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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old July 20th, 2006, 08:43 PM
Fieldmouse's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cruise Guy
It would not surprize me at all if some of our members blamed this incident on a careless smoker.
OH...I'M SURE IT WAS CAUSED BY A CARELESS SMOKER...!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old July 20th, 2006, 08:54 PM
Fieldmouse's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richstacy
Fieldmouse, Why do you find it "very very sad?" Almost everyone survived relatively unscathed, only two fairly serious injuries and now they are saying those weren't as serious as at first thought. Very, very sad to me, is when lots of folks are killed. I'm reminded of when the horizontal stabilizer got stuck on on the Alaska airlines DC-9 a few years back and about 90 people were killed.

It is, however, puzzling and somewhat disconcerting that such a thing could occur on a modern cruise ship. Apparently the autopilot systems need some failsafe backups built into them to prevent a real tragady somewhere down the road. Maybe technology is still ahead of us. I hope this will be seen as awake up call by the industry.
You're right...I miswrote...I meant to write, "it's not too sad...only slightly sad. We have to consider only a few people were not as seriously injured as first thought...and everyone else was just injured, bruised, or badly shaken...but that's only...let's see...let me find the right words...o.k...how's this: that's only a little bit sad. I'll save the very very sad for incidents were folks are actually killed or badly maimed. (don't want to use up all our sympthy words willy nilly do we?) 8)
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old July 20th, 2006, 09:11 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,589
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Well, actually this is how I see it. A deck hand was up on the bridge having a cigarette, and he was leaning against the joystick without realizing he was pushing it hard left. He reached down to stub his cigarette out on the sole of his shoe, and when he did that, he steadied himself with his other hand on the counter by placing it on the "auto-pilot OFF" switch, which he did not see flashing red because the ship started to turn and he fell on the floor. And here is the amazing part, he rolled right off of the open bridge and fell into the sea, so no one ever knew he was even there.

(the above is purely a joke - not meant to be taken seriously)
__________________
I am the editor, but I also speculate, ask questions and play devil's advocate. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old July 20th, 2006, 10:07 PM
kimbo's Avatar
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Georgia
Posts: 381
Default

I knew it was a no good smoker!

I hate it for all those on board had such a scary experience. My thoughts are with them.

Then again, these are the risks you take if you choose to live life! In any daily routine...crap happens, sometimes a little bigger then other times.

Yes, tomorrow at work...I will hear it from my anticruise coworkers.... (and my anticruise family will call to fill me in too) "Did you hear about the cruise ship that flipped over?" "You still gonna go on your cruises after that??!"

geeze, these people just dont know what they are missing.
__________________
DOLPHIN OCEAN BREEZE 1993
CARNIVAL CELEBRATION 1999
CARNIVAL GLORY 2004
NCL JEWEL 4/9/2006
DISNEY WONDER 6/15/06
NCL SUN 1/23/07 (girls trip!)
NCL PEARL 3/30/07
RCCI MAJESTY OF THE SEAS 8/27/07
NCL Sky 8/31/09 (Mom's Bday Cruise)
Disney Magic 10/17/09 with the baby!!
Next Cruise...NCL Dawn 6/6/10 NYC to Bermuda ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 12:58 AM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GYMNASTQUEENVAL
I don't want to upset the apple cart.We were on the Crown July2-11 and so many problems occured with our trip. We had no air conditioning, the fridge didn't work for the entire 9 days. To start off we never got to our 1st port due to fuel problems. Then I paid for a tripple balocny and we had no 3rd berth for my granddaughter. They gave us a rollaway cot, which was placed in front of our balcony door. So I have very limited use of my balcony! The food wasn't very good, the shows were poor, I really expected things to work out better than they did for a Brand new ship. With all the above inconveiences it put a damper on our cruise and was less enjoyable. I do have to say the problems we encountered were not half as bad as what happened today with the ship. May god bless the injuried and and return everyone home safely.
I was on the same cruise that this person was, or at least I thought I was. I thought the food and entertainment was excellent. As for missing the first port - the fuel barge that was sent to refuel the ship had contaminated fuel and it was rejected. The ship sailed at 1 in the morning instead of at 5 PM. The port we missed was Grand Turk which is a big NOTHING. In order to make up for that minor inconvinence Princess gave everyone on the ship $200 in shipboard credit. I guess if you put some people in the Garden of Eden they would find something wrong with it. I think the Crown Princess is one of the best ships I have sailed on and I have been on more than 60 cruises.
Jim.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 01:13 AM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
In any case, my curiosity would like to know (1) the speed of the ship at the time of the incident, (2) the rudder angle applied during the turn, and (3) the amount of heel that occurred. If you see this information anywhere, please post it.

