Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > Cruise Lines (Mainstream) > Carnival Cruise Lines
Register Forgot Password?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 06:27 AM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
I'm curious as to what they did when the toilets quit.
Ever heard of the poop deck?
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 07:57 AM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
I had to stop reading it half-way through because of the inaccuracies ...
I haven't read the book yet, but you have made me curious. What are the inaccuracies?
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 11:44 AM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Benicia, CA
Posts: 824
Default

The chocolate melting cake has truly melted.Cant wait to hear first hand accounts from passengers. Would love to see the reactions of them as they finally get off the ship. This is a logistic nightmare as well as a negative PR hit.
__________________
1995-Jubilee
1996-Imagination
1998-Destiny
1999-Paradise
1999-Sun Princess
2002-Pride
2004-Pride
2006-Pride
2008-Valor and Glory
2009-Spirit and Splendor
2010-Freedom of the Seas and Mariner of the Seas
2010-Carnival Spirit
2011-Carnival Dream
2012-Allure of the Seas and Navigator of the Seas
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 12:25 PM
Ron Ron is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,306
Default

I heard a group of sharks saved an attorney from drowning this a.m.
Seems in his haste to beat all the other attorneys who were anxiously awaiting arrival of the ship at the pier, holding up their signs with names, phone numbers, etc, this one hired a speed boat to run him out to the ship so he could circle it with his bullhorn giving his name, etc. and accidentally fell over board into a group of sharks--- he immediately identified himself as an attorney and instead of making a very quick meal of him, the sharks formed a protective barrier and gave him an escort back to safety--professional courtesy on their part !! Now whether or not that's true, I don't know but sounds reasonable to me!
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 12:52 PM
katlady's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the lido deck with drink of the day
Posts: 13,008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post
I heard a group of sharks saved an attorney from drowning this a.m.
Seems in his haste to beat all the other attorneys who were anxiously awaiting arrival of the ship at the pier, holding up their signs with names, phone numbers, etc, this one hired a speed boat to run him out to the ship so he could circle it with his bullhorn giving his name, etc. and accidentally fell over board into a group of sharks--- he immediately identified himself as an attorney and instead of making a very quick meal of him, the sharks formed a protective barrier and gave him an escort back to safety--professional courtesy on their part !! Now whether or not that's true, I don't know but sounds reasonable to me!
Hey why are you picking on the Sharks that's just mean.
__________________
One part age; three parts liquor!

Freedom of the Seas 2012
Carnival Splendor 2010
Carnival Freedom 2008
Carnival Elation 2007
Celebrity Infinity 2006
Carnival Ecstasy 2005
Carnival Paradise 2004
Star Princess 2002
Viking Serenade 1994
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 02:09 PM
green_rd's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indianapolis (USA)
Posts: 5,543
Default

Carnival's latest update

CARNIVAL SPLENDOR UPDATE Miami, FL -- November 10, 2010 (12 noon EST)
The cruise ship Carnival Splendor, which lost power after experiencing an engine room fire, is currently being towed via tug boats to San Diego. Based on favorable sea conditions, the ship is expected to arrive around midday on Thursday.
As the ship gets closer to coastal areas, guests are now beginning to receive intermittent cellular service. Additionally, the ship's phone system is working on a limited basis and guests are able to make complimentary calls home.
A large Carnival team continues to work on hotel, flight and transportation arrangements for the guests and will be on the ground in San Diego when the ship arrives.
Guests continue to be provided food and beverage service and a limited schedule of activities. Toilets continue to function in most staterooms and all public restrooms.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
At approximately 6 am Monday (U.S. Pacific Standard Time), Carnival Splendor experienced a fire in the aft engine room. The fire was extinguished. There were no injuries to guests or crew.
The ship has been operating on auxiliary generators and engineers have been unable to restore additional power to the vessel.
The vessel's command is in contact with the U.S. Coast Guard which deployed assets to the cruise ship's location and provided additional provisions due to the lack of refrigeration on board.
Guests on the current voyage will be receiving a full refund along with reimbursement for transportation costs. Additionally, they will receive a complimentary future cruise equal to the amount paid for this voyage.
Carnival has also cancelled the Nov. 14 seven-day cruise from Long Beach. Guests scheduled to sail on this voyage will receive a full refund of their cruise fare and air transportation costs, along with a 25 percent discount on a future cruise.
Carnival Splendor was on the first leg of a seven-day Mexican Riviera cruise that departed Sunday, Nov. 7, from Long Beach, Calif. The ship's normal itinerary includes stops in Puerto Vallarta, Mazatlan and Cabo San Lucas. The ship, which measures 113,000 gross registered tons and first entered service in July 2008, is carrying 3,299 guests and 1,167 crew.
"We sincerely apologize to our guests for this unfortunate situation and offer our thanks for their patience and cooperation during this challenging time. The safety and comfort of our guests is our top priority and we are doing everything we can to allow them to return home as quickly as possible. We also apologize for having to cancel the next voyage of the Carnival Splendor. We realize how much guests look forward to their vacations and we know how disheartening it is to have their plans disrupted," said Gerry Cahill, Carnival's president and CEO.
Media contact information: 305-406-5464 or Media@carnival.com.
Contact information for family and friends of guests on board: 1-888-290-5095 or 305-406-5534
__________________
Bob

A Bad Day At Sea [with power] Always Beats A Good Day At Work
Carnival: Glory 2004, Destiny 2008, Splendor 2009, Freedom 2011, Valor 2012, Dream 2013
Celebrity: Summit 2011
Princess: Ruby 2010, 2014, Caribbean 2013, Coral 2014, Regal 2014
Star Clippers: Royal Clipper 2015
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 07:02 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

Linda,

Very interesting article!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Link
An early-morning fire in the generator compartment...
THE generator compatment??? A ship should have generators in more than one compartment, and the compartments should not be adjacent, so that a casualty which takes out one area of the ship will not take out all of its generating capabilities. If this ship has only one generator compartment, Carnival Corporation is much more remiss when it comes to safety than I would ever have envisioned.

