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

[abbydancer2003]

1 hour ago, msolok said:

 

This is just how things tend to go with cruising. Itineraries, schedules and everything are very susceptible to changes. While they do try and make everything happen, sometimes things don't work out and things need to change. I don't think I have ever been on a cruise line that has offered $ for the "hassle" of a changed itinerary.

Princess in 2023 gave us a nice FCC for missing 3 of 7 ports.  On the Solstice we got some OBC for missing our first 2 ports (nothing for Maui earlier).

[the penguins]

12 hours ago, CruseKrazy said:

There is a contextual thing about this event that may have been discussed above.  Some of us who booked this cruise long ago were slated to go to Lahaina. We were really disappointed when the sail by Kauai was announced in lieu due to the tragic fire in Lahaina.  Not X’s fault for sure but we saw the substitute as just another sea day after 5 in a row.  I asked Celebrity for compensation for the lost port and they denied it.  
 

Other ships like the Solstice got another night somwhere (on the big island?) but not Edge.  Several RC ships were accomodated it seems with an extra port night too but not Edge.  Hence our disappointment was high and our expectations low about the Na Pali coast sail by.  We thought we would be 5 km out and say to each other “Which island is that again?”.

 

Another thing is Captain Matt’s personality - extremely confident, almost cocky. He said in the talk on board about his career how difficult it is becoming captain.  The years of study, the personality vetting, the understudy work etc..  But one thing he made very clear is if he deviates from the approved cruise plan significantly he would be relieved of his duties at the next port.  Hence I find it hard to believe he knowingly violated the cruise plan or safety regulations etc. by sailing too close to Na Pali.

 

So perhaps he just wanted to exceed our expectations and give us a thrill. The whole cruise from Sydney to Honolulu exceeded our expectations so why not end it with a bang!  Ironic too because X’s new slogan is “Nothing comes close” (except the Edge lol!)

 

Our expectations were greatly exceeded.  Sorry those currently on board suffered the consequences by staying an extra night in Honolulu which is ironically what we had hoped for before the sail by.  Expectations have been increased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been following this thread and have the following observations on several of the issues raised:

1) The detailed route to be followed during the next 24 hours is agreed every day and that route has to be signed off by every Bridge Officer from the most junior to the Captain and the Environmental Officer. The "signed off route" is then submitted to Corporate. If there has been any unauthorised deviation that will be investigated and action taken - in the meantime everything else is speculation.

2) There are 2 totally separate engine rooms on the ship each with it's own control system - the ship only needs one of the engine rooms to function. 

3) Changes of itinerary/ports of call happen regularly and we all accept this when booking any cruise. 

4) Celebrity has done this sort of scenic cruising for years. In 2013 on Solstice our sailing was delayed until after dark so we could sail along the coastline for a couple of hours to see the magical affects of the lava meeting the sea.

How close did we get? I don't know but it looked close and as you will see below the affect was spectacular.

Earlier in the day we had a private flight to the volcano and the waterfall plus a birds-eye view of the ship.

 

 

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

The captain was not the captain on the next cruise (our cruise).  Please provide documentation and news stories ...  This was widely talked about amongst the crew and cruisers...

As I said earlier, yes he was removed from the ship for PR reasons.  He was not fired, nor did he lose his Master's license.  I don't have the articles at my fingertips, but it was widely talked about in the media that RCI acknowledged that their weather reporting and heavy weather passage decision making processes were faulty, and were being changed.  Remember the announcement that they were hiring a corporate weatherman?  This is tacit acknowledgement that the Captain did nothing wrong, and that the SMS was at fault.  If he had been fired for following the policies and procedures, as written at the time, he would have been within his rights to sue for false dismissal.  And, talk that the crew discuss with passengers is rarely reliable.

 

8 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

Provide CURRENT depth contours (if they exist) and the ship's position over time and we can laugh about this later..

I can't, and neither can you, which is why I won't question the safety of this operation.  Neither one of us was there.

 

8 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

The passenger reports of sand in the wash also mean that they were rather shallow...

This happens in nearly every port the ship goes into.

 

8 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

We can talk about how close they came to beaching it...  They are close.  How close is the question..

How close does the ship come to docks and other ships in port?  How deep is the water there?  How many times has the Captain brought his ship into and out of port, where things are shallow and passages narrow?  And, before you say it, I am perfectly aware of the Master/pilot relationship, and how it works, and who is in charge.  And, for example, the Captains on the NCL POA all have pilotage for all the ports in Hawaii, and never take a pilot onboard.  Again, if you don't have any experience in handling a ship like this, you have no basis for judging someone who does.

[mac_tlc]

Thank you @chengkp75 for your input. Whenever there is mention of a ship “episode”, I await your response, which has the advantage of being based on years and years of maritime experience. 
 

It must be tiring trying to combat all of those that lack your experience but nevertheless appear to have the answers🤔. 
 

Thanks again.

 

mac_tlc

[Georgia_Peaches]

3 hours ago, the penguins said:

1) The detailed route to be followed during the next 24 hours is agreed every day and that route has to be signed off by every Bridge Officer from the most junior to the Captain and the Environmental Officer. The "signed off route" is then submitted to Corporate. If there has been any unauthorised deviation that will be investigated and action taken - in the meantime everything else is speculation.