Norm.
My curiousity is about this... and I am probably saying something stupid, but I am admittedly not a yachtsman....

the ship listed to port (which means it leaned toward the left when facing forward, correct? That would imply they were making a right right turn, right?, since a ship will tend to list away from the angle of the turn (correct me if I am wrong) - they are not like bicycles where they lean into the turn, the bouyancy tends to make the top of ship lean away from the angle of the turn.

Am I wrong or crazy? Or were they turning the wrong direction to get to NY City?

Actually, after much research I did that there uis something in ship handling called a "kick" which is: Momentary movement, at the start of a turn, of the ship’s stern toward the side opposite the direction of the turn .

So, was the listing (which they said was part of a turn), due to the kick? and if so, weren't they turning the wrong way?

I also agree with the post above - if a computer senses a ship at such a degree of list, something should kick in to turn that off immediately. In fact, such a thing should not ever be allowed to be programmed into an autopilot, and should only be able to be done manually (say, if an iceberg is spotted).
You are completeky wrong. If the ship were turning to port it would heel in that same direction. It works exactly the same as a bicycle>
Jim..
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 09:33 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,772
Default

Paul,

the ship listed to port (which means it leaned toward the left when facing forward, correct? That would imply they were making a right right turn, right?, since a ship will tend to list away from the angle of the turn (correct me if I am wrong)

Correct so far.

they are not like bicycles where they lean into the turn, the bouyancy tends to make the top of ship lean away from the angle of the turn.

Actually, they are just like automobiles and bicycles, where the turning force comes from the tires in contact with the pavement, well below the center of mass of the vehicle, except that the inertia of a vehicle's wheels actually enhance this torque. When rounding a corner on a bicycle, the rider must lean into the turn to counter the torque about the longitudinal axis that's caused by the application of turning force at the bottom of the vehicle and the inertia of the wheels. (I probably should clarify a couple terms. "Momentum" is the tendency of an object in linear motion to continue its linear motion. "Inertia" is the tendency of a spinning or rotating object to continue spinning or rotating about the same axis. When you apply a torque to the axis of a spinning object, the axis of rotation actually rotates about an axis perpendicular to both the axis of rotation the axis of the torque due to the effect of the inertia. On a bicycle, leaning into a turn applies a torque to the wheels that causes the wheels to rotate in the direction of the turn in addition to creating a gravitational torque that counters the torque of friction between the tires and the road. But this probably is getting way too technical....)

Actually, after much research I did that there uis something in ship handling called a "kick" which is: Momentary movement, at the start of a turn, of the ship’s stern toward the side opposite the direction of the turn .

Yes, there is such a "kick," but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the heel. In fact, the immediate action of the officers on the bridge, if they observe somebody falling overboard, is to put the rudders to the side on which the person is falling so the "kick" will move the screws away from the individual. This action is also the first part of the maneuver to recover the man overboard, which may be by a loop turn, a Williamson turn, or wye backing.

Anyway, the cause of this "kick" is the fact that the steering comes from rudders (or azipods) located at the stern (trailing end) rather than at the bow (leading end) of the vessel. When one turns the rudders (or azipods) to either side, they apply a force toward the opposite side at the stern of the vessel. This force creates a torque about the vertical maneuvering axis of the vessel, typically located about 1/3 of the way from the stem (the "point" of the bow) to the stern, that causes the vessel to turn toward the side to which one turned the rudders (or azipods). You can see the exactly the same behavior in your car if you turn while backing up -- when you turn the steering wheel, it turns the trailing (front) tires in a direction that moves the trailing end (the front of the car) in the direction opposite the direction of the turn. And just like backing up in your car, the officers on the bridge really don't worry about this "kick" unless they are maneuvering in tight quarters.

Am I wrong or crazy?