Also, the main electrical distribution system should be configured to permit both isolation of a casualty that affects any main distribution line or bus and routing of power around the casualty. Additionally, the ship's main engines should be powered from different buses and vital loads such as the ship's navigational systems should be capable of receiving power from at least two independent "vital buses" supplied from a different pair of main distribution buses via automatic bus transfers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Link
"There are significant risks as these ships get bigger and bigger," said Kendall Carver, president of International Cruise Victims. "This one held over 4,000 people. The new ones owned by Royal Caribbean hold over 6,000 passengers and 2,000 crew members, over 8,000 people. A fire on a ship like that would be disastrous."
The size of the vessel is NOT the problem. In fact, a larger vessel affords the option to provide greater redundancy in the configuration of vital systems, and thus a higher margin of safety, and thus should be safer than a smaller vessel.

When it comes to safety, the critical issues are (1) the structural design of the hull, (2) the materials and workmanship in the vessel's construction, (3) the reliability and redundancy of the ship's systems, (4) the maintenance of the ship, and (5) the training of the crew to carry out casualty procedures promptly and efficiently whenever a problem arises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Link
But the new law only makes passing mention of fire safety issues, even though "the most serious event that can happen on a cruise ship is a main space fire, which is what happened on the Splendor," said Mark Gaouette, former director of security for Princess Cruises and author of the recently released "Cruising for Trouble."
A complete loss of propulsion (that is, going "dead in the water") is just as dangerous as a fire. If the currents crash a ship into a reef, rupturing the whole length of the hull, she WILL sink very quickly -- and a vessel that's "dead in the water" has no way to prevent this.

But that said, the standards of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) treaty, now in force, are generally quite adequate. At most, this week's casualty will expose a need for some relatively minor refinements of those standards. The SOLAS treaty additionally authorizes the authorities of any nation in whose ports a ship calls to inspect that ship for compliance with the SOLAS standards -- and both the United States Coast Guard and Canadian authorities actually DO conduct such inspections on EVERY cruise ship that calls in their nations' ports. Further, these inspections typically include evaluation of the crew's performance of casualty drills to assess the crew's training and preparedness to deal with an actual casualty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Link
On a Navy ship, Gaouette notes, every person has a fire-fighting role...
This is factually false. A Navy ship goes to "general quarters" (battle stations) during a major fire. Most of the sailors man gun mounts, missile systems, supplemental stations in the ship's Combat Information Center, bridge, signal stations, and propulsion stations, the ship's internal communications spaces, and combat medical stations. Embarked personnel who are not part of the ship's crew typically report to a place of safety analogous to the passenger muster stations on a cruise ship, where crew members are assigned to look after them. A relative handful of crew members report to damage control lockers to form firefighting and repair teams.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 08:45 PM
Spectra's Avatar
Member
Familiar Face
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 53
Default

Poor ship, I just got off the Splendor in July.

I don't even wanna imagine how life must be without AC and other things that make your life comfortable. Even though in July it was much warmer and I stood in line over an hour to get some Mongolian food.

At least they get their money back and credit for another cruise. I don't know if these particular people will ever sail with Carnival again but I think it could have happen to any cruise line. I once had to leave a plane because there was a technical problem (before we took off) but I'm still flying with US Airways.......
__________________



to Western Caribbean on Carnival Valor



Read and post cruise reviews
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 11:40 PM
Thoth's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Miz-sippy
Posts: 1,604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan View Post
Ever heard of the poop deck?
I thought about that, but didn't want to go there.
__________________
PAST TRIPS= Enchanted Capri
Carnival: Inspiration, Legend, Valor, Destiny, Holiday, Triumph, Splendor, Fantasy
HAL: Maasdam twice, Statendam, Oosterdam



Read and post cruise reviews


Read and post cruise reviews
/ticker.png">
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old November 10th, 2010, 11:42 PM
Thoth's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Miz-sippy
Posts: 1,604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post
I heard a group of sharks saved an attorney from drowning this a.m.
Seems in his haste to beat all the other attorneys who were anxiously awaiting arrival of the ship at the pier, holding up their signs with names, phone numbers, etc, this one hired a speed boat to run him out to the ship so he could circle it with his bullhorn giving his name, etc. and accidentally fell over board into a group of sharks--- he immediately identified himself as an attorney and instead of making a very quick meal of him, the sharks formed a protective barrier and gave him an escort back to safety--professional courtesy on their part !! Now whether or not that's true, I don't know but sounds reasonable to me!
yeah !
__________________
PAST TRIPS= Enchanted Capri
Carnival: Inspiration, Legend, Valor, Destiny, Holiday, Triumph, Splendor, Fantasy
HAL: Maasdam twice, Statendam, Oosterdam



Read and post cruise reviews


Read and post cruise reviews
/ticker.png">
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old November 11th, 2010, 12:48 PM
green_rd's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indianapolis (USA)
Posts: 5,543
Default

Latest from Carnival:

Miami, FL -- November 11, 2010 (11 am EST)
The cruise ship Carnival Splendor, which lost power after experiencing an engine room fire, is nearing San Diego and is in the process of proceeding into port. It is expected to arrive at the dock between 9 and 11 a.m. (PST).


Carnival has made arrangements for all guests to either travel home today or overnight in area hotels and has a large team of employees in San Diego to assist with these arrangements.


Guests will be receiving a full refund along with reimbursement for transportation costs. Additionally, they will receive a complimentary future cruise equal to the amount paid for this voyage.


