pali coast, they decided to change the itinerary.  But, it in no way assigns blame to the Captain for any actions, and there will be a investigation both onboard and at corporate headquarters (since the company as a  whole has to follow the SMS, just like the ships) before any cause is determined as to why this happened.  I agree that it is a breakdown in procedure, but that is no one person's fault, it is a corporate problem, and needs to be corrected at the corporate level.

 

Without knowing the exact circumstances of where exactly the ship was, and what the environmental conditions were at the time, I can't agree with the "breakdown of common sense" comment.  As noted, NCL used to operate on the edge in giving the passengers a good view of the lava flows in the past.  Was this against common sense?  Not necessarily, we had mitigation measures in place, and were constantly revising those as we gained experience.

[PTC DAWG]

Glad to Cheng weigh in, finally some real knowledge of maritime events.  
 

 

[hcat]

25 minutes ago, PTC DAWG said:

Glad to Cheng weigh in, finally some real knowledge of maritime events.  
 

 

He is indeed our CC guru on all things   "ship stuff".  And breaks it down for those of us without any tech background   

 

 

 

[NMTraveller]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

  As noted, NCL used to operate on the edge in giving the passengers a good view of the lava flows in the past.  Was this against common sense?  Not necessarily, we had mitigation measures in place, and were constantly revising those as we gained experience.

You are comparing polar opposites in depth and bottom composition.

 

We would go to Kona marlin fishing and start fishing right out of the harbor.  We were in several thousand feet of water not 43 feet.  The bottom composition is rock and does not change very rapidly.

 

In most other parts of Hawaii it takes an hour or two to get to the deep water where you actually start fishing.

 

A shallow beach where the sand bars move after a storm is very very different from cruising by the deep water of the lava flows.

 

Perhaps we are looking at this wrong.  Perhaps we should give the captain credit for pulling this Evil Knievel stunt and not getting the cruise ship stuck ...

Edited May 4 by NMTraveller

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

You are comparing polar opposites in depth and bottom composition.

Not comparing depth and bottom composition at all.  NCL's ships were operating on the edge as far as whether we could keep the lights on, and hence propulsion to keep us off the shore.  If the engines had overheated, there would not have been any "restarting" power, as the cooling system is common to all engines, and once overheated, and without power to run the pumps, not circulating, it will take hours to cool off enough to run an engine again.

[Lastdance]

21 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not comparing depth and bottom composition at all.  NCL's ships were operating on the edge as far as whether we could keep the lights on, and hence propulsion to keep us off the shore.  If the engines had overheated, there would not have been any "restarting" power, as the cooling system is common to all engines, and once overheated, and without power to run the pumps, not circulating, it will take hours to cool off enough to run an engine again.

So, a very delicate balance...Thank you!

[NMTraveller]

26 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not comparing depth and bottom composition at all.  NCL's ships were operating on the edge as far as whether we could keep the lights on, and hence propulsion to keep us off the shore.  If the engines had overheated, there would not have been any "restarting" power, as the cooling system is common to all engines, and once overheated, and without power to run the pumps, not circulating, it will take hours to cool off enough to run an engine again.

Just curious if they still do it?

[Ferry_Watcher]

8 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

Perhaps we are looking at this wrong.  Perhaps we should give the captain credit for pulling this Evil Knievel stunt and not getting the cruise ship stuck ...

 

Evel Knieval only put himself in danger doing stunts.

The Edge (worth hundreds of millions of dollars) probably had upwards of four thousand souls on board.  If all ship captains were allowed to daredevils, or allowed to take chances to enhance passenger  experience, then maybe the Icon of the Seas could be the next ship to try give its passengers the best view experience.  That would be exciting.

 

While  those passengers who were on-board during that sailing got a once in a lifetime view from a cruise ship of an amazing natural wonder, sadly the current on-board passengers suffered the consequences by the having the same scheduled sail-by of the Napali Coast cancelled - either by Celebrity, or by the State of Hawaii.

 

Now the Edge will doing it's new Alaska season sailing (I will be on the Edge next Saturday).  Should I expect the Edge to sail super close to a glacier?    Do I want the Edge to push the boundaries so I, as a passenger can have an amazing view of a glacier?  No.  While I want a great Alaska experience, I also want to be safe.

 

I will let you know who the Captain is after I board the Edge next Saturday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

Just curious if they still do it?

The lava stopped flowing to the ocean several years ago, so the sail by was stopped.