Well, I know quite a few people who think that anybody who enjoys cruising as much as we do must be totally crazy....

Or were they turning the wrong direction to get to NY City?

Perhaps, and perhaps the person who gave the information to the reporter got disoriented (turned around) and consequently confused port and starboard.

JTOL, there's a pretty strong northward current called the "Gulf Stream" off the coast of Florida, and the ship probably had to travel eastward a certain distance to get clear of the coast before turning northward so the navigator probably programmed a waypoint for the turn into the autopilot. The Gulf Steam would have pushed the ship to the left of the track predicted by dead reckoning between updates in the inertial navigaton system. Thus, an update from the global positioning system would have shifted the internal estimate of the ship's position to the north by a significant amount. If this occurred just as the ship was approaching the waypoint for the turn, the autopilot may well have reacted by turning sharply to starboard to reach the specified waypoint.....

So, was the listing (which they said was part of a turn), due to the kick?

The behavior is actually a "heel" (leaning during a turn) rather than a "list" (steady lean even when going straight ahead), but it is a different dynamic entirely than the "kick." The dnamic of a heel is entirely different from that of the kick, caused by the fact that the center of lateral forces in a turn is well below the center of gravity.

In fact, such a thing should not ever be allowed to be programmed into an autopilot, and should only be able to be done manually (say, if an iceberg is spotted).

That's very true. The autopilot's program should have a constraint on the maximum permitted rudder angle as a function of the speed of the vessel.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 09:37 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,772
Default

jim130,

You are completeky wrong. If the ship were turning to port it would heel in that same direction. It works exactly the same as a bicycle>

Well, you are half right -- it does work the same as a bicycle. In a turn, a bicycle naturally would flip to the outside of a turn for the reasons that I explained in my reply to Paul. The rider must lean toward the inside of the turn to counter this tendency.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 11:18 AM
Dave the Wave's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St Petersburg, Florida
Posts: 6,349
Send a message via MSN to Dave the Wave Send a message via Yahoo to Dave the Wave
Default

My theory is that the Bermuda Triangle caused the abrupt turn. This is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
__________________
Dave the Wave AKA- Diamond Dave


Read and post cruise reviews

Song of America Dec '90
Starship Majestic May '89
Sovereign X 5
Majesty Jul '01
Enchantment X 4
Regal Empress Dec '02
Sensation '04
Mariner May '07 April '08
Grandeur Feb '08
Inspiration Oct '08
Radiance of the Seas Oct '10
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 11:49 AM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,589
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Thanks for the in-depth explanation, Rev.
__________________
I am the editor, but I also speculate, ask questions and play devil's advocate. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Reply With Quote
  #71 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 02:07 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
jim130,

You are completeky wrong. If the ship were turning to port it would heel in that same direction. It works exactly the same as a bicycle>

Well, you are half right -- it does work the same as a bicycle. In a turn, a bicycle naturally would flip to the outside of a turn for the reasons that I explained in my reply to Paul. The rider must lean toward the inside of the turn to counter this tendency.

Norm.
Very lengthly explanation but you are still completely WRONG. The ship heels over into the direction that it is turning. If it is turning to port it will heel (lean) (list) to port.
Jim.
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 04:14 PM
richstacy's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Denver Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,413
Default

No, norm is right, a boat with an outboard motor will do that, i guess because of hull design, but a large ship at high speed will heel out, away from the turn. Basic physics. With centrifugal force, how could it be otherwise? If you've ever seen films of Navy ships doing high speed turns you have seen this happen. Get a string and put a weight on the end. Then spin around several times. the weight moves away from your body, not toward it. Same thing.
__________________
RichStacy
Landlocked in Denver, but cruisin every chance we get.

Polynesia, Carib. '86
Cr. Odyssey, Scandinavia, '91, 30 Day S Pac. 2002
Crystal Harm, Aust., N.Z., '94
Royal Odyssey, AK,'96
Old Cr. Pr. Canal, '97
RCCL, Carib, 1998
Volendam, Car, 2000
Ryndam, 35 day S. Am., Antarctica, '03
Is. Pr., Canal, 2004
Statendam, 34 day China, Japan, AK '06
Cr.Pr., Carib. 08
Eurodam, Atlantic, Med. '10
Golden Princess
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 05:25 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 288
Default

Jim, Rev and richstacy are right, you might want to think over your theory again. You are talking apples and oranges here.