"We wish to thank to our guests for their patience and cooperation during this very difficult situation and offer our sincerest apologies," said Gerry Cahill, Carnival's president and CEO.
__________________
Bob

A Bad Day At Sea [with power] Always Beats A Good Day At Work
Carnival: Glory 2004, Destiny 2008, Splendor 2009, Freedom 2011, Valor 2012, Dream 2013
Celebrity: Summit 2011
Princess: Ruby 2010, 2014, Caribbean 2013, Coral 2014, Regal 2014
Star Clippers: Royal Clipper 2015
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old November 11th, 2010, 01:51 PM
nlb1050's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fort Pierce, FL
Posts: 1,663
Default

I was watching the web cam at the dock and saw it arrive at 8:30am Pacific time.
__________________
Nancy



Guadeloupe Accommodations



Star Princess 2005, Sun Princess 2005
Caribbean Princess 2006, MSC Lirica 2006 , NCL Pearl 2007, Majesty of the Seas 2008, Carnival Destiny 2008, MSC Lirica 2009, Carnival Valor 2009,Carnival Legend 2010, Carnival Liberty 2010,Carnival Fantsay 2011,Carnival Valor Feb 2012, MSC Poesia Dec 2012, MSC Poesia April 2013, Carnival Legend Nov 2013, MSC DIVINA Jan 2014
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old November 11th, 2010, 05:45 PM
Junior Member
Familiar Face
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 24
Default

Lots of stuff to comment on here. First and foremost that article in the Herald was nothing but a sensationalist hit piece with incredibly poor fact checking and sources that were very anti-cruise industry. Pleas feel free to go back to the link and read my response to it.

It is extremely odd that a fire caused by one engine splitting it's crank case caused the other 5 engines on board to become inoperable. My guess would be that, as somebody already pointed out, a main electrical bus, and possibly back up redundant buses were destroyed by the fire. The emergency generators were obviously in a separate compartment and not affected by the fire. That is as it should be. It's important to remember that we are talking about a cruise ship here not a naval vessel. Naval vessels use separate engine rooms for each engine, and usually even space them apart as much as possible to avoid destruction of one engine crippling the ship. So far as I know the only passenger vessel ever built with this safe guard in mind at the same level of prevention and redundancy was the SS Unite States which was built under US Naval Supervision, with the US government picking up well over half the cost of the ship. Civilian vessels usually do not go to this extreme because such incidents are extremely rare. It's not deemed essential to pay for the added operational and construction cost inherit in such a design, and honestly the track record for modern passenger vessels bares that out. This incident is going to cost Carnival at lot less then it would have to build and all operate all of their vessels in the manner described here.

That being said, retrofitting their ships with more powerful emergency generators would seem to be a wise thing to do, so would inspecting all of their ship's engines for similar signs of failure. If it can happen to one it can happen to another. Relocation of the electrical buses so that they are less susceptible to fire damage would also seem to be a wise precaution. Finally I think Carnival might want to reconsider their maintenance and overhaul procedures. It wasn't so terribly long ago that MV Tropicale was stranded in the Gulf of Mexico without power as well. It really does make me wonder whether or not they keep their engineering spaces as well maintained as they should.

A few additional notes to add; Lifeboats can either be lowered manually or their davits have their own self contained power system for lowering. Such an eventuality as a ship power failure has been accounted for in the safety regulation governing the construction of passenger vessels. I doubt anybody sweated to death from the lack of AC. Outside temps were said to be in the 60s. I don't even run my household central air until they run into the 80s. At most it was probably a bit stuffy in the between decks space. Toilets were apparently out for 13 hours, and then restored. While that would be extremely unpleasant, I would imagine it would be something that could be dealt with. I'm sure more then a few of us have gone and forgotten to flush after wards or have had a beloved family member do the same. While it is revolting to find such a present it doesn't do any permanent damage to anyone. Good call on the SOLAS regulations pointed out by another poster here. While SOLAS can't foresee and prevent every complication, or emergency that can occur at see those regulations are remarkably comprehensive. They have been building on and refining those guidelines for almost a hundred years now, and they continue to refine and update them on a regular basis. It wouldn't surprise me if there aren't additions to the next set that come out that encompass this particular situation, in an effort to prevent a future occurrence.

Ashlee

PS

Just because I'm a girl doesn't mean I'm an idiot when it comes to machines and technical subjects.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old November 11th, 2010, 08:15 PM
Thoth's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Miz-sippy
Posts: 1,604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleeBelle View Post
Ashlee

PS

Just because I'm a girl doesn't mean I'm an idiot when it comes to machines and technical subjects.
Oh how true ! You just proved that point.
We can safely *assume* that the cruise industry will go back to the drawing board on future builds? Let's hope so.
It would be logical to design ships in a manner where one fire wouldn't cripple the whole vessel. Did that happen ? Apparently not
From my understanding there are allegedly several diesel engines which generate power which turn the electric motor pods. Would that not mean several generators ?...which means ONE generator fire should not totally cripple the ship. There does seem to be something quirky about this whole muddle.
__________________
PAST TRIPS= Enchanted Capri
Carnival: Inspiration, Legend, Valor, Destiny, Holiday, Triumph, Splendor, Fantasy
HAL: Maasdam twice, Statendam, Oosterdam



Read and post cruise reviews


Read and post cruise reviews
/ticker.png">
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old November 11th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 252
Send a message via ICQ to Cynda
Default

Honestly, I haven't posted here in probably a year, but I just logged in to say Bravo! to Carnival...for handling this as best as could be expected under the circumstances. Other than several medical concerns for passengers, I think the crew did a remarkable job from the accounts I've heard, of keeping passengers as comfortable as possible. I imagine the crew were experiencing just as much discomfort as the passengers, and yet they kept their cool.

Of course, I'd hope this particular ship is out of commission till all issues are resolved, but it would absolutely not keep me from taking a cruise on Carnival.

If I were a passenger from this cruise, I'd just be happy that I was back on dry land, on AMERICAN soil....the rest would have just gone down in my scrapbook as one heck of a story to tell!
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old November 11th, 2010, 09:52 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,908
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

My experience is that most cruise ships have pretty much the same configuration. All the engines are isolated in one room, which in this case was a good thing since there was a fire (how big I cannot say).