I’m not questioning the accuracy of this statement, just wondering how you know?  

 

Also, those pics are spectacular!

[chengkp75]

25 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

I’m not questioning the accuracy of this statement, just wondering how you know?  

 

Also, those pics are spectacular!

What is being stated is basically what the SMS requires of bridge team management and passage planning.  While the 24 hours may apply to cruise ships, where they are in port every day, it is not common on long passages, where the route is set at the beginning of the passage, and unless there are required deviations from that original plan, the plan isn't "signed off" except at the beginning.  I will also disagree that the route planning is sent to corporate after signing off, when in fact it is done generally again at the beginning of the passage, after the Master has approved it, but before it is discussed with the bridge team.  That way, corporate gets a vote on it, before it becomes "law" by being signed by the bridge team.  That, at least, has been my experience in 30 years of operating under the ISM (note that the Chief Engineer has to be notified of the passage plan, and sign his/her acknowledgement as well as the bridge team).

Edited May 5 by chengkp75

[the penguins]

16 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

I’m not questioning the accuracy of this statement, just wondering how you know?  

 

Also, those pics are spectacular!

After The Costa Concordia disaster we attended a number of onboard presentations where the Captains explained how X’s way of operating was different to Costa’s including the point about all the Officers having to sign off on the route every day. On our Solstice Transpacifics we had a number of “coffee break” discussions with the Environmental Officer which covered a whole range of topics including how each days route had to include/allow for dumping of waste water/ only using lighter fuels in some areas/avoiding certain areas etc. 

Glad you liked the photos - the trip was our retirement gift to ourselves 90 days total including 60 on Solstice.

[NMTraveller]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As I said earlier, yes he was removed from the ship for PR reasons.  He was not fired, nor did he lose his Master's license.  I don't have the articles at my fingertips, but it was widely talked about in the media that RCI acknowledged that their weather reporting and heavy weather passage decision making processes were faulty, and were being changed.  Remember the announcement that they were hiring a corporate weatherman?  This is tacit acknowledgement that the Captain did nothing wrong, and that the SMS was at fault.  If he had been fired for following the policies and procedures, as written at the time, he would have been within his rights to sue for false dismissal.  And, talk that the crew discuss with passengers is rarely reliable.

 

I would agree with this.  It was a PR nightmare for Royal and the other cruise lines.  When you see parts of the ship with water running through or tables moving and glass banging and breaking being recorded by the cruisers,  it cuts down on bookings.  In the case of this cruise,  they could have avoided the whole incident by slightly delaying the cruise.  However now days cruises tend to avoid the worst of the storms vs.  heading right into them.  It seems like having Captain Obvious on board could have solved this situation also.  The cruisers on this cruise had a bad experience because the start of the cruise was the storm and then they came right back for repairs...

 

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I can't, and neither can you, which is why I won't question the safety of this operation.  Neither one of us was there.

 

We can observe the video and see that the ship was close to reefs.  Very beautiful by the way.  I suppose that they will not fare well covered in sand.  Dang video... 

 

We also have fish finder sonar depth readings of other boats in the area.  The boats in the area are incredulous that a cruise ship would come in this close.  These are people that are sailing the area on a daily basis and know the depths by experience..

Edited May 5 by NMTraveller

[PTC DAWG]

NMT never learned the rule of holes. 

[NMTraveller]

9 minutes ago, PTC DAWG said:

NMT never learned the rule of holes. 

Oh my lying eyes...  Replay the video from a cruiser on this cruise.  I will take video/photos over opinion and spinning any day.

 

Perhaps there is a reason that they are not allowed to do this on the next cruise?

Edited May 5 by NMTraveller

[pete_coach]

8 hours ago, Cap_D said:

Has Edge modified the shipboard schedule and food offerings to adjust for the new schedule and any port cancelation(s) (I can't keep track)?   Fully realize schedule and port cancelations can occur, but the cause here (unless weather is an issue) is entirely Celebrity.

Food offerings?

Shipboard schedule changes if port is missed happens all the time.

Missed ports are not entirely on Celebrity.  There can be many reasons. Blaming entirely Celebrity is misguided.

[pete_coach]

10 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

Oh my lying eyes...  Replay the video from a cruiser on this cruise.  I will take video/photos over opinion and spinning any day.

 

Perhaps there is a reason that they are not allowed to do this on the next cruise?

Videos without true context are as bad as rumours and opinion.

[NMTraveller]

8 minutes ago, pete_coach said:

Videos without true context are as bad as rumours and opinion.

What context would you like to see when you see reefs close to the ship?

[Georgia_Peaches]

2 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

What context would you like to see when you see reefs close to the ship?

I don't think anyone here would disagree that the ship was too close but  I've lost track of the point you are trying to make.

[NMTraveller]

6 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

I don't think anyone here would disagree that the ship was too close but  I've lost track of the point you are trying to make.

That it should have also been obvious to the captain and crew that the ship was too close...

[Georgia_Peaches]

9 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

That it should have also been obvious to the captain and crew that the ship was too close...