P.S. Norm, when are you going to tell us how to build that watch?
__________________
If ya ain't cruising ya ain't livin!!
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 06:34 PM
Junior Member
Beginner
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8
Default

On Monday I will know the exact reason the ship malfunctioned!
How will I know this you ask
I have a room booked at a Holiday Inn Express this weekend. We are staying 2 nights just to make sure we get the correct answer.
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 09:44 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 288
Default

I still say it was some obnoxious smoker throwing a lighted cigarette in the navigation system.
__________________
If ya ain't cruising ya ain't livin!!
Reply With Quote
  #76 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 11:14 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,772
Default

Jim,

Very lengthly explanation but you are still completely WRONG. The ship heels over into the direction that it is turning. If it is turning to port it will heel (lean) (list) to port.

Sorry, but I'm a former naval officer who has been on many ships without stabilizers on which a heel of thirty degrees in a turn was no big deal. We strapped everything down routinely because rolls of forty-five degrees were pretty normal in storms and we went through them quite routinely if they were in our path. Our only passengers were marines, and if their faces turned the same shade of green as their uniforms... well, that was their problem; not ours, unlike passengers on a cruise ship. When I say that a ship heels to the outside of the turn, I'm speaking from personal experience as well as from knowledge of theoretical physics and ship design. Of course, some cruise ships may use their stabilizers to counter the natural heel of the ship.

BTW, airplanes exhibit the opposite behavior because they turn by rolling so that the lift from the wings causes them to turn.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 11:20 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,772
Default

The Cruise Guy,

P.S. Norm, when are you going to tell us how to build that watch?

The mechancs of a watch are beyond my field of expertise, but I do know that you need a couple sets of gears with an overall 60:1 ratio....

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2006, 11:49 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
Jim,

Very lengthly explanation but you are still completely WRONG. The ship heels over into the direction that it is turning. If it is turning to port it will heel (lean) (list) to port.

Sorry, but I'm a former naval officer who has been on many ships without stabilizers on which a heel of thirty degrees in a turn was no big deal. We strapped everything down routinely because rolls of forty-five degrees were pretty normal in storms and we went through them quite routinely if they were in our path. Our only passengers were marines, and if their faces turned the same shade of green as their uniforms... well, that was their problem; not ours, unlike passengers on a cruise ship. When I say that a ship heels to the outside of the turn, I'm speaking from personal experience as well as from knowledge of theoretical physics and ship design. Of course, some cruise ships may use their stabilizers to counter the natural heel of the ship.

BTW, airplanes exhibit the opposite behavior because they turn by rolling so that the lift from the wings causes them to turn.

Norm.
Rev - I have to apologize you are right and I was completely wrong. I guess I was thinking of my experience with outboard runabouts. I really should have thought the whole thing through before I shot my mouth off. I spent 4 years on a Navy Destroyer and really should have known better. Once again my sincere apologies.
Jim..
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 08:08 AM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,589
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

I'm just glad I sat back and let the experts settle it, I thought I was right! So, once again, it implies the ship was turning the wrong direction to get to NYC. The reason I keep bringing this up is because it does factor in to whether or not this was operator (programming, even) error, or a total malfunction.

Though it is possible they would program a turn to the wrong direction, it is unlikely, I would think. For one thing, it's a long haul and they need to go near top speed, as they said the ship was doing when this happened.
__________________
I am the editor, but I also speculate, ask questions and play devil's advocate. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 10:20 AM
georgeny's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 77
Default

I have read this topic with interest as we are booked onboard the Crown Princess for the Oct 18 sailing and of course because I am a cruiseaholic. Frankly all the conjecture withstanding, the true cause may be one minor glitch or a combination of errors compounding one another.

You may read http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/mar9701.pdf the report of the grounding of the Royal Majesty near Nantucket June of 1995 to see how easily a combination of errors can cause what we would normally consider an unthinkable set of events.

In this case it all started with a simple gps attennae connector coming undone causing the gps to go into Dead Reconing mode right after sailing from bermuda. MULTIPLE errors after that point ended in the grounding. It is truly enlightening to read such NTSB reports.

