A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Cruises
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Brave move?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 30th, 2012, 10:58 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
Charles[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,112
Default Brave move?

In article , Old Sarge
wrote:

The major problem with the Concordia is one that is plagued by all ships,
not necessarily cruise ships. When a ship lists to one side, the degree has
an effect on lifeboat deployment and in this case the list went quickly and
the lifeboats were stuck on board. HOWEVER, even if they had had a drill
prior to departure, I doubt it would have helped as there was mass
confusion.


They also have the life rafts that can be used if the lifeboats can not
be dropped. I think the major problem with the evacuation on Concordia
was that it was delayed.

--
Charles
  #12  
Old January 31st, 2012, 02:41 AM posted to rec.travel.cruises
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default Brave move?

In article ,
Charles wrote:

In article , Old Sarge
wrote:

The major problem with the Concordia is one that is plagued by all ships,
not necessarily cruise ships. When a ship lists to one side, the degree has
an effect on lifeboat deployment and in this case the list went quickly and
the lifeboats were stuck on board. HOWEVER, even if they had had a drill
prior to departure, I doubt it would have helped as there was mass
confusion.


They also have the life rafts that can be used if the lifeboats can not
be dropped. I think the major problem with the evacuation on Concordia
was that it was delayed.


And this one was close enough to the shore that they could used the
lifeboats as shuttles so even if 1/2 weren't deploable, the others could
have taken up the slack if implemented early enough..

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #13  
Old January 31st, 2012, 02:20 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Brave move?

On Jan 30, 8:41*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*Charles wrote:
In article , Old Sarge
wrote:


The major problem with the Concordia is one that is plagued by all ships,
not necessarily cruise ships. *When a ship lists to one side, the degree has
an effect on lifeboat deployment and in this case the list went quickly and
the lifeboats were stuck on board. *HOWEVER, even if they had had a drill
prior to departure, I doubt it would have helped as there was mass
confusion.


When the pax want to get off but the crew is saying "go back to your
cabins", your problems are bigger than merely a failure of crowd
control: the mass confusion was ultimately caused by a failure of
leadership to make the appropriate decisions in a timely fashion.


They also have the life rafts that can be used if the lifeboats can not
be dropped. I think the major problem with the evacuation on Concordia
was that it was delayed.


That was part of it. The other part was that those same safety
systems weren't able to recover (to be deployed as had been planned)
to compensate. This is a failure of robust system planning, which
permits failures to cascade from bad to worse.

For example, let's say that you did have life rafts that could be
tossed overboard after the lifeboats got hung up ... now what? Are
pax expected to then make a 50ft jump into the sea, then swim over to
get in the liferaft? Or are you going to risk having pax down near
the waterline on the "downhill" side as the ship is rolling over in
that direction? Neither option seems all that appealing when their
blunt realities are revealed.

And this one was close enough to the shore that they could used the
lifeboats as shuttles so even if 1/2 weren't deploable, the others could
have taken up the slack if * implemented early enough..


True, but that was more by luck than by design. If shuttling did
occur (sorry, I haven't personally read every detail), part of the
question that would be quite revealing would be - - "As initiated by
who?". Specifically, the point here is who was it that took
leadership in that phase of the rescue operation? And clearly, this
is big negative points if it wasn't initiated by the ship's
officers.


-hh
  #14  
Old January 31st, 2012, 06:34 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
Island Grampa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Brave move?


"-hh" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 12:46 pm, "Island Grampa" wrote:
YMMV. Given that this wasn't the first large cruise ship to sink
within the past decade, what's IMO conspicuously absent from any of
the responses is any discussion of the consequences of a list
(lifeboat deployment failure modes).


-hh


Please, name me even ONE large cruise ship that has "sunk" in the last
decade. There was one small cruise ship off South Africa several years
ago
but, other than that, I don't think there has even been a total
evacuation
of any ship.


