Celebrity Capt Removed for Drunkness

[FinelyCruising]

[quote name='flagger']Imagine if you will a fire of the magnitude that struck the Star Princess with this guy in command. Would you feel safe? Would your family?[/quote]

I would care less about this guy in the scenario you point to. What I would care is how well the fire/life safety systems are working, i.e. smoke/fire detections systems with voice evacuation instructions, Likewise the engineering staff who need to be able to determine quickly if it is a false alarm, if it's smoke, if it's fire, and from where, and that is not detemined by the Captain.

So I think examples like this need to be thought out a bit better by posters if they are going to be used to support a postion. Unless one really undertstands how mechanical systems work and the actual staff who are responsible for overseeing the systems that address this kind of emergency, I think that kind of presentation here is just plain silly.

[Ballwin Babe]

I vehemently disagree with Finely Cruising!

The example of the fire on the Star is an excellent scenario where the Captain, the final decision maker must be capable and coherent. Yes, the systems need to work and the engineers must interpret and report their findings and opinions.

However, the final decision(s) is/are still made by the Captain. If anyone had died during that fire on the Star, it would not be the electrical engineer's performance which would be examined and critiqued.

I agree with Flaggers point.

[FinelyCruising]

The final decison to do what??? The alarms are going off and you better hope that the localized staff is in emergency mode and can direct you to safety. So you better hope that the enginnering staff IS monitoring the systems and dignosing and advising where the safe routes are based on their monitoring. They are the ones who may save your life in that situation, not the Captain.

[flagger]

You are so wrong FC. As someone who does know something about fighting fires, I can tell you that an on-duty Batallion Chief or Incident Commander who was found to be legally impaired at the location of a fully involved fire would be immediately dismissed and stripped of his command.

The captain/master of the vessel is the one ultimately responsible for the safety of the SOB's (souls on board). As the decision to abandon ship lies with him and he alone, I certainly wouldn't want someone who was caught in a non-life threatening situation to EVER command a vessel again. I certainly would not trust my, my families or even your life under his command ever. As I said before, who knows how many times he had put himself in this situation and how many lives he put at risk throughout his career.

[roboref]

We were fortunate enough to be asked to dine with the Captain on our first Princess cruise. Before we went to the table, we met at one of the lounges. He offered us drinks, but had a diet coke. Then at dinner, he graciously served us a very good wine, but he drank water and a diet coke. We have seen all the staff at every one of the introductions on all our cruises give back a full glass of champagne after taking a tiny sip with the toast. I've never seen any high-ranking staff drink in the lounges late at night. You can find plenty of the activities staff and entertainment throwing them back, but I'm pretty sure most of the officers on most ships know that they are on the job.

[LindaandJeff]

[quote name='Ocean Boy']Last I checked the results of a breathalizer was pretty cut and dry. So there isn't much speculation here as to what happened. The captain of a cruise ship had an illegal amount of alcohol in his blood.[/quote]

Nope...I know a guy (class mate) who "got off" after killing a freshman at our school while he was driving drunk after binging for about 8 hours (pre-pep rally, pep-rally, post pep rally, tailgating, drinking at a bar) because the breathalyzer print-out wasn't dark enough. There were even 6 witnesses. Breathalyzers are very fallible and not always enough to convict.

[TPKeller]

The captain is the ultimate designated driver. There seem to be quite a few people who haven't figured out that what happens in front of the curtain is fantasy land. Behind the curtain is real life. Dangerous and unforgiving.

Theron

[jakedoc]

Just a heads up- We sailed Mercury last Feb 24 We did have a great time. Talking about officers drinking ( they both had epaulets) I cannot recall the 2 Officers names conducting the Karoke but both of them were obviously inebriated. Both were drinking the shots that were suppose to go to the singers and both were blatantly trying to seduce younger female passengers.. We were with 2 other couples. 3/4 of the audience (including us) left the Karoke session. They were tripping on stage and having an obvious hard time of pulling off the show. We saw one of the Officers at breakfast next day and I asked how he was feeling. He did'nt seem to appreciate me recognizing him. It was very unprofessional. I would'nt expect one of the painters to act like that with passengers observing. I look back and wish I woud have mentioned their actions to higher ups-but with higher ups like the Captain, nothing would probably have been resolved. I don't mean to shed a bad light on the cruise itself-like I said we had a great time.

[janetz]

Celebrity, "NOT" a cut above. :cool:

[Ocean Boy]

[quote name='wolfganghowell']Some of the judgmental holier than thou statements here are beyond me. Without knowing any facts, this Captain has been tried and convicted by many of you. Do I think given the current information he did a terrible thing and should suffer the consequences? Yes. Is he an alcoholic? No evidence to that. Was anyone in real danger? Most likely not and those of you who think so must have a very simplistic view of cruising. The Staff Captain is second in command and entirely capable of running the ship (and many times is doing so without the recognition.) Comparing this to a drunk driver is unfair to the hundreds of crew members who do their job without recognition or fanfare and shows no understanding of how a ship operates.[/QUOTE]
The guy blew over 0.8 on the breathalizer and was drinking with in 8 hrs. of Mercury's departure. That part seems to be pretty plain. It absolutely doesn't make him an alcoholic. It means that he willfully broke the rules about alcohol comsumption.