I toured a ship s few years ago in NY harbor ( since I cannot find the report I originally read I will not name the ship ). The ship was brand new and on an inaugural sailing to show her off. She left NY and headed off to Boston and grounded enroute I believe. The subsequent report read much like the one I noted here. Little things like depth alarm being set to ZERO because of annoying alarm sound, ignoring fiherman trying to alert ship that it was not in channel and said fisherman being told to get off emergency freqency instead of ascertaining what fisherman were trying to tell them.

Reliance of sophsticated equipment without remaining true to time honored secondary checks like position checks or visual bouy sitings can easily cause such events and though not forgiveable can be understood. All jobs, even ship sailing have boredom and routine associated with them which can cause the lack of paying attention to detail. It's that simple in many cases.

Yes this was a terrible incident and the injuries caused horrific. However such accidents can never be truly prevented. Human error, equipment malfunction, compunding of simple mistakes, unusual conditions, poor original design, or just plain fate will always prove out the old adage, accidents happen.

In 50 plus cruises over 22 years I have twice encountered an unexpected heeling to one side. In both cases damage and injuries were sustained to various degrees minor compared to this incident however.

Celebrity Zenith 1994 from my review: RESCUE at SEA - On the way to Jamaica we pass the lovely Isle of Cuba. Apparently lovely to us but not to those that live there. This is evidenced by the often heard about fleeing by Cuban citizens. As I was seated on the aft deck close to the cooking hamburgers eating one of same, I noted that the ship had suddenly commenced a wide turn. As this was unusual because no land was anywhere to be seen, I started to pay attention. Following our wake with my eye I saw something floating just past where our wake had made a turn. I also noted that we were continuing the circle that we had started with the turn. Although a freighter was off out stern at some distance it didn't seem to be an influence of our going off course. The freighter turned and started towards us. At the point the Captain made a hard turn causing wine bottles and plates to fall about. Believe me making a turn hard enough to cause a substantial list is a real hard course correction on a ship this size! Shortly we could make out what was going on. The bridge watch Officer had spotted (fortunately for them since had he not we would have ridden right over them judging from out wake and there location) a small wooden boat complete with 8 CubanAEs waving said Cuban flag. I say boat but that is a loose interpretation. It was more a closet door or a canoe with 8 people on it.

In that case the pool water left the midship and ran by me in the aft. There was quite a bit of damage from breakage and YES it was scary as hell when happening.

The other time was sailing out of Bermuda when our ship was hit by what I could only describe as an unusual or rogue wave. Not huge by any stretch but enough to cause a momentary large list.

Bottom line is that ship are floating, moving, vehicles and are subject to erratic movement at any time. That isn't going to change. And since it can happen on any ship being overly concerned about one particular ship doesn't seem justified. I am not concerned about my impending sailing on board the Crown Princess. I actually get more concerned about continued so so reports on food and service issues that are more likely to impact my cruise than a repeat of this incident.
__________________
George in NY
Reply With Quote
  #81 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 01:42 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,589
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

I agree George, having spent nearly two years on cruise ships, with my "professional" time on board and leisure time all combined, I can say that accidents at sea are for the most highly unusual, and I will whip out the old saw about it still being the safest way to travel possible.

But I won't discount the fright factor or diminish the seriousness of the injuries these people sustained.

That being said, with all my time at sea I have experienced some strange things like high seas where stage lighting fell to the ground, and grand pianos rolled across the rooms. But serious injuries at sea from such events are extremely rare. The rogue wave of Norwegian Dawn and QM2 only resulted in a few relatively minor injuries, as I recall. So, my point is, if you are thinking cruising is "dangerous", or perhaps more dangerous than it used to be, it isn't. The level of "danger" has if anything lessened as technology and experience makes for better practices going forward.

You certainly hear more about these things than you used to, as cruising has a much higher profile now than it ever did before. Also - incidents happen more frequently now because there are just so many more ships.