Gerry Cahill (Prez, CCL) said the rooms emergency fire response system triggered automatically - where the alarm goes off then the room is sealed and the oxygen sucked out and replaced with CO2.

My guess (pure guess) is that the resukting problem was probably more of a system problem (software or a small but unfixable part) and not a systemic problem.

I agree that bigger backup generators do make a LOT of sense. Some ships have these same Wartsilla motors, and then also have a separate set of clean gas engines - which they never use anymore because they are not cost efficient. But the ships that have these include the Celebrity Millennium class.

The part about the AC is true - it was cool outside, but for most Caribbean cruises that would have been a very serious problem, or just last week when it was in the 90s in those waters instead of the 60s.

They should put some toilets and some rooms on separate systems, it appears.

But this is indeed the worst case of a "dead ship" I have ever heard of.

But you may recall Norwegian Epic had an engine burn up in the shipyard after seatrials. They had to cut a whole in the hull and take it out sideways - not an easy trick.

Let's hope for Carnival the problem is a bit easier to fix. Like a maintenance guy saying "Oh, was I supposed to fill that with deisel? I thought you said 'Bill has the measles'."
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old November 12th, 2010, 08:47 PM
Phil&Liz's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,979
Send a message via Yahoo to Phil&Liz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter View Post
Gerry Cahill (Prez, CCL) said the rooms emergency fire response system triggered automatically - where the alarm goes off then the room is sealed and the oxygen sucked out and replaced with CO2.."
A curious point here. One can debate whether John Healds blog or Cahill's versions should be believed but here is what was on the blog...

Begin quote "The captain had conferred with Carnival’s Miami-based command center but ultimately the next choice was his and his alone.

Should he or should he not flood the entire engine room with CO2? This was a huge decision to make as it would mean flooding not just the area on fire but the whole engine room. He would need to make sure that all crew were out of the area because CO2 sucks oxygen from the air making it highly dangerous to people but good for putting out fires.

Captain Cupisti walked to the port side of the bridge……he opened the window and breathed in some fresh air. I stood next to him and put a hand on his shoulder, words were not necessary. A group of officers had gathered behind him. The walkie talkies had gone quiet as everyone waited. Nobody was going to intervene. The captain’s body language said that this was his decision alone to make and after taking one more gulp of air he turned on his heel, picked up the walkie talkie and calmly and with total self belief said, “Clear the engine room, we are going to deploy the CO2.” End quote.

So, are they automatic or not. To me, if they are automatic, wouldn't you want to ensure personnel were evacuated before deploying it?

Maybe HAL from 2001 Space Odyssey comes on the speaker and says " I will deploy the CO2 in one minute. Please leave now. Daisy Daisy...."
__________________
The Original Phil & Liz

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Margaret Thatcher

Never take an idiot travelling, you can always pick one up when you get there. Billy Connolly

I Didn't Come here and I ain't Leaving.
Willie Nelson

9/01/2013 Carnival Legend
2/16/2014 BC 7

Bill Murray
20 years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs. Please don't let Kevin Bacon die.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old November 12th, 2010, 10:50 PM
Member
Familiar Face
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 55
Default

Hope she'll be seaworthy by Dec 12 for my sailing.

Word is they hope to have her up and running by Mon next week.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old November 13th, 2010, 12:55 AM
Junior Member
Familiar Face
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 24
Default

I take it to mean that the warning system is automatic, but that sealing the engine room and piping Co2 in is a process that has to be activated manually. So I would call both reports correct, with the second one containing more exposition and detail.
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old November 13th, 2010, 10:29 AM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,858
Default

I really wish Halon suppression systems were still used. It was outlawed in 1994 because it is a CFC and all new installations must use CO2 or other suppression agent.

Halon is more effective than CO2 and does not force out the oxygen from an area making it a better alternative when humans are present. In other words it won't kill a person but the fire sure will. I've been in a sealed area when Halon was deployed and other than a somewhat unpleasant smell in my nose for a couple of days there were no problems. It also suppressed the electrical fire.

I'm all for a clean environment but there are instances where exceptions need to be made. The release of Halon would be minimal and the reduction in loss of life and property would far outweigh any minimal damage it would inflict on the atmosphere. Halon is still used in older systems and the current supply can be implemented into newer systems but because it is no longer produced the cost is ridiculously high.

Because of the toxicity of CO2 almost all release systems are manually controlled where Halon systems were automatic. There has been loss of life not from fire but from release of CO2. These people would still be alive if a Halon system was used.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old November 14th, 2010, 07:06 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

Ashlee,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You View Post
It is extremely odd that a fire caused by one engine splitting it's crank case caused the other 5 engines on board to become inoperable. My guess would be that, as somebody already pointed out, a main electrical bus, and possibly back up redundant buses were destroyed by the fire. The emergency generators were obviously in a separate compartment and not affected by the fire. That is as it should be. It's important to remember that we are talking about a cruise ship here not a naval vessel. Naval vessels use separate engine rooms for each engine, and usually even space them apart as much as possible to avoid destruction of one engine crippling the ship. So far as I know the only passenger vessel ever built with this safe guard in mind at the same level of prevention and redundancy was the SS Unite States which was built under US Naval Supervision, with the US government picking up well over half the cost of the ship. Civilian vessels usually do not go to this extreme because such incidents are extremely rare. It's not deemed essential to pay for the added operational and construction cost inherit in such a design, and honestly the track record for modern passenger vessels bares that out. This incident is going to cost Carnival at lot less then it would have to build and all operate all of their vessels in the manner described here.
The cost of splitting generators and main electrical buses between two non-adjacent compartments is pretty minimal. I would be stunned if the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requirements don't specify this, especially on passenger vessels. From the perspective of safety, any possibility that a single failure point could leave a ship "dead in the water" is completely unacceptable.