Are you saying that because no one was "apparently" in danger and there is someone else aboard who is capable of doing the captain's job for him that it changes anything? The captain is the captain. It doesn't matter who else is capable of doing the job. If you want to talk about a simplistic view of cruising... it doesn't get any simpler than that.

[mafig]

I'm in agreement with Flagger regarding his comments on the Star Princess fire. The Captain made the decision to lower the lifeboats and he also positioned the ship in such a way that the fire was out of the wind. I'm sure he made many other decisions we don't know about that had nothing to do with physically fighting the fire. If that ever happened to me on a cruise, I'd certainly want the Captain to be clear headed!

[wolfganghowell]

Ocean Boy - I think you misread my post. I said he did a terrible thing and should ( and most likely) will suffer the consequences. That being said, the mentality of villagers carrying torches here still springs to my mind. We ate with the staff captain on our November cruise. A tablemate complimented the "captain" for taking us out of a crowded port. The staff captain laughed and said "that was me." For all we know, the staff captain was on deck to take the ship out of port and the captain was merely in a figurehead position that day. I agree - it doesn't make it right, he did a stupid, sad thing but the tone of many posts seems out of proportion. Before burning him at the stake, why don't we wait until the whole story comes out complete with a history of events.

[NorCalCruiseGuy]

[quote name='seattleadjuster']Innocent until proven guilty may be a legal theory, but as a person that cruises often, I'm realistic. "Innocent until proven guilty" also applies to child molesters. But, in picking somebody to babysit my children, I don't use the legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt," but instead, my standard is "is there any chance whatsoever this person is a child molester?" Big difference between my standard and the legal standard.

My personal standard? I'd feel comfortable cruising with a captain that had a drink, even if it violated Celebrity's policy. What would happen if the captain was at the Captain's reception, had a glass of champaigne, and an emergency developed (think the pirate attack off Africa last year). I'd assume and hope that he would rush to the bridge and assist. I'm sure Celebrity policies would allow him to assist, but that the final decision would rest a "captain in charge" who was sober.

As I'm more familiar with aviation and federal aviation regulations, here is an interesting, albeit useless statistic. Sober pilots have been responsible for many air carrier crashes. Air carrier pilots have been arrested for flying while intoxicated. No intoxicated air carrier pilot has ever been responsible for for a crash. In other words, intoxicated pilots have a better flying record than sober pilots. Doesn't mean I'd want to fly with an intoxicated pilot.[/quote]

There is a difference in making personal decisions as to whether to sail, drive or fly with someone who appears to be impaired. I too would err on the side of caution and common sense. My point is, it is NOT fair to add the the wild speculation that can take over on these boards. Unless one were present on the bridge when the incident took place, all the opinions here are just that... speculation.

[TPKeller]

Several opnions expressed on this matter clearly demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about the responsibilities born by the captain of a ship. Unfortunately, this lack of understanding renders many of these positions invalid.

Suggest you do a little further research, starting here:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain#Nautical[/url]

There are obviously times when the captain is not standing watch. There is never a time when the captain is not the captain.

Also, from an earlier post quoting US Law:[QUOTE]"While on board a vessel inspected, or subject to inspection, under Chapter 33 of Title 46 United States Code, a crewmember (including a licensed individual), pilot, or watchstander not a regular member of the crew:

(b) Shall not be intoxicated at any time;"[/QUOTE]
You really can't get much plainer than that.

Theron

[papa4330]

Just another example of Celebritys fall to a second rate cruise line!

[prc]

I'm not really sure that I would rely on Wikipedia to be as explicitly acurate when debating fina details. Wikipedia is not "official", but user-supported. This means that anyone can have something added with virtually no verification. There have been news reports of government "officials" creating Wikipedia entries in attempts to validate their fabricated resumes.

Case in point: The very article listed above goes on to discuss the rank of Captain in not only Naval terms, but Army, usmc, nato, and STARFLEET (as in StarTrek)...

[TPKeller]

[quote name='prc']I'm not really sure that I would rely on Wikipedia to be as explicitly acurate when debating fina details. Wikipedia is not "official", but user-supported. This means that anyone can have something added with virtually no verification. There have been news reports of government "officials" creating Wikipedia entries in attempts to validate their fabricated resumes.

Case in point: The very article listed above goes on to discuss the rank of Captain in not only Naval terms, but Army, usmc, nato, and STARFLEET (as in StarTrek)...[/QUOTE]
You are correct, anyone can update a Wikipedia article. You contradict yourself when you add "virtually no verification". The articles are verified by anyone and everyone who reads them. The fact that you know about the bogus articles indicates that they were discovered and corrected. The fact that the article on the one word, "captain" includes well labeled subsections covering various contexts, including some literary contexts, only tells me that the source is thorough.