Thanks!  I wonder if protocols allow for the captain and navigation crew to make judgement calls that deviate from the posted plan based on their observations of a given situation (I hope so) without clearing it first.  Is it possible that they didn't realize how close they were until 1) it was called to their attention and 2) until after they were knee deep into the plan?  IDK...just my morning musings....

 

We'll be on Edge in a few weeks but our itin takes us to Alaska...

Edited May 5 by Georgia_Peaches

[yogini06]

8 hours ago, abbydancer2003 said:

Princess in 2023 gave us a nice FCC for missing 3 of 7 ports.  On the Solstice we got some OBC for missing our first 2 ports (nothing for Maui earlier).

It is my understanding that when ports are missed the cruise line refunds the port fees paid. In this case a sail by was missed and a port was substituted.  

[pete_coach]

23 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

What context would you like to see when you see reefs close to the ship?

Look, all I am saying is that videos, depending when they are taken, can be as misleading as opinion and rumour.

I find that this thread is full of speculation, accusation and innuendo. I have said early on, in this thread, that wait till the investigations by the proper authorities are over. Even out resident Captain agrees with that.

Edited May 5 by pete_coach

[Cap_D]

7 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

That it should have also been obvious to the captain and crew that the ship was too close...

Also simple Google searches turn up the Hawaii law that is the source of the legal restrictions.  Easy to find.

 

To the post above, I realize port changes happen all the time, but here aren't the changes seemingly a direct result of Celebrity/ship's actions?  Or were the schedule changes due to weather or known prior to departure? 

[yogini06]

11 minutes ago, pete_coach said:

Look, all I am saying is that videos, depending when there taken, can be as misleading as opinion and rumour.

I find that this thread is full of speculation, accusation and innuendo. I have said early on, in this thread, that wait till the investigations by the proper authorities are over. Even out resident Captain agrees with that.

I was on this sailing and up on deck 15 during the 360° maneuver.  My pictures look much closer than what I saw. 
 

I posted a link above that USCG cleared them of violating any federal laws.  As noted previously they violated local rules put in place for environmental purposes. 

Edited May 5 by yogini06

[hcat]

36 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

What context would you like to see when you see reefs close to the ship?

In general, verification of any photo or video  before it becomes evidence to be relied upon, is a multi prong process.Used to be more simple but in high tech times it has become more complicated.. 

 

Yes, we see what we see and it looks bad, but most who are commenting were not eyewitnesses, and even if they were they may not have the best perspective.  

 

.What  are we looking at? ..perspective, distances, depths,  conditions,   time of day, who took it,, their background,  equip used, among  many items to be examined.

 

Many including  me, will  await the investigative results!  Til then, I am sure there will be enhanced degree of care on the bridge!

 

[chengkp75]

51 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

What context would you like to see when you see reefs close to the ship?

Frankly, I went back and looked at the photos, and don't see any evidence of coral reefs anywhere near the ship.  I see sand stirred up by the propellers, and I see lighter blue water mixed with that brown, sandy water, where the change in color is caused by the aeration of the water by the propellers.  While I don't know the underwater geography of the Na Pali coast, in particular where this incident happened, again, I don't see any evidence of reefing.  Now, the seabed is likely covered in coral, and stirring up the sand probably didn't do that any good, but to say that there are "reefs" in the area, of a sufficient age to be strong enough to harm a ship (as opposed to a ship breaking off a high growing fan coral) is pure speculation.

[pete_coach]

34 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

Also simple Google searches turn up the Hawaii law that is the source of the legal restrictions.  Easy to find.

 

To the post above, I realize port changes happen all the time, but here aren't the changes seemingly a direct result of Celebrity/ship's actions?  Or were the schedule changes due to weather or known prior to departure? 

No, that is conjecture.

Weather is often the factor but, port decisions by the port authorities are also a factor.

We just took a LA to Miami, through the Panama Canal cruise and were supposed to have an overnight in Panama City but the day before that, it was announced that we would not be doing the overnight and it was the port that decided it so, we anchored overnight.

Folks that had ship excursions were refunded. Those with private tours were told to submit claims to Celebrity.

Edited May 5 by pete_coach

[NMTraveller]

19 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Frankly, I went back and looked at the photos, and don't see any evidence of coral reefs anywhere near the ship.  I see sand stirred up by the propellers, and I see lighter blue water mixed with that brown, sandy water, where the change in color is caused by the aeration of the water by the propellers.  While I don't know the underwater geography of the Na Pali coast, in particular where this incident happened, again, I don't see any evidence of reefing.  Now, the seabed is likely covered in coral, and stirring up the sand probably didn't do that any good, but to say that there are "reefs" in the area, of a sufficient age to be strong enough to harm a ship (as opposed to a ship breaking off a high growing fan coral) is pure speculation.

I was referring to the video that was supplied by a cruiser on this thread ...  

Edited May 5 by NMTraveller

[chengkp75]

34 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

Also simple Google searches turn up the Hawaii law that is the source of the legal restrictions.  Easy to find.

And, if you weren't aware that the law existed, i.e. before you heard about it on this thread, would you have made the "easy" google search in the first place?