The more I think about this, the more I become suspicious that this tub was operating with some of her equipment out of commission. I find no other way around the "single failure point" consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
That being said, retrofitting their ships with more powerful emergency generators would seem to be a wise thing to do, so would inspecting all of their ship's engines for similar signs of failure. If it can happen to one it can happen to another. Relocation of the electrical buses so that they are less susceptible to fire damage would also seem to be a wise precaution.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Finally I think Carnival might want to reconsider their maintenance and overhaul procedures. It wasn't so terribly long ago that MV Tropicale was stranded in the Gulf of Mexico without power as well. It really does make me wonder whether or not they keep their engineering spaces as well maintained as they should.
Carnival Corporation had a slew of major safety-related incidents, nearly all of which appeared to be due to inattention to basic safety precautions and neglect of maintenance, across all of its cruise lines except Seaborne in the early years of the present decade. The company actually fired a very senior officer over this. In recent years, there was also a major fire on a Princess Cruises ship (IIRC, MV Star Princess) and an incident in which a Princess ship suddenly heeled, hurling both passengers and just about everything else that was not secured across the ship. At this point, I'm wondering what else has happened on this company's ships that has gone unreported in the press.

But that said, the present incident is the worst yet -- both a shipboard fire and a ship left "dead in the water" and thus totally adrift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
A few additional notes to add; Lifeboats can either be lowered manually or their davits have their own self contained power system for lowering. Such an eventuality as a ship power failure has been accounted for in the safety regulation governing the construction of passenger vessels.
I should hope so.

But does the crew know how to lower the lifeboats manually in an emergency? Have any of them actually done so during their emergency drills?

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Good call on the SOLAS regulations pointed out by another poster here. While SOLAS can't foresee and prevent every complication, or emergency that can occur at see those regulations are remarkably comprehensive. They have been building on and refining those guidelines for almost a hundred years now, and they continue to refine and update them on a regular basis. It wouldn't surprise me if there aren't additions to the next set that come out that encompass this particular situation, in an effort to prevent a future occurrence.
I presume that I'm the "another poster" to whom you refer, so thanks for your kind words -- and I agree completely with your analysis. The SOLAS regulations regarding non-structural materials in rails of balconies, etc., were modified after the Princess Cruises fire that I mentioned above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
PS

Just because I'm a girl doesn't mean I'm an idiot when it comes to machines and technical subjects.
Yes, I know. My alma mater always draws a slew of technically gifted young ladies. As a student, I knew many of them as classmates. Now, as an alumnus and a member of the Educational Council, I interview them as part of the undergraduate admissions process.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old November 14th, 2010, 08:02 PM
Kamloops Cruiser's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,130
Default

The latest information that was post was as follows

1 The ship had two individual engine rooms with 3 diesels.

2 The fire electrical in nature not petroleum or oil based.

3 For some reason the diesels in the forward engine shut down and
couldn't be started.

this info was posted on john Healds Blog.

Smoke On the Water – Part 4 John Heald's Blog

From my own experience ( 37+ yrs) in the electrical field , a number of this could of gone wrong.

! Most large diesels are started with compressed air. If the air system was damaged or couldn't be re charged therefore No diesel's.

2 The fire could of damaged the control system simply by over loading the wiring and then it could be burned up.

I would love to see a report on what actually happened otherwise everything is just speculation.
__________________





Ships Sailed:

SS Ithaca , Volendam , Mariner of the Seas (x2) , Veendam , Coral Princess , Island Princess (x3) , Emerald Princess,Sapphire Sapphire (x3),Diamond Princess
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old November 15th, 2010, 02:12 AM
Junior Member
Familiar Face
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 24
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17 View Post
Ashlee,



The cost of splitting generators and main electrical buses between two non-adjacent compartments is pretty minimal. I would be stunned if the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requirements don't specify this, especially on passenger vessels. From the perspective of safety, any possibility that a single failure point could leave a ship "dead in the water" is completely unacceptable.

The more I think about this, the more I become suspicious that this tub was operating with some of her equipment out of commission. I find no other way around the "single failure point" consideration.



I agree.



Carnival Corporation had a slew of major safety-related incidents, nearly all of which appeared to be due to inattention to basic safety precautions and neglect of maintenance, across all of its cruise lines except Seaborne in the early years of the present decade. The company actually fired a very senior officer over this. In recent years, there was also a major fire on a Princess Cruises ship (IIRC, MV Star Princess) and an incident in which a Princess ship suddenly heeled, hurling both passengers and just about everything else that was not secured across the ship. At this point, I'm wondering what else has happened on this company's ships that has gone unreported in the press.

But that said, the present incident is the worst yet -- both a shipboard fire and a ship left "dead in the water" and thus totally adrift.



I should hope so.

But does the crew know how to lower the lifeboats manually in an emergency? Have any of them actually done so during their emergency drills?



I presume that I'm the "another poster" to whom you refer, so thanks for your kind words -- and I agree completely with your analysis. The SOLAS regulations regarding non-structural materials in rails of balconies, etc., were modified after the Princess Cruises fire that I mentioned above.



Yes, I know. My alma mater always draws a slew of technically gifted young ladies. As a student, I knew many of them as classmates. Now, as an alumnus and a member of the Educational Council, I interview them as part of the undergraduate admissions process.

Norm.
It would be less then fair if we failed to point out that the fire on that Princess ship was most likely caused by a passenger carelessly throwing a lit cigarette off of an open balcony. Short of banning passengers from having cigarettes in their possession while aboard ship there is a limit as to what can be done to prevent such incidents. Honestly, if you let a passenger have a lighter, match or any other open flame there is a limit to what you can do to keep them from setting the ship on fire. In addition to that issue fires that smolder in a cabin can generally burn longer then anywhere else on the ship before being detected. What I'm getting at is that it's difficult to lay all the blame for that incident on the cruise line. I mention this because a lot of news agencies are bringing that story back up without giving all the mitigating circumstances. Like for instance, the one passenger who died in that incident, perished because of heart failure partially caused by a preexisting heart condition, and not by a cause directly related to the fire (other then stress from an emergency situation.)

