Safety on the QM2

[fireman999]

Since I raised the subject of Safety on The QM2 under the heading of "QM2 Change of Itinerary" I have been made aware of a number of other serious safety issues which have included Obstructed Fire Equipment, Wrong Muster Station Information on Life Jackets, Staff Panicking on the Sound of the General Alarm and Staff not Acting Appropriately when Notified about a Smell of Smoke. Whilst these issues in themselves may appear trivial when you look at the bigger picture you have to question how safety is managed, or not managed as the case may be. If you have observed anything that you feel is safety related please raise it - only if these things are brought out in the open will Cunard do anything about it.

The TV program Holidays Undercover (UK viewers) did a very good program on cruising holidays a few weeks ago which I am sure opened a few eyes about the way issues are dealt with on board ship and I know that they would also like to hear about safety related complaints. Have a look at itv.com and go to Holidays Undercover - you can also inform them of any stories of interest.

If anyone has not seen some of the photographs that I have sent to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency they are available at http://alanfcox.googlepages.com/home Alan

[pnhmrk]

The TV program Holidays Undercover (UK viewers) did a very good program on cruising holidays a few weeks ago which I am sure opened a few eyes about the way issues are dealt with on board ship and I know that they would also like to hear about safety related complaints.

 

Alan - see http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=385027 for comments on that programme:)

[Kindlychap]

Since I raised the subject of Safety on The QM2 under the heading of "QM2 Change of Itinerary" I have been made aware of a number of other serious safety issues which have included Obstructed Fire Equipment, Wrong Muster Station Information on Life Jackets, Staff Panicking on the Sound of the General Alarm and Staff not Acting Appropriately when Notified about a Smell of Smoke. Whilst these issues in themselves may appear trivial when you look at the bigger picture you have to question how safety is managed, or not managed as the case may be. If you have observed anything that you feel is safety related please raise it - only if these things are brought out in the open will Cunard do anything about it.

The TV program Holidays Undercover (UK viewers) did a very good program on cruising holidays a few weeks ago which I am sure opened a few eyes about the way issues are dealt with on board ship and I know that they would also like to hear about safety related complaints. Have a look at itv.com and go to Holidays Undercover - you can also inform them of any stories of interest.

If anyone has not seen some of the photographs that I have sent to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency they are available at http://alanfcox.googlepages.com/home Alan

 

Having seen your web page, do you have it in for Cunard? The MCA appear happy. Are you better than them?

 

Does this come from the change of itinerary? You thought that you might see if you could cause some trouble? Didn't Cunard offer enough blood money to keep you happy?

[tabascored]

Hear, hear, Kindlychap. I'm all for safety but this is getting a bit much. I say let Cunard take care of their own hazard issues. They do have a staff to do that and am sure they are regulated by an agency.

 

Image if the trip was taken on Princess or Royal Caribbean:eek:

 

Sue

[smeyer418]

Since I raised the subject of Safety on The QM2 under the heading of "QM2 Change of Itinerary" I have been made aware of a number of other serious safety issues which have included Obstructed Fire Equipment, Wrong Muster Station Information on Life Jackets, Staff Panicking on the Sound of the General Alarm and Staff not Acting Appropriately when Notified about a Smell of Smoke. Whilst these issues in themselves may appear trivial when you look at the bigger picture you have to question how safety is managed, or not managed as the case may be. If you have observed anything that you feel is safety related please raise it - only if these things are brought out in the open will Cunard do anything about it.

The TV program Holidays Undercover (UK viewers) did a very good program on cruising holidays a few weeks ago which I am sure opened a few eyes about the way issues are dealt with on board ship and I know that they would also like to hear about safety related complaints. Have a look at itv.com and go to Holidays Undercover - you can also inform them of any stories of interest.

If anyone has not seen some of the photographs that I have sent to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency they are available at http://alanfcox.googlepages.com/home Alan

 

 

Didn't you also say that you "have taken a summons out on Cunard?" or words to that effect...just for full disclosure. I looked at what you wrote and while there can always be improvement, I don't think this renders Cunard unsafe. The problem with the anecdotal reports that you cite about the crews unpreparedness, is that there is always some individual who panics including the reporter. This is not like the Titanic that had too few lifeboats. These are degree of safety issues that can be easily fixed or remedied. You clearly seem to have an axe to grind. Are you sure you have not become a curmudgeon?