Nobody claims Wikipedia is inerrant. No one source of information can make that claim. It just happened to be the first one I found, and I would submit that it is at the very least, credible.

Theron

P.S. if you have any doubts as to the validity of any Wikipedia article, just click on the "history" tab to see a step by step detail of how the article has ever been modified. That will at least show the process through which it arrived at its current state.

[Aubiecruiser]

[FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=navy]This will certainly be fun to see on tabloid tv. :D [/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=#000080]Drunk captains, ships that miss ports because they can't beat a rowboat in a race.......... and miss ports because of this. Sure will take the heat off RCI. [/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=#000080]Aubie[/COLOR][/FONT]

[wolfganghowell]

Aubie - what affects Celebrity affects RCCL. All part of the family

[tbelian]

[quote name='Aubiecruiser'][FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=#000080] ships that miss ports because they can't beat a rowboat in a race..........[/COLOR][/FONT][/quote]

Ok, even if it is a twisted figure of speech I still find it virtually impossible for a rowboat to do upwards of 17 knots (the reduced speed that the cruise ship reportedly travelled at).

[halos]

[quote name='papa4330']Just another example of Celebritys fall to a second rate cruise line![/QUOTE]

hmmm....

This is an example of what I really dislike to read on these boards.
What this captain did is unexcusable, yes. He was fired and rightly so. But this doesn't have to turn into a tabloid frenzy or negativity fest.

We are human beings. Until they put robots at the helm, there will be mistakes made. This guy made a huge one and will now pay the consequences. Let's face it, his career is kaput. He may be wrong but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve some compassion. Like another poster said above, "there before the grace of God go I."
As far as Celebrity falling to a second rate cruiseline...please. They handled the situation well, that seems to be the thing that matters most at this point, doesn't it??
and NO, I am not an X cheerleader...haven't sailed them yet. I'm Just another human being who hasn't been 100% perfect all the time and has at times done really stupid things, just like everyone else on this board.

A little compassion would go a long way. A [B]big[/B] mistake was made by the captain, Celebrity dealt with it the right way and that should be the end of it.

[naked]

[quote name='Aubiecruiser'][FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=navy]This will certainly be fun to see on tabloid tv. :D [/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=#000080]Drunk captains, ships that miss ports because they can't beat a rowboat in a race[/COLOR][/FONT][/quote]

Drunk captains? Really? I only heard about 1. Who was the other(s)?

As for rowing, it should be noted that the Dartmouth Crew recently competed in a 2000 Meter race with a time of 5:58.

I'll help you with the math: That's 11 miles per hour or 9.5 knots.

So, even with it's limp, Summit was about twice as fast as a competitive collegiate crew team and nearly [B]as fast as these RCI ships[/B]:
[URL="http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/ships/class/ship/home.do;jsessionid=0000ZMRdZF63gnqJQ1mmuJgBIZF:10ktdmlju?br=R&shipClassCode=SS&shipCode=MJ"][COLOR=#336699]Majesty Of The Seas[/COLOR][/URL]
[URL="http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/ships/class/ship/home.do;jsessionid=0000ZMRdZF63gnqJQ1mmuJgBIZF:10ktdmlju?br=R&shipClassCode=SS&shipCode=MN"][COLOR=#336699]Monarch Of The Seas[/COLOR][/URL]
[URL="http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/ships/class/ship/home.do;jsessionid=0000ZMRdZF63gnqJQ1mmuJgBIZF:10ktdmlju?br=R&shipClassCode=SS&shipCode=SS"][COLOR=#336699]Sovereign Of The Seas[/COLOR][/URL]

[Aubiecruiser]

[FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=navy]Now you're talking, nothing like a spirited conversation. Thanks for the insite.[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Fixedsys][COLOR=#000080]Aubie :D [/COLOR][/FONT]

[jckvpa0]

[quote name='CruisinCindy']Come on, folks, let's not overreact. The Mercury Captain was tested to be just over .08 BAC, which is twice the maritime limit of .04. The drunk driving limit in CA is .08 BAC, and it doesn't take much to get to that level. He failed the Breathylzer and should not have been drinking within 8 hours of his watch. Period. He was [B]NOT[/B] arrested and taken down the gangplank in handcuffs [B]while stumbling, falling-down drunk.[/B] Rather, he had been drinking, failed the test by the Coast Guard and was arrested and taken into custody. The CG was right to do their job and make the arrest, because he did violate the maritime limits. Please don't make the man out to be an [B][COLOR=red]irresponsible,[/COLOR][/B] falling-down drunkard who was dragged off the bridge. The media wants to sensationalize stories, don't get sucked into jumping to the worst assumptions about the man's character.[/quote]

You don't think he was irresponsible ?

[wolfganghowell]

Halos - well put. I'm with ya - and I love the golden in your avatar.