Yes I know larger passenger ships have multiple engine rooms and part of the reason is to prevent this type of situation. However they don't take it to the same level naval vessels do anymore then they take water tight subdivision to the same level. Some of the reasons they don't have got to be economics. It's not just a cost of construction issue but a cost of operations issue as well. More extensive subdivision is going to mean more difficulty in operating accessing and serving the various engines.

If the crew aren't trained to lower those lifeboats with out power then that is as much an error on the part of the US Coast Guard as it is on Carnival. Regulations require that all crew members and passengers have lifeboat assignments and that all crew members are trained in operation of life saving equipment. It's up to the Coast Guard to inspect those drills and enforce those regulations.

I do believe Dooper has the right idea to be honest. Namely that they were unable to supply enough power to start the engines in the engine room unaffected by the fire. As a matter of fact I get the impression that they tried to do so for the better part of the first day and only called for towing assistance after they realized it wasn't going to happen. Now the big question aside from why did the fire start, is what happened that caused them to be unable to start those engines. Those are the two biggest questions that will have to be answered and addressed.

Somebody somewhere made a comment saying that these incidents just keep repeating themselves (I don't think it was here btw), but to be honest that's usually not the case. What happens is that we simply keep finding new ways to get in to trouble. Just as there is no such thing as an unsinkable ship, or a fireproof building, or an airplane that can't crash, there is always going to be someway that we can have an accident. The response to such a situation and what we learn from it are the important things that come out of it, at least in my opinion.

Last edited by AshleeBelle; November 15th, 2010 at 02:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old November 15th, 2010, 06:11 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,908
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

The safety officers definitely know how to lower the lifeboats without power. Every single crewmember will not know how to do this, but several people onboard will have this knowledge.

I said what I thought I heard Gerry Cahill say, but my memory may be wrong. It looks like it was a decision the captain made to use to fire suppressant system in the engine room - not that it was automatic.

I understand why navy ships need isolated engines - because they have to worry about rocket attacks. Cruise ships are different. They can be redundant without being in separate compartments. It may have made a difference in this case - but by the same token there is a good chance it would not have changed anything.

I agree - it is wrong to put this in the same category as the Star Princess fire. A fire in a stateroom would have been detected immediately. On Star Princess the fire was started on a balcony, from a smolder ciggy thrown overboard which landed on another balcony and set something a aglow which burst a large amount of material into flame all at once. It was virtually undetectable by the smoke detectors ships have by the thousands all over the ship.

The Princess ship that suddenly heeled was admitted to be pure human error. A sailor saw the autopilot correct the ship rather suddenly in one direction and thought it was odd, so he went to uncorrect it and accidentally went too far. The result of both actions caused a momentum in the ship's movement that resulted in a heavy list to one side.

Now - I am sure several ships have had engines burn out but it does not usually affect everything, so don't assume the ship is not designed well. It just happens that in this case something happened to stop any of them from operating. It could have been in the computer or the control cable from it - we don't know. It could be the deisel needing oxygen problem.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old November 15th, 2010, 07:35 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

AshleeBelle,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You View Post
It would be less then fair if we failed to point out that the fire on that Princess ship was most likely caused by a passenger carelessly throwing a lit cigarette off of an open balcony. Short of banning passengers from having cigarettes in their possession while aboard ship there is a limit as to what can be done to prevent such incidents. Honestly, if you let a passenger have a lighter, match or any other open flame there is a limit to what you can do to keep them from setting the ship on fire. In addition to that issue fires that smolder in a cabin can generally burn longer then anywhere else on the ship before being detected. What I'm getting at is that it's difficult to lay all the blame for that incident on the cruise line. I mention this because a lot of news agencies are bringing that story back up without giving all the mitigating circumstances. Like for instance, the one passenger who died in that incident, perished because of heart failure partially caused by a preexisting heart condition, and not by a cause directly related to the fire (other then stress from an emergency situation.)
Yes, your comment about the passenger who died in the fire on the Princess ship a couple years ago having a pre-existing heart condition is spot-on -- and IIRC, I noted that fact a few posts in this thread ago. Whether the stress of the moment was what triggered his death or not is another matter.

The cause of the Princess fire is open to question, but it appears that the main fuel of the fire was fuel from a supply line for the ship's boats. Indeed, the boat fuel was the only thing in the vicinity of the balconies that would burn hot enough to melt the steel structure. In any case, the fact remains that (1) there were no fire suppression systems on the balconies and (2) the transparent material in the balcony rails and the partitions between adjacent staterooms melted at far too low of a temperature. A subsequent amendment to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) standards rectified both of these deficiencies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Yes I know larger passenger ships have multiple engine rooms and part of the reason is to prevent this type of situation. However they don't take it to the same level naval vessels do anymore then they take water tight subdivision to the same level. Some of the reasons they don't have got to be economics. It's not just a cost of construction issue but a cost of operations issue as well. More extensive subdivision is going to mean more difficulty in operating accessing and serving the various engines.
Actually, most ships now have so-called "double hull" construction with so-called"voids" and tanks that would be the first spaces flooded during a rupture of the hull outboard of all manned spaces. I think that SOLAS virtually requires this.

But in any case, a ship must be able to flood any two adjacent exterior compartments below the water line, counterflood to restore trim, and remain afloat. This is basic marine safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
If the crew aren't trained to lower those lifeboats with out power then that is as much an error on the part of the US Coast Guard as it is on Carnival. Regulations require that all crew members and passengers have lifeboat assignments and that all crew members are trained in operation of life saving equipment. It's up to the Coast Guard to inspect those drills and enforce those regulations.
I agree to a point.

During an inspection, the Coast Guard does not have enough time to make the ship run every drill in the books. Rather, the inspectors choose a couple casualty scenarios randomly on each inspection and the crew runs those drills with the inspectors grading the crew's performance. Since the drills are done with the ship moored to a pier, I doubt that they actually lower lifeboats into the water. In fact, I wonder how many members of the crew who would have to lower a lifeboat manually in a casualty have actually have done so.

