Accidents and mishaps at sea

[pete cain]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47680055

MV Viking Sky evacuated after engine problems.

[Rob Lightbody]

MS Viking Sky is in trouble, with an engine failure in very heavy seas off Norway.

What is alarming to me, is that they've not be able to deploy the lifeboats, yet are using helicopters to rescue people.  This raises obvious questions and concerns.  She's a relatively small ship, with just 1300 souls on board, and that's going to be difficult enough to slowly evacuate by helicopter, a few at a time.

As it stands, it looks like she got engines started and has been able to move away from the shore, but it wasn't far off being another Concordia.

In the videos, there's a shot showing furniture flying around, and metal planks falling from the ceiling, despite the fact that the ship is "just rolling".  Why isn't all this stuff secured?

https://twitter.com/alexus309/status/1109530668290183172

https://twitter.com/emilnivantha/status/1109476950068744193

https://twitter.com/alexus309/status/1109570007657115648

[Thomas Hypher]

Apparently she has moored safely in nearby sheltered waters after she was able to get underway on one main diesel of her four in total:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/world-news/viking-sky-cruise-ship-norway-16018568

Maybe it was the increased risk of exposure in the lifeboats in such weather and climate found off Norway and perhaps the passenger demographic that made a helicopter evacuation preferable until such time as it would've been too late as per MV Costa Concordia's situation when they may have used the lifeboats as a last option unless her rolling made that not an option too - however, I can't think why rolling would stop them deploying the lifeboats as MV Oceanos' crew had no issues with leaving their passengers behind before she'd sunk too much for the passengers to use the lifeboats due to her list. The lifeboats are designed to withstand such stormy weather, even being self righting these days I think? The ride would be awful but better than being on a ship about to be wrecked on the nearby shoreline. This brings the potential reasons they were not deployed back to risks of exposure and the passenger demographic as all I can think of as reasons not to deploy as no physical reasons regarding the equipment should've stopped them surely?

Just thinking off the top of my head, so please excuse any ignorance displayed in the paragraph above!

Regardless, the ship and all onboard had a lucky escape thankfully as the resultant disaster could've had chilling parallels with the awful TEV Wahine disaster.

Maybe lessons will be learnt, as is always said but doesn't necessarily happen. I wonder how much repairs will cost, including fixing her main diesels, not to mention insurance claims from this "incident"? Millions of £/$ for sure.

[Rod]

Now lets try this with one of the " (fill in the name here) of the Seas" with close to 6000 passengers!

[skilly56]

Very unusual in this day & age to have multiple engine failure that can kill all propulsion, so I doubt there is anything wrong with the engines. The trouble with a total propulsion failure in these conditions is that the ship cannot be kept head-to-wind, and the stabilizers don't function with the ship stopped, so the ship naturally rolls a bit! (Been there - Indian Ocean, rolling violently, thrown out of my bunk just before my beer fridge was ripped from it's mountings on the bulkhead and tossed inverted across the deck, to spew it's contents everywhere!).

But, a fuel supply failure should only affect half the engines if the supply system is split port/stbd, or fwd/ aft. Or, if it is a diesel-electric propulsion system, a main bus failure could cause a total propulsion failure. However, a bus failure can normally be overcome by banging out the bus coupler and at least getting power to half the propulsion system.

Or maybe it was a 24vdc control system failure? On a near-new ship!
I don't know the ship, but will look up what is available.

P&O's 'Aurora' has just done two back-to-back cruises up the Norwegian coast - apparently everyone totally enjoyed it, but the 'Aurora' is twice the size..

Skilly

[skilly56]

OK - checked out the 'R-R Promas' propulsion system as fitted to 'Viking Sky' - it is basically the same diesel-electric physical set-up as in QE2 - i.e., two electric propulsion motors (7,250 kW each) driving two fixed pitch 6-bladed propellers via tried & true propeller shafts, with power being supplied by 4 MAN diesel generators (2 x 9L32/44CR & 2 x 12V32/44CR engines).
But, the Viking Sky has twin rudders, set one behind each propeller. The R-R Promas system is a drag-reducing system involving the rudder/propeller relationship. It is NOT the diesel-electric propulsion system in the machinery spaces.

My choice is a propulsion bus/propulsion electrical system failure, or a propulsion control system failure. No pax reports have mentioned anything about lights being out, so the DGs are still supplying power, meaning the actual engines are still functioning.

An earlier vessel of this class suffered a propulsion system transformer explosion early on in it's life (QM2 all over again?).

Cheers,

Skilly

 

[Andy Holloway]

Apparently she has moored safely in nearby sheltered waters after she was able to get underway on one main diesel of her four in total:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/world-news/viking-sky-cruise-ship-norway-16018568

Maybe it was the increased risk of exposure in the lifeboats in such weather and climate found off Norway and perhaps the passenger demographic that made a helicopter evacuation preferable until such time as it would've been too late as per MV Costa Concordia's situation when they may have used the lifeboats as a last option unless her rolling made that not an option too - however, I can't think why rolling would stop them deploying the lifeboats as MV Oceanos' crew had no issues with leaving their passengers behind before she'd sunk too much for the passengers to use the lifeboats due to her list. The lifeboats are designed to withstand such stormy weather, even being self righting these days I think? The ride would be awful but better than being on a ship about to be wrecked on the nearby shoreline. This brings the potential reasons they were not deployed back to risks of exposure and the passenger demographic as all I can think of as reasons not to deploy as no physical reasons regarding the equipment should've stopped them surely?

Just thinking off the top of my head, so please excuse any ignorance displayed in the paragraph above!