And George is right about accidents involving collisions at sea, Ships don't have brakes. And the way a collision works is like this... you know who you are walking down a sidewalk and someone is approaching, and you both try to avoid each other by shifting to the same side of the sidewalk? Ships do that, too, despite rulles about passing each other, sometimes a captain will "take action" to avoid a collision by breaking the rules, and that causes the accident.
__________________
I am the editor, but I also speculate, ask questions and play devil's advocate. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Reply With Quote
  #82 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 02:21 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
I'm just glad I sat back and let the experts settle it, I thought I was right! So, once again, it implies the ship was turning the wrong direction to get to NYC. The reason I keep bringing this up is because it does factor in to whether or not this was operator (programming, even) error, or a total malfunction.

Though it is possible they would program a turn to the wrong direction, it is unlikely, I would think. For one thing, it's a long haul and they need to go near top speed, as they said the ship was doing when this happened.
All the reports that I read has the ship listing to the right (starboard) side. Therefore they would be making a turn to port or left. When they come out of Canaveral they would be heading east and would have to make a left turn to get on a northerly course to get to NYC. So how do you figure they were turning the wrong way?
Jim.
Reply With Quote
  #83 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 02:36 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,589
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

All of the early reports I saw said it was listing to the port side. Now, it appears the reporters are getting it correct by saying it rolled to its right.

From CC news below:

July 18, 2006

Crown Princess Lists Heavily, Heads Back to Port
(5:45 p.m.) -- This just in: Princess Cruises' Crown Princess, which departed Port Canaveral today at 3:40 p.m., experienced an unexpected list to the port side as it was sailing north to New York. The ship is expected to return to its dock at Port Canaveral within minutes.

Travel Weekly:

Shortly after departing Port Canaveral, Fla., Princess Cruises’ Crown Princess listed suddenly and sharply to its left side July 18, injuring 240 passengers -- 94 of which were transferred to local hospitals near the port, Princess Cruises confirmed.

And this one from the Albany Times is really good:

Five residents from Berkshire county were aboard the ship when it tipped on its side. A family member told News Channel 13 today, none of them are hurt and they are on their way home.
__________________
I am the editor, but I also speculate, ask questions and play devil's advocate. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Reply With Quote
  #84 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 07:27 PM
flamomo's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Near Tampa, Florida
Posts: 125
Default Cause of heeling of the Crown

According to another cruise website, the cause has been determined to have been due to human error.
The gist of the report was that the ship was on auto-pilot and the captain was not on the bridge (according to the report, this is within normal operations), a junior officer on the bridge believed that the auto-pilot settings indicated that the ship was turning too sharply, so he took it off auto-pilot, and in attempting to manually correct what he thought was a problem, inadvertently increased the sharpness of the turn, thus causing the ship to heel.
The report appeared to have been released by the USCG, and was reported by a radio or TV station.
__________________
Past Cruises:
2004 Coral Princess - Panama Canal
2005 Sun Princess - Eastern Caribbean
1/06 Island Princess - Hawaii
2/07 Sea Princess - Southern Caribbean
11/07 Golden Princess - Mexican Riviera
3/08 Diamond Princess - Hawaii
11/9/08 Tahitan Princess - Tahiti & French Polynesia

Booked cruises:
9/13/09 Star Princess - Alaska
3/14/10 Golden Princess - Hawaii
Reply With Quote
  #85 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 10:04 PM
Junior Member
Beginner
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2
Default Princess Crown sailing Sept 3

We are scheduled to cruise on the Crown Sept 3d.. This will be only our second cruise, first was five years ago on a Carnival ship.
I can say I am not 100 % comfortable that we don't know what exactly caused this ship to list as it did this past week. The media reported it, but really didn't give many specifics and I have read a few reviews on line from passengers who were actually aboard this ship when the incident occured. From those accounts it seems quite obvious the passengers were more than just frightened. The news has not reported on the condition of the two "serious" injuries, as to how they are doing now. The most recent I have heard is that this ship sailed again today (Saturday) with a shorter version of its scheduled stops, giving all passengers 50% off or a full refund for those who chose not to go.. I have to say that I think the cruise line has taken care of the passengers onboard very nicely financially in their offering of full refunds, airfares home, and such, but it would be just as appreciated if they would give the general public and future cruisers more information on exactly what happened and what has been done to correct whatever caused this severe list to occur.. We are still planning on being on board the Crown Princess Sept 3d as there is risk in everything we do on a daily basis. I would love to hear back from anyone else who is booked for that same week and their thoughts.. Or from anyone who who will be sailing prior to that week.

