Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ocean-going passenger ships used to be designed to take any kind of
weather that could be anticipated on the high seas. They were not necessarily ice-berg proof but they could take any sort of weather they might encounter. They routinely plied the north Atlantic in the winter where experienced sailors will tell you the sea conditions frequently exceed anything found in tropical hurricanes. Today they are simply floating hotels designed for the maximum return to the cruise line. I believe they are designed for waves to 40 ft. Some of them draw 18-20 ft. (perhaps some even less) of water and have 90 ft. of freeboard. Think about losing power in a Force 12 storm. How many minutes would it take for that floating hotel to flip right over? I predict that before too long one of them will go down in bad weather and with enormous loss of life. This will probably occur during what are known in the cruise-line business as "displacement cruises" where the ship seasonally moves from Europe/Mediterraznean to the Caribbean and vice versa. This will probably happen on a westbound crossing which occur from late August through November during the height of the hurricane season. Ever look at a seasonal tracking map of Atlantic hurricanes? We usually only hear about the ones that threaten our coastal areas. Thirty knots (and more) was common in these passenger liners (the S.S. United States never revealed it max speed for security reasons (under an agreement it could be requisitioned by the govt. in case of war) but 40 knots was often heard as its maximum speed. As an aside there used to be a transAtlantic prize for the fastest crossing by a passenger ship. It was known as the Blue Riband. The S.S. United States was, to this day never defeated. The prize was claimed a few years ago by an eccentric zillionaire who stripped everything out of a 140 or so ft. yacht known as the Gentry Eagle and took two "paying" passengers aboard so he could claim he had beaten the S.S. United States' speed record. I think he died a couple of years ago in Hawaii. I believe his name was Gentry. Solmeone in this NG will undoubtedly know the entire story. Incidentally, there is not a hell of a lot the Coast Guard could do for a cruise ship hundreds of miles off shore during a Category four or five hurricane The media in reporting this incident has shown how uninformed and alarmist and sensationalist they really are. They have sought out the most hysterical passengers they could find to interview--"I knew we were going down." "I knew it was gioing to be another Titantic." In contrast I enjoyed the one perfectly candid guy who slipped by the editors and stated that he just kept playing in the casino until it closed around 3 a.m. I think most of the seas they were encountering were in the 35 ft. range. I've been on the QEII in 30 ft. seas when one was hardly even aware that the boat was moving. A few passengers got wet. Four had minor injuries. Hell, things like this used to happen all the time and nobody made a big deal of it. Not too many years ago the now scrapped superliner "France" encountered an unexpected wave during a transAtlantic crossing. None of the heavy tables were secured as they normally are in bad weather. These heavy tables and some chairs went flying about and scores of passengers had broken bones and contusions.. About 20 years ago the Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) was coming out of New Zealand bound for Australia when it encountered seas in excess of 25 meters--a few broken bones, mostly to passengers who would leave their fingers in the door jamb as they were going in or out of their cabins. The motion would cause the door to slam shut on them and voila--broken fingers. I don't believe for a minute that a single one of these modern cruise ships could have survived such a blow. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:06:52 -0400, Gogarty
wrote: In article , says... (Really big snip) Another big snip. We were on the Italian Line Michelangelo when she encountered a mid Atlantic storm and a huge wave in the middle of the night. She just slammed into that wave and the entire ship just rang like a gong. It was uncanny. Of course, she was rigged for heavy weather and nothing broke and nobody got hurt. She was, after all, an ocean liner, not a cruise ship. You are so right. Thank God, though, that they at least designed the new Queen Mary to transAtlantic standards. Someone at Cunard most have a bit of institutional memory. Interestingly Cunard absorbed the White Star Line which had built the "Titantic." About five years ago I was on the QE2 (westbound Southamtpn-NY). There was a lady aboard who had survived the Titantic sinking. She was in her eighties and had all of her wits. She delivered a couple of lectures aboard. She was actually an infant when the Titantic went down. She and parents were emmigrating to the U.S. in steerage. Her father perished but she and her mother survived. They returned to England and I believe she said that she was in her twenties before her mother ever told her about having been aboard the Titantic. At the time I met her I believe it was said that there were only two other survivors still alive. The "Michangelo!" God! I sailed both on it and on its sistership, the "Leonardo da Vinci." Beautiful--both of them. Unfortunately they were launched just as transAtlantic jet travel was cathcing on. A couple of years prior to that I sailed on another Italian Line ship. It was named something or other beginning with the