The South African one was the one I was primarily thinking of, but
there was also the MS Explorer which sank off of Antartica in November
2007.

Here's a website that has a list:

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


Plus there's been other adverse events on smaller cruiseships too that
aren't on this list that I've personally been aware of:

2008 - CruiseWest "Spirit of Glacier Bay" - grounding in AK (no
casualties)
2007 - CruiseWest "Spirit of Nantucket" - grounding in VA (no
casualties)

and this one in particular, as I know one of the three survivors:

Oct 2001 - Peter Hughes "Wave Dancer" - capsize/sink: 71% onboard
died

FYI, the distribution of the deaths were 85% of the customers (17 of
20) and 37% of the crew (3 of 8).


-hh


All small ships! You said "Given that this wasn't the first large cruise
ship to sink
within the past decade"

--
Tobieon an Island in the Pacific


  #15  
Old January 31st, 2012, 08:58 PM posted to rec.travel.cruises
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Brave move?

On Jan 31, 12:34*pm, "Island Grampa" wrote:
"-hh" wrote in message
On Jan 30, 12:46 pm, "Island Grampa" wrote:
YMMV. *Given that this wasn't the first large cruise ship to sink
within the past decade, what's IMO conspicuously absent from any of
the responses is any discussion of the consequences of a list
(lifeboat deployment failure modes).


Please, name me even ONE large cruise ship that has "sunk" in the last
decade. *There was one small cruise ship off South Africa several years
ago
but, other than that, I don't think there has even been a total
evacuation
of any ship.


The South African one was the one I was primarily thinking of, but
there was also the MS Explorer which sank off of Antartica in November
2007.


Here's a website that has a list:


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


Plus there's been other adverse events on smaller cruiseships too that
aren't on this list that I've personally been aware of:


2008 - CruiseWest "Spirit of Glacier Bay" - grounding in AK (no
casualties)
2007 - CruiseWest "Spirit of Nantucket" * - grounding in VA (no
casualties)


and this one in particular, as I know one of the three survivors:


Oct 2001 - Peter Hughes "Wave Dancer" - capsize/sink: * 71% onboard
died


FYI, the distribution of the deaths were 85% of the customers (17 of
20) and 37% of the crew (3 of 8).


All small ships!


YMMV, but as far as I'm personally concerned, small is 100 pax.

And in the meantime, "Large" comes in many flavors, which have
prompted additional descriptors, such as megaliner and superliner ...
and even "super megaliner" has popped up as YA descriptive
superlative:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n32005527/


Its because cruise ships have continued to grow. If we look at Wiki
(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...t_cruise_ships
) we find that ~90% of the world's largest cruise ships in operation
on 12/31/11 have launched since 1/1/2000. So something that a decade
ago might have been considered "large" or even "huge" by the standards
of the day no longer necessarily is considered as such by today's
standards.


You said "Given that this wasn't the first large cruise
ship to sink within the past decade"


Yes, I certainly did. Granted, the MS Explorer (sank in Antartica in
2007) isn't a "large" cruise ship by the standards of the behemoths
that ply the Caribbean, that ignores the market segment it was in,
where most of that market are ships that are 300ft LOA.

And while the sinking of the Oceanos sinking off of South Africa was
pedantially more than just ten years ago, it still does prove that
even ships with 500+ pax aren't magically immune from sinking.

And to look at this in one more dimension, feel free to illustrate
specifically how simply being bigger makes a ship easier to evacuate
safely. Be sure to account for differences in crew:customer ratios,
increased number of decks to police, loose items, etc.


-hh
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FOR SALE WINNEBAGO BRAVE RV pete Travel - anything else not covered 0 August 24th, 2004 08:37 PM
FOR SALE WINNEBAGO BRAVE RV pete USA & Canada 0 August 24th, 2004 08:36 PM
RV FOR SALE WINNEBAGO BRAVE pete Travel Marketplace 0 August 24th, 2004 08:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.