Joy
Reply With Quote
  #86 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 10:31 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 167
Default

Joy - We are going on the cruise after you are and we have absolutely no regrets. In fact we have been on the Crown for 2 cruises already and are looking forward to going back to it. It is a really beautiful ship.
I do not mean to detract from the fact that some passengers were injured. 2 of them seriously. I understand that they will make a full recovery. The way the world is today a lot of people are looking to sue someone because they get a splinter in their finger or spill hot coffee in their lap. That being said I can see where some people would make mountains out of mole hills with the idea of suing someone or at least milking it for all it's worth. Emotional damage seems to be a big thing nowadays.
Happy Cruising
Jim.
Reply With Quote
  #87 (permalink)  
Old July 22nd, 2006, 10:41 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,772
Default

Jim,

I have to apologize you are right and I was completely wrong. I guess I was thinking of my experience with outboard runabouts. I really should have thought the whole thing through before I shot my mouth off. I spent 4 years on a Navy Destroyer and really should have known better. Once again my sincere apologies.

Apology accepted.

This discussion actually got me to thinking about the physics of a boat with an outboard motor and why such a vessel would behave in a different manner from a ship -- and my grandfather was an avid boater and fisherman, so I have been in boats with outboards enough to know that they do behave differently. The answer is that small boats generally have a very different hullform from a ship.

>> On a small boat, the keel is approximately horizonal between the stem and the stern. The propeller of an outboard motor extends a couple feet below the keel. When one turns the motor to execute a turn, the motor's force, countered by a lateral hydrodynamic force on the hull itself, exerts a torque that causes the boat to heel in the direction of the turn. The center of gravity in most small boats is also quite low, so the centripetal effect is negligible.

>> On a typical ship, the keel is horizontal from the stem to about the middle of the vessel, then arcs to an upward slant a foot or two below the waterline at the stern. The propellers and rudders (or azipods) usually do not extend below the keel. The result is that the sideways force on the rudder (or from the azipod) and the countering hydrodynamic force on the hull are at about the same vertical position, so there's little if any torque about the ship's roll axis.

I must say that the dynamics of a small boat with an outboard motor actually are more comfortable for passengers. The effect s similar to that of a properly banked curve on a highway.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #88 (permalink)  
Old July 23rd, 2006, 01:20 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,589
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Nobody has officially said what the cause was yet, and they may not say for a long time. A lawsuit has already been filed, and whatever the cause is you can bet the cruise line will and up getting blamed.

If the above scenario is true, then it is a combination of factors, but it still boils down to whether the autopilot was working correctly, otherwise none of it would have happened. However, one would also think that if someone was going to over-ride the autopilot, they wouldn't make a mistake like that - those people do know how to steer their ships, they get in & out of tricky harbors all the time.

Unless the captain tried to tell someone what to do over the communication, and that person misunderstood, as in the captain said "turn right" and the junior turned the propellors right (which would send the ship the opposite way).
__________________
I am the editor, but I also speculate, ask questions and play devil's advocate. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Reply With Quote
  #89 (permalink)  
Old July 23rd, 2006, 05:44 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,772
Default

Paul,

Ships don't have brakes.

No, but an "All Back Emergency" bell will slow a ship pretty quickly....

And the way a collision works is like this... you know who you are walking down a sidewalk and someone is approaching, and you both try to avoid each other by shifting to the same side of the sidewalk? Ships do that, too, despite rulles about passing each other, sometimes a captain will "take action" to avoid a collision by breaking the rules, and that causes the accident.

Ships have very strict rules for avoiding one another on the high seas, established by longstanding tradition and codified by international treaty, and those rules usually work very well because ALL deck officers are thoroughly trained to observe them all the time, without exception. The rules actually state which ship must maneuver and how when two ships are on intersecting courses, and they also provide "safety valves" for situations in which the standard rules are inadequate. If push comes to shove, any ship can sound a "danger signal" of eight blasts that compels all ships to stop. In the 1970's, the treaties added a requirement for every ship to have somebody who is fluent in English on the bridge monitoring a "bridge to bridge" radio frequency at all times, so the officers on the bridges of any ships in close proximity can talk directly to sort out a situation. Nonetheless, with the assistance of modern radar, most ships will maneuver well in advance to avoid a situation in which these rules might come into play. As a result, collisions between ships on the high seas are virtually non-existent in the modern world.