Regardless, the ship and all onboard had a lucky escape thankfully as the resultant disaster could've had chilling parallels with the awful TEV Wahine disaster.

Maybe lessons will be learnt, as is always said but doesn't necessarily happen. I wonder how much repairs will cost, including fixing her main diesels, not to mention insurance claims from this "incident"? Millions of £/$ for sure.

Using the lifeboats would have been the very, very last resort. The danger to the passengers when loading them would probably have been far too great in that weather to have been adoption. As is always the case in these types of situation, don't leave the ship unless absolutely necessary, the Captain would have considered this, and a hundred other factors, when making his evacuation plan.

[Rob Lightbody]

Using the lifeboats would have been the very, very last resort. The danger to the passengers when loading them would probably have been far too great in that weather to have been adoption. As is always the case in these types of situation, don't leave the ship unless absolutely necessary, the Captain would have considered this, and a hundred other factors, when making his evacuation plan.

Makes sense.  The thing that worries me, is that in an incident that means you can't use the lifeboats for whatever reason - all the remaining options aren't very good (especially if the ship's interior can't be trusted to not go flying... at least the piano was bolted down - but why not the giant plant pot - it could have killed someone (as could the falling metal ceiling) - and could have gone through one of the windows.  The rate of taking people off via helicopter is very very slow.  With 6000 aboard, you'd be talking days.

[Rob Lightbody]

OK - checked out the 'R-R Promas' propulsion system....

Thanks for the explanation!  Amazing to hear how the QE2 plant, developed in the early 80s, is still so close to the best way to do it today.  I didn't realise any new cruise ships still had prop shafts until just now.

You talk about resilience and redundancy - that is part of my job too in IT - even though none of it is life-threatening, all the systems have 2 separate power sources, 2 networks, at least 2 of each disk etc. etc.  Surprised that this incident on a new ship caused this problem.

[Twynkle]

Regarding Viking Sky

Hi Skilly,

A "maritime adviser" from Norway this morning on the BBC suggested that all other ships in the area  had escaped the sea conditions off the coast by sailing much earlier into the nearest and most appropriate harbour.
He implied that there had been warnings in the recent shipping forecasts, and said he couldn't understand why the Viking Sky hadn't followed in the same way. 
Might staying out, have affected power/ the engines - could their failure (If they had stopped?) been stopped by/because of the obviously heavy mounting seas?

And - when choosing who to evacuate by helicopter first - I do wonder how the choices are made?
btw - On board QM2, en route through to the Suez from the Gulf, we  had exercises and drills that went as far as making sure that after a roll-call for All pax And Crew, we (Pax!) were instructed to stay in our cabins...

On board Viking Sky, I can't think why anyone (pax, and possibly ?off-duty crew) were still on any of the decks, unless instructed to try to secure the moving furniture.

The first overt signs of promising bad weather other than on the PA system on current Cunard ships are the 'appearance of paper-bags - and removal of lower vases" from surfaces to safety!

Lets hope that Viking Sky Crew and Passengers are all safe and well by now...

[Bruce Nicholls]

Now lets try this with one of the " (fill in the name here) of the Seas" with close to 6000 passengers!

Couldn't agree more Rod. Especially given the great age and lack of mobility of many cruise passengers.

[skilly56]

HI Rosie,

Very strange - the propulsion failure. It could actually be sludge stirred up in the day tanks by the rough weather. But normally sludge in the fuel systems would be removed by the purifiers/clarifiers before getting to the day tanks or the engine filters. To have 4 engines drop off at the same time means the ship's redundancy systems are not very well thought out - the fuel systems must be 'split' so only half the machinery should be affected by a failure. You should be able to lose one or maybe two engines, but not four, and not the entire propulsion system. That is unless the dreaded 'diesel disease' hit, and microbial bacteria had infiltrated both day fuel tanks.

In 2010 new regulations were invoked requiring ships (especially passenger ships)over a certain length (120 metres) to have propulsion redundancy so they could always manage to safely get to the nearest port in the event of a major failure (known as the 'Safe Return to Port System). The regulation also requires the lack of propulsive power time to not exceed 1 hour.

Obviously, the Viking Sky (built in 2016-17) was unable to comply with this requirement, so many questions are going to be asked. Although the SRtP regs were primarily designed for ships that have experienced a fire/grounding event, why did this vessel lose it's propulsion after having experienced neither of these two alternatives?

Or did someone just make a huge mistake?

Awaiting an explanation with much interest.

Skilly

[Peter Mugridge]

Skilly - just a thought, but is it possible that there is a glitch in the control system software which shut things down when it shouldn't have...?

[June Ingram]

Thanks, Skilly, for your explanations.  Please keep us informed with more. 

[Twynkle]

Great Stuff, Skilly

I had wondered too whether the ship's GPS was also hit, although maybe that on a separate circuit...
Also the props - might they have come out of the water - if so, would this have caused the power plant to seize up?
The lighting was kept going, presumably emergency gennies were deployed etc etc
I very much got the impression that it could have been "human error"??
The owner looked so normal on TV , smiling (relief perhaps?) -  deep shock must have set in...

The other question would be one for the Captain - Just wondering whether it ever would have been thought that waiting in cabins for the helicopter was preferable than waiting on the outside decks...

And - with an enforced evacuation,  is there usually a priorities protocol?

Incidentally, on board QV last December, there was an Drill on the aft space of Deck 9:
Helicopter had crashed onto ship - and fire required attention - Best Breakfast-time entertainment ever witnessed!
(PS I Always, always have breakfast outside up there!)
All the best to you 'and yours'
Rosie