FWIW, I'm one of those people who thinks that the briefing given to passengers in "exit row" seats on an aircraft is woefully inadequate. Am I willing to open the door? Yes, but how do I know that I really can do so, in an emergency, if I have not done it? Yet every time I sit in the window seat of an exit row and suggest that I should do so before the plane leaves the gate, I get a rather frantic "No! No! Don't do that!" from the flight attendant!

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I do believe Dooper has the right idea to be honest. Namely that they were unable to supply enough power to start the engines in the engine room unaffected by the fire. As a matter of fact I get the impression that they tried to do so for the better part of the first day and only called for towing assistance after they realized it wasn't going to happen. Now the big question aside from why did the fire start, is what happened that caused them to be unable to start those engines. Those are the two biggest questions that will have to be answered and addressed.
Absolutely! If all of the generators in the other compartment were inoperable, for whatever reason, the cruise line is seriously negligent. The emergency generator should have been able to supply enough power to start at one of them, since that is its primary purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Somebody somewhere made a comment saying that these incidents just keep repeating themselves (I don't think it was here btw), but to be honest that's usually not the case. What happens is that we simply keep finding new ways to get in to trouble. Just as there is no such thing as an unsinkable ship, or a fireproof building, or an airplane that can't crash, there is always going to be someway that we can have an accident. The response to such a situation and what we learn from it are the important things that come out of it, at least in my opinion.
I realize that there will be occasional incidents even on the best cruise line.

Nonetheless, I get very concerned when I see incidents that scream of deficient maintenance or basic neglect of safety and sanitation, especially when those incidents put the vessel and/or the lives all onboard in serious jeopardy. When it comes to such jeopardy, this incident is a "two-fer" with both a fire at sea and a vessel left "dead in the water."

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old November 15th, 2010, 10:58 PM
Junior Member
Familiar Face
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 24
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17 View Post
AshleeBelle,



Yes, your comment about the passenger who died in the fire on the Princess ship a couple years ago having a pre-existing heart condition is spot-on -- and IIRC, I noted that fact a few posts in this thread ago. Whether the stress of the moment was what triggered his death or not is another matter.

The cause of the Princess fire is open to question, but it appears that the main fuel of the fire was fuel from a supply line for the ship's boats. Indeed, the boat fuel was the only thing in the vicinity of the balconies that would burn hot enough to melt the steel structure. In any case, the fact remains that (1) there were no fire suppression systems on the balconies and (2) the transparent material in the balcony rails and the partitions between adjacent staterooms melted at far too low of a temperature. A subsequent amendment to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) standards rectified both of these deficiencies.



Actually, most ships now have so-called "double hull" construction with so-called"voids" and tanks that would be the first spaces flooded during a rupture of the hull outboard of all manned spaces. I think that SOLAS virtually requires this.

But in any case, a ship must be able to flood any two adjacent exterior compartments below the water line, counterflood to restore trim, and remain afloat. This is basic marine safety.



I agree to a point.

During an inspection, the Coast Guard does not have enough time to make the ship run every drill in the books. Rather, the inspectors choose a couple casualty scenarios randomly on each inspection and the crew runs those drills with the inspectors grading the crew's performance. Since the drills are done with the ship moored to a pier, I doubt that they actually lower lifeboats into the water. In fact, I wonder how many members of the crew who would have to lower a lifeboat manually in a casualty have actually have done so.

FWIW, I'm one of those people who thinks that the briefing given to passengers in "exit row" seats on an aircraft is woefully inadequate. Am I willing to open the door? Yes, but how do I know that I really can do so, in an emergency, if I have not done it? Yet every time I sit in the window seat of an exit row and suggest that I should do so before the plane leaves the gate, I get a rather frantic "No! No! Don't do that!" from the flight attendant!



Absolutely! If all of the generators in the other compartment were inoperable, for whatever reason, the cruise line is seriously negligent. The emergency generator should have been able to supply enough power to start at one of them, since that is its primary purpose.



I realize that there will be occasional incidents even on the best cruise line.

Nonetheless, I get very concerned when I see incidents that scream of deficient maintenance or basic neglect of safety and sanitation, especially when those incidents put the vessel and/or the lives all onboard in serious jeopardy. When it comes to such jeopardy, this incident is a "two-fer" with both a fire at sea and a vessel left "dead in the water."

Norm.
I wish to make a correction to the previous information I posted here. The passenger who died in the Star Princess incident died as a direct result of smoke inhalation which was complicated by a preexisting heart condition, not from heart failure as indirect result of the emergency situation caused by the fire. I posted this information in good faith, having pulled it directly from a blog on the cruisemates website. I assumed the blogger had fact checked his article before posting it and I was wrong. I should have looked for secondary sources to either confirm or deny this information before posting it here and elsewhere and I apologize for not doing so.

I am posting a direct link to the MAIB report on the Star Princess here. It makes for fascinating reading, and is by far the most complete information I have seen on that incident.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...20Princess.pdf

I do not see any reference to fuel for the ships boats being an accelerant in that incident in the accident report. Rather it was apparently a case of highly combustible materials with a low flash point being used for the balcony partitions, coupled with glass that was not fire retardant being used in the balcony doors that caused that fire to become such a danger to the passengers and crew. The origin of the fire does seem to have been a discarded cigarette that had not been properly extinguished. Everything else you noted is in fact correct and in the accident report.

The two compartment construction design dates all the way back to the Titanic and has been the standard for marine safety ever since then. As it is quite unusual for a ship to be breached in such a way that more then two compartments might be flooded at the same time (Titanic was breached in 6). The Andrea Doria sank or rather capsized in 1956 despite this design precaution because she was improperly ballasted at the time of her collision with the Stockholm. I am aware that all tankers are now required to be double hulled but I have not find any information that states all passenger vessels are required to be. If anybody can find this information and post it, I (among others probably) would be interested in reading up on it.