I'm aware of only one incident in which a cruise ship was involved in an actual collision in recent years. The ship -- the original MV Royal Princess was in port in Alexandria when a sudden storm came across the desert. The dust from the storm reduced visibility to near zero and the winds caused MV Royal Princess to part her moorings and crash into another moored ship before the deck watch could respond. The ship sustained some serious damage in the aft quarter. I noticed some steel patches in her promenade deck, the result of temporary repairs, and a crease in the aft quarter of her hull few cruises later, in June of 2001, prompting my inquiry as to what had happened. This incident, however, did not occur at sea.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #90 (permalink)  
Old July 24th, 2006, 04:41 PM
georgeny's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 77
Default

Norm, Thankfully they don't collide much. But I never say never especailly now that it aooears, as reprted by CBS 2 Florida, that Crown incident was indeed just plain old common human errro.

Channel 2 news Florida:

A high-level source, who asked not to be identified for fear of losing his or her job, told the WESH 2 I-Team it was simple human error.

"The public needs to know. The ship is safe. There is nothing wrong with the automatic pilot system. It was human error. They made a mistake. Mistakes happen," the source said.

Here's how our source explains what happened.

After clearing Port Canaveral, the captain set the ship's automatic pilot to head to New York. He then left the cruise line's bridge. All standard and appropriate procedure.

As the automatic pilot found its course back to New York, it started making a left turn when the person in charge on the bridge -- a junior officer -- noticed the ship's automatic pilot needle was far to the left.

Our source goes on to tell us that the junior officer "panicked," then took the ship out of automatic pilot thinking the meter was showing that the ship was turning too sharply to one side.

But instead of turning the Crown Princess back to the right, the junior officer accidentally kept the ship in an even sharper left hand turn -- almost like over-correcting in a car.

This caused the massive 113,000-ton cruise ship to list severely, tumbling passengers, pool water and everything else on board into chaos.


I do recall in the recesses of what is left of my poor little over cruised brain, the NCL Norway many years ago cutting a small freighter in half. This was off Cuba I beleive and freighter was anchored in shipping lanes unlit. No damage to Norway, lives lost on freighter. Obviously since Norway some years ago.

Interesting, I googled and found one I now remember August 1999 not even 7 years ago. NCL Dream collides with BURNING cargo ship. Maybe they didn't see the FIRE, the ship on radar, or hear any distress calls?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9908....collision.01/

"Cruise ship carrying 2,400 collides with burning cargo ship
August 23, 1999
Web posted at: 11:45 p.m. EDT (0345 GMT)

MARGATE, England (AP) -- A cruise ship carrying more than 2,400 passengers collided with a burning cargo vessel early Tuesday off Britain's southeast coast, officials said.

Three passengers aboard the Norwegian Dream cruise liner suffered minor injuries and were being airlifted from the vessel, said a coast guard spokesman, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. "


Start reading NTSB reports and then Canadian ( aha!!! that's why I couln't find that ship I had wrote about that left NY and went aground, I remember now it was Canadain NTSB version report ) comparable NTSB agency and you have just a little less acceptance of the perfection fo sea travel.

Yes blow horn eight times sounds good, then you find out someone took the horns lanyard off to tie down a loose dinner tray so couldn't blow it in time.
__________________
George in NY
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
18th, 2006, 2011, alaska, bus, cruise, elevator, golden, hospital, incident, island, july, march, powered, princess, regional, routes, vbulletin

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Millenium Prop incident?? hcat Celebrity 5 July 10th, 2007 09:42 AM
Another Incident at Port of Miami Mike M Chit - Chat for Cruisers 3 January 8th, 2007 03:49 PM
Photo's from the Incident Cassandra Princess Cruise Lines 1 July 22nd, 2006 12:55 PM
incident aboard M/V Noordam Bill Griset Holland America 1 April 1st, 2004 11:28 AM
CARNIVAL ELATION INCIDENT Anne Campbell Carnival Cruise Lines 10 September 22nd, 2002 08:31 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 10:09 AM.
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