Anthem of the seas rolls

purported 30 ft. waves caused chairs to fall over aboard Anthem of the Seas. that’s a big ship, I wonder how far she’d roll with their roll stabilizers and such?
3-5 deg? … front page news on fox! Golly!! of course no news person thinks to ask.

[QUOTE=jimrr;178624]purported 30 ft. waves caused chairs to fall over aboard Anthem of the Seas. that’s a big ship, I wonder how far she’d roll with their roll stabilizers and such?
3-5 deg? … front page news on fox! Golly!! of course no news person thinks to ask.[/QUOTE]
Didn’t you read the reports from passengers on gCaptain? One person said the ship was “struggling to move forward” and “listing almost 45 degrees.” Fortunately gCaptain did put in a disclaimer that this was an unverified report. Who would have thought travelling south from NY in the winter you might hit some weather? So yes, passenger accounts will be sensationalized, it helps the media outlet more than a bland statement from the cruise line.

I’ve never heard of that ship before but holy mackerel there are a lot of decks! What’s she draw, like 10m? Not the prettiest of ships, but they sure squeeze a lot of folks on her.

I wouldn’t believe anything the media reports about it until it is confirmed. When one of the Carnival ships lost power and was towed for like 5 days into port a year or two ago, the media tried to sensationalize that the ship entering port was a very dangerous time for passengers because the stabilizers weren’t working. Except, it is absolutely normal practice to retract the stabilizers when close to shore or entering port.

The comments from passengers are pretty funny. Oh my, a drinking glass flew off the table! I had a panic attack! I guess a lot of them really don’t understand that they have entered an environment that can turn sour on them pretty fast.

[QUOTE=catherder;178689]The comments from passengers are pretty funny. Oh my, a drinking glass flew off the table! I had a panic attack! I guess a lot of them really don’t understand that they have entered an environment that can turn sour on them pretty fast.[/QUOTE]

NO! the ship isn’t in an environment…it’s beyond the environment where there is ocean and sky and birds and really, really big waves!

PHUCKING MISERABLE CRUISE INDUSTRY! Those are not ships anymore but massive ship shaped floating hotel resorts filled with holiday puckers!

[QUOTE=c.captain;178692]NO! the ship isn’t in an environment…it’s beyond the environment where there is ocean and sky and birds and really, really big waves!

PHUCKING MISERABLE CRUISE INDUSTRY! Those are not ships anymore but massive ship shaped floating hotel resorts filled with holiday puckers![/QUOTE]

Floating shopping mall with hotel facilities and casino.

Don’t forget that it’s lit up like a giant floating disco ball.

Reminds me of this:

The second officer turned the wheel first to port and then from port to starboard several times, eventually causing the vessel to list even more, to a maximum angle of about 24° to starboard. The severe listing tumbled passengers, crew members, pool water, and everything else not secured about the decks.

They were lucky that that ship had normal shaftlines and rudders, and not Azipods…

…and I hope next time they secure that pool water about the deck so it won’t tumble!

Stabs need forward motion to be effective.

If they were hove to, I imagine the stabs had little effect.

Just sayin. And that’s about 22 decks from the tank top to base of mast, roughly… Not sure that exact ship, but in the build yard for other builds, it’s about that…

I don’t think stabilizers would have helped much in those conditions…

[QUOTE=c.captain;178692]NO! the ship isn’t in an environment…it’s beyond the environment where there is ocean and sky and birds and really, really big waves!

PHUCKING MISERABLE CRUISE INDUSTRY! Those are not ships anymore but massive ship shaped floating hotel resorts filled with holiday puckers![/QUOTE]

They just get bigger and uglier. I don’t see the appeal at all unless you happen to be a barnyard animal. No insult meant to barnyard animals.

Anthem Of The Seas sailed right into some severely snotty weather and got their asses kicked. Wasn’t it just a few months ago another ship sailed into bad weather and sank?

How many accident investigations tell the story that you knew better. And you knew better well before the fact, but you did it anyway. It was on the damn Weather Channel a week ahead that something was coming and you better look out. Just what is it going to take to learn this shit?

I can see distinct similarities with Livestock carrier:

Smaller is better, me think:


Maybe the animals would enjoy better treatment here?

(link removed after threads merged)

[QUOTE=highseasharry;178730] Just what is it going to take …?[/QUOTE]

For costs to exceed revenue.

Just imagine if this had been a real emergency. Just trying to abandon all those untrained people in that weather would be a nightmare.
Maximum capacity for the Oasis class ships are; 6,360 Pax + 1,197 Crew(??) [U]Total 7,557 Pers.[/U] (Other states over 8,000)

Cruise ships like this are only required to have life boats for 75% of the max. complement, the rest is consigned to life rafts, for a [U]total of 100%[/U]. (Not 200% as required for other vessels under SOLAS)
The number of lifeboats on either side is 9, each with a capacity of 370 pers. Total lifeboat capacity; 18 x 370 = [U]6,660 pers.[/U]
(Looking at pictures of the Oasis I see only 8 L/b on Stbd. side, however)

Heaven forbid that fire block access to any LSA in an emergency, or the ship develop a list over 20 degr. or so.
Launching lifeboats on one side would be near impossible, which leaves capacity for only 37.5% in lifeboats.