[guernseyguy]

Now now, ladies & gentlemen......it was suggested earlier that Alan 'put up or shut up' so we could assess the gravity of his complaints.....and he has 'put up' and also (on the earlier thread) taken the time to answer some questions put to him. While I certainly don't think the QM2 is a 'floating death trap' I also don't believe that as an object built by men it is absolutely perfect or beyond improvement. Of the points Alan makes, the ones concerning the placement of the smoke detectors (above ceiling fans or in the a/c airstream) do strike me as problematic - design flaws - rather than 'run of the mill' frayed wiring or missing exit sign - things that should not happen - but are easily and quickly fixed once discovered. Let us remember that the 'cleared' QM2 had to do some refitting in her bathrooms because of previously undetected flammibility issues. Of all the perils on the sea the one that strikes most fear into a mariner's heart is FIRE.

 

Peter

[fireman999]

Obviously this subject appears to have upset a number of correspondents and therefore I think that I need to put it in perspective.

 

Legal Action - The advice that I have been given by my solicitor, who is one of the UKs top travel solicitors and has written a number of legal travel guides, is that I was entitled to a refund or alternative holiday under The Package Travel Regulations. This was communicated to both Cunard and my agent before I sailed but neither organisation had the courtesy to reply to my Recorded Delivery Letter, Fax or emails. I was quite happy to change the cruise or have a refund but as neither organisation would enter into any form of discussion I did as my solicitor suggested and notified both companies that I was taking the cruise under duress and that I would pursue this on my return. I think that we should now let the court decide on the outcome as I feel that I have been more than reasonable - unless you know better than the courts or my legal advisor?

 

Safety - I have spent over 40 years in the fire and safety profession and I could list my achievements, awards, qualifications and commendations - but that's not my style. What I have tried to achieve on this site is to inform and help people understand about safety and to put into the public arena concerns that they may not have been aware of. If you look at the website that I have referred to you will note that it is not just Cunard that I have highlighted as there are also a number of hotels included. If I had serious concerns about Royal Caribbean, NCL, Celebrity or any other ship that I had been on - they would be there.

As far as I'm concerned I have raised the issues with the MCA and they have not explained why they allow situations to exist on the QM2 that would not be allowed on land and are not in accordance with recognised practice or British / International Standards. Nowhere have I stated that these are wrong - all I have asked for is for them to explain the rational for these situations. Perhaps we should wait and see what they have to say before reaching decisions on who is right or who is wrong, unless you already know better?

[mufi]

I'm all for safety but this is getting a bit much.

 

 

 

Sue

 

Sounds like a quote from Captain Smith.

 

David.

[smeyer418]

Obviously this subject appears to have upset a number of correspondents and therefore I think that I need to put it in perspective.

 

Legal Action - The advice that I have been given by my solicitor, who is one of the UKs top travel solicitors and has written a number of legal travel guides, is that I was entitled to a refund or alternative holiday under The Package Travel Regulations. This was communicated to both Cunard and my agent before I sailed but neither organisation had the courtesy to reply to my Recorded Delivery Letter, Fax or emails. I was quite happy to change the cruise or have a refund but as neither organisation would enter into any form of discussion I did as my solicitor suggested and notified both companies that I was taking the cruise under duress and that I would pursue this on my return. I think that we should now let the court decide on the outcome as I feel that I have been more than reasonable - unless you know better than the courts or my legal advisor?

 

Safety - I have spent over 40 years in the fire and safety profession and I could list my achievements, awards, qualifications and commendations - but that's not my style. What I have tried to achieve on this site is to inform and help people understand about safety and to put into the public arena concerns that they may not have been aware of. If you look at the website that I have referred to you will note that it is not just Cunard that I have highlighted as there are also a number of hotels included. If I had serious concerns about Royal Caribbean, NCL, Celebrity or any other ship that I had been on - they would be there.