letter "O." I can not remember its name but I have a vivid recollection of it breaking down in midAtlantic where we were adrift for 36 hours--fortunately in a near perfect calm. Well, in re your experiences in NY harbor. People do panic. I'll bet most sailors in this NG have had guests at one time or another who were scared out of their wits everytime the boat came about in more than 15 kts. Hell, I've had guests get seasick sitting motionless at the dock. I guess if you are not a sailor the noise in coming about can be a bit disconcerting. But a tow coming too close. Heavens! I have made a lot of passenger liner transAtlantic crossings in the winter. I guess people were more stoic or more knowledgeable back then because I don't remember a single instance when anyone was panicked by bad weather. And you used to get some bad weather on the winter crossing of the north Atlantic. Fortunately I have been immune to seasickness all my life so I never missed a meal but I do remember times when I would go to the dining room and only one or two other passengers would be there--even the wait staff would be greatly reduced. People didn't have a lot of choice. If you were going to cross the Atlantic that was the only way you could do it. But today! I would probably be scared ****less if I were ever caught in a real blow on one of those floating hotels. They are simply not designed to take it. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:49:20 -0400, Joe Bleau
wrote: But today! I would probably be scared ****less if I were ever caught in a real blow on one of those floating hotels. They are simply not designed to take it. I am not convinced that the officers have the seamanship--or are allowed to practice it--when these luxury barges are "scheduled" to cross the Gulf Stream with the current on one beam and the wind on the other, which I believe was the case here. Beancounters don't sail ships, even inappropriate ones. The captain of the Norwegian ship was either inexperienced or getting whipped from shore to ignore the weather like that. From what I've read, anyway. There may be more to it that the generally sea-ignorant press hasn't reported. R. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "rhys" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:49:20 -0400, Joe Bleau wrote: But today! I would probably be scared ****less if I were ever caught in a real blow on one of those floating hotels. They are simply not designed to take it. I am not convinced that the officers have the seamanship--or are allowed to practice it--when these luxury barges are "scheduled" to cross the Gulf Stream with the current on one beam and the wind on the other, which I believe was the case here. First off, you are talking about a ship crossing the Gulf Stream in contrary conditions, not a yacht. Most importantly, you are discussing a "rogue" wave .... all bets are off, when hit by one of these, as your speed and heading could easily be set for one set of sea conditions and this wave can well come from another direction and is out of character for height. As for construction of "cruise ships", I'd say that since this ship was hit by a "rogue" and considering some of the documented damage which has occurred (such as on the Michaelangelo) that she handled it quite well, with no apparent tendancy to want to "tip over". otn |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:13:14 GMT, "otnmbrd"
wrote: "rhys" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:49:20 -0400, Joe Bleau wrote: But today! I would probably be scared ****less if I were ever caught in a real blow on one of those floating hotels. They are simply not designed to take it. I am not convinced that the officers have the seamanship--or are allowed to practice it--when these luxury barges are "scheduled" to cross the Gulf Stream with the current on one beam and the wind on the other, which I believe was the case here. First off, you are talking about a ship crossing the Gulf Stream in contrary conditions, not a yacht. Right, a yacht has far less windage and probably better righting motion G Most importantly, you are discussing a "rogue" wave .... all bets are off, when hit by one of these, as your speed and heading could easily be set for one set of sea conditions and this wave can well come from another direction and is out of character for height. While this is technically true, my understanding of rogue waves is that they arise from a synergistic interaction of existing wave trains and winds, meaning you need some sort of sea to generate one. Excepting tsunamis in shoal water, I mean. As for construction of "cruise ships", I'd say that since this ship was hit by a "rogue" and considering some of the documented damage which has occurred (such as on the Michaelangelo) that she handled it quite well, with no apparent tendancy to want to "tip over". I didn't say "tip over". I was questioning either the seamanship or the scheduling from head office that determined the ship's routing, which may have been different had the captain been able to use his own judgement instead of being the water-borne equivalent of a bus driver. R. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rhys wrote:
First off, you are talking about a ship crossing the Gulf Stream in contrary conditions, not a yacht. Right, a yacht has far less windage and probably better righting motion G Relatively speaking, size for size, mebbe yes, mebbe no on the windage and mebbe yes, mebbe no, period, on the righting moment. Most importantly, you are discussing a "rogue" wave .... all bets are off, when hit by one of these, as your speed and heading could easily be set for one set of sea conditions and this wave can well come from another direction and is out of character for height. While this is technically true, my understanding of rogue waves is that they arise from a synergistic interaction of existing wave trains and winds, meaning you need some sort of sea to generate one. Excepting tsunamis in shoal water, I mean. From my understanding (since I can't say I've ever encountered one, only experienced a much higher than average in a wave train) they do not necessarily have to be part of the general predominant wave train you are experiencing, but can come from an underlying different direction as with confused seas. As for construction of "cruise ships", I'd say that since this ship was hit by a "rogue" and considering some of the documented damage which has occurred (such as on the Michaelangelo) that she handled it quite well, with no apparent tendancy to want to "tip over". I didn't say "tip over". I was questioning either the seamanship or the scheduling from head office that determined the ship's routing, which may have been different had the captain been able to use his own judgement instead of being the water-borne equivalent of a bus driver. Someone else mentioned tipping over. As for the Master's determination of routing ...... most will endeavor to follow the general routing and schedule as passed down by the "office", because if it doesn't work and they have to slow down or divert, they can just blame the office for the delay. Others, take the office routing and schedule, throw it in the trash and make their own within their best judgment ..... most are somewhere in between, but all know that it's their butt if they lose cargo, hurt passengers, or cause damage and don't arrive within a reasonable time frame, when it could have been avoided. otn |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "otnmbrd" wrote in message link.net... rhys wrote: First off, you are talking about a ship crossing the Gulf Stream in contrary conditions, not a yacht. Right, a yacht has far less windage and probably better righting motion G Relatively speaking, size for size, mebbe yes, mebbe no on the windage and mebbe yes, mebbe no, period, on the righting moment. Most importantly, you are discussing a "rogue" wave .... all bets are off, when hit by one of these, as your speed and heading could easily be set for one set of sea conditions and this wave can well come from another direction and is out of character for height. While this is technically true, my understanding of rogue waves is that they arise from a synergistic interaction of existing wave trains and winds, meaning you need some sort of sea to generate one. Excepting tsunamis in shoal water, I mean. From my understanding (since I can't say I've ever encountered one, only experienced a much higher than average in a wave train) they do not necessarily have to be part of the general predominant wave train you are experiencing, but can come from an underlying different direction as with confused seas. As for construction of "cruise ships", I'd say that since this ship was hit by a "rogue" and considering some of the documented damage which has occurred (such as on the Michaelangelo) that she handled it quite well, with no apparent tendancy to want to "tip over". I didn't say "tip over". I was questioning either the seamanship or the scheduling from head office that determined the ship's routing, which may have been different had the captain been able to use his own judgement instead of being the water-borne equivalent of a bus driver. Someone else mentioned tipping over. As for the Master's determination of routing ...... most will endeavor to follow the general routing and schedule as passed down by the "office", because if it doesn't work and they have to slow down or divert, they can just blame the office for the delay. Others, take the office routing and schedule, throw it in the trash and make their own within their best judgment ..... most are somewhere in between, but all know that it's their butt if they lose cargo, hurt passengers, or cause damage and don't arrive within a reasonable time frame, when it could have been avoided. otn Over the past couple of years, I can't help but notice the press seems to have an agenda with respect to ships and safety. Recall all the stories of cruise ships with outbreaks of this and that all hyped up to the max when statistically the sickness by percentage was no greater than that of a similar sized group of people ashore? Remember a couple months ago when some students were knocked about a bit by a large wave in the Pacific Ocean during a cruise on some classroom ship? Now this nonsense where some people experienced discomfort and the press acts as if was the end of the world and idiots here are attempting to blame an act of God on inept routing of the ship or poor choices by the captain. It's totally ludicrous that people are so dammed spoiled and used to not taking any personal responsibility for anything that they now blame a rogue wave on the captain of a vessel. Sad, very sad. Even sadder, you watch, some of the irrational passengers will be hiring lawyers and suing the cruise line, travel agents, NOAA, etc. CN |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Freak Wave ruins cruise. | General | |||
Freak Wave ruins cruise. | Cruising | |||
Tall Ships Down - important new book | Tall Ships | |||
Antenna Ratings | Electronics | |||
Tall Ships Down - important new book | General |