Any such ships must be kind enough to sink on an even keel and take their time to do so, otherwise it could become a major accident, matching the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff in 1945: http://maritime-executive.com/features/anniversary-the-largest-single-loss-of-life-at-sea

I’m not the only one who wonder about the safety ogf these vessels and the ability to evacuate such large number in a reasonable time: http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2013/01/articles/sinking/titanic-redux-can-royal-caribbean-safely-evacuate-8500-passengers-crew-from-the-oasis-of-the-seas/

Where is the limit to how large these ships can be and how many people can be crammed on board?? 10,000 pers.?

You will be glad to know that these ships are safe and stable:

To keep the ship stable without increasing the draft excessively, the designers created a wide hull. About 30 feet (9 m) of the ship sits beneath the water, a small percentage of the ship’s overall height. [B]Wide, shallow ships such as this tend to be “snappy”, meaning that they can snap back upright after a wave has passed, which can be uncomfortable.[/B] This effect, however, is mitigated by the vessel’s large size.[15] The cruise ship’s officers were pleased with the ship’s stability and performance during the transatlantic crossing, when the vessel, in order to allow finishing work to go on, slowed and changed course in the face of winds “almost up to hurricane force” and seas in excess of 40 feet (12 m).[16][17](My highlights)

Could that claimed “snap” action may be what caused things to fall and people to get hurt, although nothing serious? (This time)

[QUOTE=Steamer;178735]For costs to exceed revenue.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. That is the way things work. They made a decision to sail into a known storm and calculated the risk as being worth it. It is a corporate decision. They’ll give the money back to the passengers and case closed. They are a FOC ship and company. Silly US senators are making nanny state noises about making corporate decisions where lives are involved just to score political points. Everyone is OK and they got their money back.
Leave the cruise industry alone. They employ thousands of people.

But pay little or no US taxes

[QUOTE=tengineer1;178742]Exactly. That is the way things work. They made a decision to sail into a known storm and calculated the risk as being worth it. It is a corporate decision. They’ll give the money back to the passengers and case closed. They are a FOC ship and company. Silly US senators are making nanny state noises about making corporate decisions where lives are involved just to score political points. Everyone is OK and they got their money back.
Leave the cruise industry alone. They employ thousands of people.[/QUOTE]

I think it is a little to early to say for a fact that the decision to sail was made based on the facts that we know now after the incident. People tend to underestimate the power of hindsight.

[QUOTE=ombugge;178736]Just imagine if this had been a real emergency. Just trying to abandon all those untrained people in that weather would be a nightmare.
Maximum capacity for the Oasis class ships are; 6,360 Pax + 1,197 Crew(??) [U]Total 7,557 Pers.[/U] (Other states over 8,000)

Cruise ships like this are only required to have life boats for 75% of the max. complement, the rest is consigned to life rafts, for a [U]total of 100%[/U]. (Not 200% as required for other vessels under SOLAS)
The number of lifeboats on either side is 9, each with a capacity of 370 pers. Total lifeboat capacity; 18 x 370 = [U]6,660 pers.[/U]
(Looking at pictures of the Oasis I see only 8 L/b on Stbd. side, however)

Heaven forbid that fire block access to any LSA in an emergency, or the ship develop a list over 20 degr. or so.
Launching lifeboats on one side would be near impossible, which leaves capacity for only 37.5% in lifeboats.

Any such ships must be kind enough to sink on an even keel and take their time to do so, otherwise it could become a major accident, matching the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff in 1945: http://maritime-executive.com/features/anniversary-the-largest-single-loss-of-life-at-sea

I’m not the only one who wonder about the safety ogf these vessels and the ability to evacuate such large number in a reasonable time: http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2013/01/articles/sinking/titanic-redux-can-royal-caribbean-safely-evacuate-8500-passengers-crew-from-the-oasis-of-the-seas/

Where is the limit to how large these ships can be and how many people can be crammed on board?? 10,000 pers.?

You will be glad to know that these ships are safe and stable:

Could that claimed “snap” action may be what caused things to fall and people to get hurt, although nothing serious? (This time)[/QUOTE]

That Cruise Law site is not a good site for stability info. This is a post from Old Salt Blogregarding the Cruise Law site and judging stability by eye.

The other topic that is not quite so foolish, but comes close, is the claim that modern cruise ships are too “top heavy.” There is no question that cruise ships have more decks above the waterline than they used to. More windage is not good for stability but to suggest that the additional decks are adding too much weight largely misses the point. The criticism is invariably based not on facts or stability calculations, but on visual inspection and/or gut feelings. The facts are that passengers and the decks they occupy are relatively light. The additional space is primarily occupied by air. Other types of ships also have significant windage, including car carriers and, of course, sailing ships. Just like cruise ships, with a reasonable distribution of ballast, these ships can be stable as well.