As far as I'm concerned I have raised the issues with the MCA and they have not explained why they allow situations to exist on the QM2 that would not be allowed on land and are not in accordance with recognised practice or British / International Standards. Nowhere have I stated that these are wrong - all I have asked for is for them to explain the rational for these situations. Perhaps we should wait and see what they have to say before reaching decisions on who is right or who is wrong, unless you already know better?

 

Lets see.

 

1. The simple answer to if you are suing Cunard is yes based upon advice of counsel.

 

2. This does not explain why you posted. You have every right to complain to the authorities. You have no right to make people feel unsafe unnecessarily. Panic among the employees is bad. Panic among the Public is worse. The picture you show of a sailor unhitched is an interesting example of a person doing something that is unsafe for him but not to anyone else. He clearly has the necessary equipment. Personally and I think you would have to agree that the ship is much safer than any transpotation that takes you to the ship.

 

My post was to make sure people understood your motivation which I think is now clear. Cunard doesn't do it your way.

[fireman999]

Lets see.

 

1. The simple answer to if you are suing Cunard is yes based upon advice of counsel.

 

2. This does not explain why you posted. You have every right to complain to the authorities. You have no right to make people feel unsafe unnecessarily. Panic among the employees is bad. Panic among the Public is worse. The picture you show of a sailor unhitched is an interesting example of a person doing something that is unsafe for him but not to anyone else. He clearly has the necessary equipment. Personally and I think you would have to agree that the ship is much safer than any transpotation that takes you to the ship.

 

My post was to make sure people understood your motivation which I think is now clear. Cunard doesn't do it your way.

 

Legal Issue

I am pleased that you agree with my legal adviser - as you say lets see.

 

Safety

You have made a comment about the photograph of the "crew member not wearing his safety harness and it not being unsafe for anyone else" - I have spent many hours and risked my life on a number of occasions rescuing people from dangerous situations that have thought this way - you should remember that when something goes wrong someone may have to risk their life rescuing that person. As I said before you need to think about the bigger picture.

In the UK everyone is responsible for both their own and their collegues safety - you appear to be advocating a different approach. I would also point out that the employer, in this case Cunard, have a legal and moral responsibility for peoples safety together with a duty of care.

[guernseyguy]

My post was to make sure people understood your motivation which I think is now clear. Cunard doesn't do it your way.

 

smeyer418, I always find it rather risky inferring the motives of other people. Having taken the time to post documentary evidence of his concerns, and discuss them with others, we are now all in a position to judge how much store we personally place by them. Do you have expertise which would suggest that the placement of smoke detectors above fans or in an airstream adds to safety? Of course, you wouldn't do this, but the time & trouble Alan has taken to post his concerns would deserve a bit better than a smear - don't you think?

 

Peter

[smeyer418]

smeyer418, I always find it rather risky inferring the motives of other people. Having taken the time to post documentary evidence of his concerns, and discuss them with others, we are now all in a position to judge how much store we personally place by them. Do you have expertise which would suggest that the placement of smoke detectors above fans or in an airstream adds to safety? Of course, you wouldn't do this, but the time & trouble Alan has taken to post his concerns would deserve a bit better than a smear - don't you think?

 

Peter

 

Peter with respect, I have no problem with him contacting the authorities and Cunard. He even reported that they went looked again and reported that it was in compliance. When you post about how unsafe Cunard is, the reason behind why you posted is fair game and I as you are, are allowed reasonable inference. Suing someone clearly goes to someone's potential bias. I saw the smoke detector which is offset from directly over a fan(well at least ONE is)...Whether that will effect its operation, I am not sure. My point is that this information is appropriate to evaluate the information provided.

 

That's all and I do think his altruistic motives are suspect.

 

Just like you and him I am entitled to my opinion.

[guernseyguy]

When you post about how unsafe Cunard is, the reason behind why you posted is fair game

The topic of this thread is 'Safety on the QM2' - and photographic evidence has, in my mind at least, raised questions about positioning of smoke detectors - whatever the motivation of the original post. Similarly, the motivation of the original post does not remove, from my mind, questions over the fire detection arrangements.