On at least 3 out of 5 cruises I have seen the crew lower lifeboats to the water and even operate them. I have seen this pier side in St Thomas and Miami, and I have also seen it twice in Grand Cayman (an excellent place to do so since the ship anchors instead of docking). How they chose to lower the boats I couldn't tell you. However 3 out of 5 weeks tells me that they do it frequently. Overall I view the training that crew members receive in emergency situations about on par with what I would expect out of a National Guard unit's combat training. It won't necessarily be up to daily fire fighter or emt standards but it is probably a lot better then you might expect.

I believe my very first post here mentioned that I too have concerns about Carnivals maintenance standards. While they probably don't intend to be negligent the need to keep those ships in service, and fully booked has got to be intense, especially right now with the economy in such a tailspin. The temptation to let things slide just a little especially in redundant or backup systems has got to be pretty high. What's even more troubling here is the fact that this ship is only 2 years old. Either there was a design defect in the vessel or one or more of it's components or some incredibly poor maintenance had to be taking place. I'm inclined to believe that just as with Apollo 13 there was probably a flawed component installed that went undetected until it became a major system failure. Such things can and will happen even in the very best engineered and maintained systems in the world.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old November 16th, 2010, 07:26 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

Ashlee,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You View Post
I wish to make a correction to the previous information I posted here. The passenger who died in the Star Princess incident died as a direct result of smoke inhalation which was complicated by a preexisting heart condition, not from heart failure as indirect result of the emergency situation caused by the fire. I posted this information in good faith, having pulled it directly from a blog on the cruisemates website. I assumed the blogger had fact checked his article before posting it and I was wrong. I should have looked for secondary sources to either confirm or deny this information before posting it here and elsewhere and I apologize for not doing so.
I appreaciate your correction of the record. I, too, was working off of memory. In any case, the bottom line is that the passenger's pre-existing condition was a material contributor to the death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I am posting a direct link to the MAIB report on the Star Princess here. It makes for fascinating reading, and is by far the most complete information I have seen on that incident.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...20Princess.pdf

I do not see any reference to fuel for the ships boats being an accelerant in that incident in the accident report. Rather it was apparently a case of highly combustible materials with a low flash point being used for the balcony partitions, coupled with glass that was not fire retardant being used in the balcony doors that caused that fire to become such a danger to the passengers and crew. The origin of the fire does seem to have been a discarded cigarette that had not been properly extinguished. Everything else you noted is in fact correct and in the accident report.
I did read this report, in its entirity, when it first came out. But whether the report explicitly attributed the lines to refuel the boats or not, the reality that's quite clear from the photos showing deformed steel of the balconies is that something burned hot enough to melt steel. The boat fuel is the only thing in the vicinity that would burn with such heat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
On at least 3 out of 5 cruises I have seen the crew lower lifeboats to the water and even operate them. I have seen this pier side in St Thomas and Miami, and I have also seen it twice in Grand Cayman (an excellent place to do so since the ship anchors instead of docking). How they chose to lower the boats I couldn't tell you. However 3 out of 5 weeks tells me that they do it frequently. Overall I view the training that crew members receive in emergency situations about on par with what I would expect out of a National Guard unit's combat training. It won't necessarily be up to daily fire fighter or emt standards but it is probably a lot better then you might expect.
I have also seen ship's boats lowered during ports of call, but not necessarily during emergency drills.

>> In tender ports, it's common to use the ship's boats for transport.

>> It's also quite common to use the ship's boats to do maintenance such as cleaning and painting on the exterior of the hull.

>> And sometimes, the ship will lower a boat to test its operation after doing maintenance or repairs on the boat itself.

But none of this normally involves lowering a boat manually.

That said, the crew does have to do emergency drills that cover all possible situations routinely because they never know in advance which casualties the Coast Guard or a foreign inspecting authority will choose to observe during an inspection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I believe my very first post here mentioned that I too have concerns about Carnivals maintenance standards. While they probably don't intend to be negligent the need to keep those ships in service, and fully booked has got to be intense, especially right now with the economy in such a tailspin. The temptation to let things slide just a little especially in redundant or backup systems has got to be pretty high. What's even more troubling here is the fact that this ship is only 2 years old. Either there was a design defect in the vessel or one or more of it's components or some incredibly poor maintenance had to be taking place. I'm inclined to believe that just as with Apollo 13 there was probably a flawed component installed that went undetected until it became a major system failure. Such things can and will happen even in the very best engineered and maintained systems in the world.
The reality is that maintenance and training cost money, and Carnival Corporation's management is about the bottom line on the financial statements. In the past, the company has been bitten badly by cutting too many corners on maintenance and training to fatten its bottom line. I think that this strategy is "penny wise and pound foolish" -- this casualty has already cost Carnival Corporation more in compensation and lost revenue than it saved in cut corners, and I doubt that the company's insurance will cover very much of it. There's no telling how much more the company will lose due to prospective passengers deciding to cruise on other companies' cruise lines, or not to cruise at all, as a result of this casualty.

I'm reminded of the poster showing an open safety pin that bears the words, "Safety first. Get the point?"

Norm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
assessment, cancel, carnival, casualty, costco, cruise, damage, full, inspection, inspiration, long, people, refund, splendor, update

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fire on Carnival Splendor cruiseeeeaddict Teen Cruisers 28 January 15th, 2011 05:22 AM
Splendor check in. Who is going on Splendor and when? katlady Carnival Cruise Lines 594 December 15th, 2010 10:34 PM
Carnival Splendor - Mexico cruises on Fire Sale Paul Motter Carnival Cruise Lines 4 February 11th, 2010 04:39 PM
Fire! CruisinK n J Chit - Chat for Cruisers 7 November 16th, 2008 01:11 PM
FIRE!!! pink*peanut Teen Cruisers 6 April 2nd, 2006 08:44 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:39 PM.
design by: Themes by Design

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1