 

Next thing, people will be suggesting that some ships balcony dividers are flammable, there are no sprinklers and no watch kept on them...like it did recently on Star Princess....while this is (or already has been) fixed industry wide - complacency is the mother of much disaster

[travel-to-go]

Whether Alsn is suing Cunard for just compensation, which is is entitled to do under British law, and which he attempted to avert with registered letters PRIOR to the cruise, does not matter one whit to me, if he points out a safety flaw. It does not make the safety flaw safer. I did not here him saying "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" Nor saying he would never board another Cunard ship. In the US, people who do foolhardy things endanger rescuers and are starting to be arrested, or charged for extraordinary rescues. In CT a few months ago, a man fell off of a roof while working under a subcontractor paying sub standard wages and cutting corners. Because the man also happened to be undocumented, people were afraid to call for help. It is well known those at the cruise industry sometimes endangers their workers, workers who are from poor countries who will work for low wages, and many ships (though not Cunard's) are registered in places such as Liberia, often with papers bought with bribe money instead of true safety inspections. I am not accusing Cunard of any of this. But how many American waiters, stewards and crewmen do you see? How many British (I am not talking about STAFF) The world is not always fair, and sometimes big companies take advantage of people who are afraid to complain because they desparately need the money,

And sometiems people cut corners with their won safety becasue they risk the wrath of the boss if they take the extra minute to buckle up. (And yes, I saw a worker on the QM2 get yelled at while bring up the tender-#17, outside my balcony) It seemed to me as thought the boss didn't like the way, or the speed with which the worker was doing it, and it seemed to me like he deliberately humiliatted the man in front of the passengers who were watching, fascinated. I tried to give the man an extra smile, and those on the balconies aplauded the worker when he finished the job.

 

I have been an official advocate of people who are handicapped or disabled. We had a fire alarm go off at work, caused by some work being done and a small ire brough quickly unde control. A profoundly deaf man was not evacuated, as he was in a conference room. There is a strobe by his desk. But he was not at his desk, and no one thought to check on him. I myself had to move to a corner of a landing to keep from getting trampled. (I have mobility issues, expecially with stairs) Did you think we should have stayed quiet about the danger to Tom (the deaf man) or about the fact that the ornate marble bathroom stalls in our historic HQ building were not wide enough to allow a woman who worked in the building, and used an elecctric wheelchair *due to polio) to use them. She had to go outside the building, down the block and across the street in all kinds of whether, and getb abck before her break was over, to use the bathroom (And then, the handicapped stalls in the other building had SHOWER curtains in stead f prpoer doors, and often were even then used by able bodied people who liked the bigger stall!) Should we have remained silent?

 

You know about the fire at the The Station, the Rhode Island Nightclub. 100 people were killed, including 8 from CT. Surely you read the news accounts of people not knowing there were other emergency exits and dying all piled up at the front entrance. I told you about the Dupont Plaza fire in San Juan. Same kinds of issues. I would rather someone panic me than let me die unnecessarily. And shame on you if you panic at a word of caution instead of taking precautions. Would you rather the flight attendants not tell you how to get out of the plane or inflate the life vest in the event of an "over water landing" or for that matter, would you rather Cunard not give you a muster station and make sure you know how to get into a life vest and where to find them, so it won't panic you? How about the precautions aginst noro-virus. Would you rather be "Fat dumb and happy"? (OR skinny dumb and with stomach cramps and diarrhea, but not panicked!)

 

I'm sure glad my flight instructors taught me how to make an emergency landing. And my skydiving instructors told me how to jettison my main and deploy my reserve, instead of not wanting to worry me! (and even made me practice it on a mock-up in the broiling hot sun!)

 

 

It is unfair of you to dismiss Alan's professional observations as being sour grapes or "just because he has brought suit" There is such a thing as negligent homicide if you knew something was dangerous and did not speak up!

 

You have your right to your opinion. But I think Alan has a right to an apology for having had his motives impugned. Neither of us is in a position to make that judgement. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is in the profession he is in becasue he DOES care about the safety and well-being of others. He has brought out salient points, and we should do well to take them into consideration. He has also carefully documented each issue, and has not made screeching unsubstantiated allegations just for show and attention.

 

And I would toss that toaster. Someone just had a fire here two days ago, because a child put something down that pushed the button down on a toaster and it caught the cabinets and surrounding counter on fire. Their home is now uninhabitable. I almost had a similar experience a few months ago, but was lucky. Marc noticed it and I got the fire out before it started something else on fire. I had carelessly tossed something on the counter that fell against the taoster oven switch and turned it on to HOT!

Too many people die from fires started (often unnoticed) in a frayed cord. a hot appliance is no place to have a cord with broken insulation, The insulation is there for a reason. BTW, My grandfather was an IBEW electrician who worked on the REA. He never would have stood for that!

 

Karie,

not wishing to embarass my future friend and fefllow cruiseer Smeyer, but also not wishing to see Alan unfairly maligned. And (Sal, is it? Im sorry, I forgot) To prove no ill will., I will buy you a drink in the Commodore Clun on the labor day cruise. And one for your lovely wife, too! :)

Now make nice with Alan!

[mufi]

Having been dealing with industrial safety isues for many years I know that although things have improved over the years (there had to be a fatallity or near to get proper safety measures in place in the past) there is always the tendency to let things slip.

 

On a cruise with Discovery a couple of weeks ago I was unpleasantly surprised to be given the passenger safety drill half an hour after we had set sail from Hawich. I have no idea if this was within the regs. but it did not seem good to me.

 

Also we never had our bags etc. cheched on return to the ship in ports.

 

I have long ago stopped relying on others to look after my safety. Don't knock the whistle blower he could be our lifesaver

 

David.

[Kindlychap]

There is such a thing as negligent homicide if you knew something was dangerous and did not speak up!

 

Karie, under English Law, you have no obligation to say anything if you are a casual bystander.

[dougnewmanatsea]

When you post about how unsafe Cunard is

I don't think anyone has said that Cunard is unsafe.

 

For all I know, Alan's points may be perfectly valid. I don't know much about fire safety so I really couldn't say. I can say that his two hotel reports seem, from my layman's standpoint, to show problems far more alarming than the ones he found on QM2.

 

Next thing, people will be suggesting that some ships balcony dividers are flammable, there are no sprinklers and no watch kept on them...

Indeed, I suspect if anyone had said that before the STAR PRINCESS incident, he would have been labelled an alarmist!

 

Admittedly, it's not something I ever thought about. Similarly, I would probably never notice a missing exit sign. I certainly never look at smoke detectors. I wouldn't even know what a sign that does or doesn't comply with the rules looks like, since I don't know what the rules are!

 

But if I did know these things, I would probably look for them, whether I was getting paid to or not...

[PRINSENDAM]

 

On a cruise with Discovery a couple of weeks ago I was unpleasantly surprised to be given the passenger safety drill half an hour after we had set sail from Hawich. I have no idea if this was within the regs. but it did not seem good to me.

 

David.

 

 

David,

The regulations require that a full safety muster be carried out within TWENTY FOUR HOURS of a departure from port.

 

These days most passenger ships will carry out the muster immediately before depature or within a couple of hours.

 

Stephen

[KarenR_UK]

On a cruise with Discovery a couple of weeks ago I was unpleasantly surprised to be given the passenger safety drill half an hour after we had set sail from Hawich. I have no idea if this was within the regs. but it did not seem good to me.

 

On Caronia in 2003, the drill was at 10am the following morning!

In fact if I remember rightly a few years ago Caronia did have a fire - and I think i remember reading it was the night BEFORE the safety drill! Can anyone confirm this (or correct me :D )?

 

Karen

 

(upto my eyes in ironing getting ready for QE2 on Thursday)

[guernseyguy]

On Caronia in 2003, the drill was at 10am the following morning!

 

On Caronia's last Westbound Transatlantic (Under Nick Bates, one of those Cunard Captains who is so much better than the Princess Captains) we didn't hold a drill at all! - This was put down to bad weather!

 

Peter

[mufi]

So at sea they can make it up as they go along. A ship at sea may seem the safest of places but if things go wrong it can be a very hazarous environment.

 

Still as a previous poster said "I'm all for safety but this is getting a bit much"

 

And what are those orange things with straps on in the wardrobe?

 

David.

[guernseyguy]

And what are those orange things with straps on in the wardrobe? David.

 

The straps are there so you can trip on them and sue the cruise line when you've ignored their advice about carrying the thing.....:rolleyes:

 

Peter

[KenC]

Just a few questions from an ex architect

 

1) The fire exit sign - isn't that sign a 'Private - Emergency Exit Only' sign which from memory is not a Fire Exit sign at all and does not require to be a green/white with pictogram ????

 

2) Are all the exits from Illuminations 'Fire Exits' or just some of them - in which case there wouldn't be signs on every exit ????

 

3) Missing Exit sign - isn't this a housekeeping problem and has anyone enquired if its been replaced yet ????

 

4) Smoke detector next to a ceiling fan - surely smoke detectors are there to detect smoke when no one is about and perhaps the ceiling fans are programmed to be off at such times ???? Anyway, aren't smoke detectors spread everywhere ??? So isn't it unlikely that smoke will be prevented from reaching another detector by that ceiling fan ????

 

5) The wiring isn't this another housekeeping problem which must presumably be picked up by routine inspection ????

 

6) Do we know the regulation requiring crew to use safety lines ??? Or is this another example of health and safety legislation and those that apply it running out of control ???

 

Respectfully

 

Ken

whose sister was on the Rio to New York cruise, had a ball and couldn't believe the fuss over minor itinerary changes !!

[PRINSENDAM]

So at sea they can make it up as they go along.

 

David.

 

David,

 

Not at all. the regulations clearly state that a full muster is to be held within 24 hours of departure from an embarkation port. Some cruise lines, most of them in fact, hold the drill prior to departure. Others hold the drill very soon after. Cunard, on the other hand, has always (well, in the last 25 years anyway, held their drills the moring following departure from an embarkation port. Well within the regulations although I've always felt that I rather enjoy my first morning at sea doing something other than an emergency drill!

 

When QE2 make her world cruise, newly embarked passengers are required to attend a boat drill. This means that if you join in Southampton for a three month cruise you need only attend ONE drill. At subsequent embarkation ports only newly embarked passengers need attend. Holland America Line holds drills for ALL passengers after EVERY embarkation port during their world cruises and if their are no embarkation ports as such then a drill is held routinely about every seven days. On shorter cruise... like 21 days, there will be at least two drills.

 

Boats drills on the old ROTTERDAM '95 world cruise were extensive and certainly interesting. After mustering at the boat stations, names were checked off and then alternate lifeboats were lowered to embarkation level. There would then be a short lecture on the use of the boat's equipment, how to operate the emergency radio, use of survival suits, use of flares and rockets etc etc. These were the passenger drills. There were many more frequent drills for crew.

 

I guess you could say that they make it up as they go along. Providing you do the minimum that the regulations require then that is OK. HAL takes it a bit further. The fire and loss of the old PRINSENDAM back in the early 80s has not been forgotten.

 

As far as Cunard is concerned, I'm quite certain that their safety proceedures are fully up to date. Yes of course you will always find something that needs attention like a missing sign or defective equipment. That is the reason they hold drills and frequent inspections and carry out routine mainatainance. The ships are safe.

 

Stephen

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PRINSENDAM]

Just one further thought.

 

If during your voyage you have a particular concern about any aspect of on board safety, you should contact the Safety Officer on board. Call at the Purser's Office and say you would like to speak to the chappie in charge. You may have spotted a piece of defective equipment of something missing from where it should be. Although he is most likely already aware, I'm sure the Safety Officer would rather be informed of a deficiency at the time that it is noticed so that something can be done about it. Waiting until you get home and then writing to Head Office is rather pointless IMO..... unless of course you do not get, what you feel, is a satisfactory explanation from Safety Officer.

 

Cocktail parties and social gatherings on board are NOT the place to raise safety issues with staff!!!!! :eek:

 

Stephen