Two just released reports by the United States Coast Guard are highly critical of the Carnival Splendor concerning a fire at sea which disabled the vessel on November 8, 2010. Upon learning of this report, many of the passengers who were aboard the Carnival Splendor "Cruise to Nowhere" were incensed about the ship's inability to properly manage an automated emergency fire suppression system, which was reported on a KGTV interview segment on Friday, December 24, 2010.
To gain insights into this incident, we contacted South Miami, FL based maritime attorney James Walker, who also writes the Cruise Law News Blog. Mr. Walker, has previously advised passengers not to sue Carnival Cruise Lines over this latest incident, even though the Company has a long history of shipboard fires, cited in his comprehensive article "Ten Years of Cruise Ship Fires - Has the Cruise Industry Learned Anything?".
For Carnival Cruise Lines alone, these have included a fire on the Carnival Ecstasy, shortly after leaving Miami on July 20, 1998, that were extinguished by fire boats, causing damages exceeding $17 million; the Carnival Tropicale in September 1999, which left the ship adrift in the Gulf of Mexico with 1,700 passengers and crew members for almost two days after the fire disabled the engines; and the June 18, 1995 fire aboard the Carnival Celebration which forced 1,700 passengers to evacuate.
We asked Mr. Walker to give us his views on the Carnival Splendor fire. He graciously responded with the following remarks on Christmas Day.
"In the 1999 fire on Carnival's Tropicale there where problems where the crew members didn't speak English well enough to provide safety instructions. So here we are over 10 years later with another breakdown in communication with the fire instruction manual on the Splendor written in broken English. Italian officers and Filipino crew scratching their heads trying to decipher an instruction book written in broken English as the cruise ship burns. What a frightening spectacle. No one realized the instruction manual didn't match the fire suppression system for two and one-half years? This certainly gives the public an insight into the consequences of flagging cruise ships in Panama. The marine safety bulletins reflects Carnival's negligence."
The U.S. Coast Guard has been investigating the fire which disabled the 113,300 gross register tons (GRT) Italian built Concordia-class crise ship Carnival Splendor, and have released two marine safety alerts dated December 21, 2010, ominously titled "Wrong Directions: A Recipe for Failure" and "Simple Failures Render CO2 System Inoperative", about an unnamed vessel, but clearly about the Carnival Splendor. The Coast Guard has confirmed that fact to industry publication Professional Mariner.
According to the reports, the two alerts each "address critical concerns uncovered during an ongoing marine casualty investigation and should be of vital interest to Ship Builders, Classification Societies, Owner / Operators and others involved with vessel operations."
Their findings are unequivocal and damning of the Carnival Splendor, drawing conclusions that the fire itself could have easily been controlled and extinguished, if not for numerous flaws in the training, maintenance, and operation of the Splendor's emergency automated fire control system.
Everything possible that could have gone wrong, did in fact go terribly wrong, starting with the ship's, Fire Instruction Manual (FIM) which had incorrect, outdated, or erroneous instructions, illustrations and diagrams, similar to giving the owner of a Mercedes-Benz a maintenance manual for a BMW, after it had been translated from German into English by someone fluent in Japanese.
But that was just for starters. Valves that released carbon dioxide (CO2) gas, which is commonly used on engine and electrical fires, did not open, and completely failed to release the gas, which would have deprived the fire of oxygen. In addition, pipes leaks, some elements of the distribution system were designed in such a way as to retain water at low points that were unable to be drained, and caused corrosion. Seals and pipe joints also had flaws.
The ship's Master, Captain Claudio Cupisti, made the decision to release CO2 from the fixed fire fighting system on Monday, November 8 at about 6:00 p.m. PST. It failed to operate as designed. Subsequently, crewmembers were unable to activate it manually, and CO2 was never directed into the machinery space.
There were also serious questions raised about the testing and maintenance of the Splendor's CO2 emergency fire extinguishing system, and the training of crew in its use.
Eventually, crew members manually extinguished the fire, but not before it had caused extensive electrical damage, which rendered the vessel dead in the water 55 miles off Punta San Jacinto on the northern Baja California coast, and 110 miles southwest of San Diego, requiring it to be towed back into port. The U.S. Navy had to airlift 70,000 pounds critical food and water, including cans of Spam, to it by Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopters and Grumman C-2A Greyhound logistics aircraft from the San Diego based aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76).
All 3,299 passengers and 1,167 crew members ended their three day voyage to nowhere in San Diego on Thursday, November 11, when the massive 1,000 foot long ship was expertly guided into the B Street Embarcadero Cruise Ship Terminal by six tub boats at 8:30 a.m. local time.
Before the Coast Guard pointed out these failures, we had contacted Carnival Cruise Lines on November 18, 2010 with a list of nine specific questions relating to the ship's mechanical and electrical redundancy, asking why the fire was able to do such destructive damage. These questions were ignored by Ms. Aly Bello, a spokesperson for Carnival Cruise Lines.
A follow up request specifically asked for a conference call interview with a senior executive or naval engineer from Carnival Cruise Lines, or a written reply by such an expert authority to those questions. Once again, that request was ignored. Instead, we were provided with press releases about cancellations in sailing schedules and the financial impact on the company. We again contacted the Company, and pointed out that in parallel instances in the aviation industry, we were able to talk with company officials, even during times of stress and turmoil for that carrier. Once more, our requests for additional information and interviews were ignored.
Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect a cruise ship company which is literally under fire, to be willing to discuss their own culpability, especially in light of the fact that the cruise industry has been reluctant in the past to discuss safety practises, or issues of Norovirus shipboard disease outbreaks, and as Attorney Walker confirmed, has a long history of mishandling fires at sea.
Even in this instance, the U.S. Coast Guard seems to be walking on egg shells, by keeping the vessel's name, which is clearly shown in one of the photographs contained in their report, invisible in the report itself.
Finally, Carnival Cruise Lines declined offers by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate this incident, and instead turned the matter over to the Panama Maritime Authority, the country in which the vessel is registered. The U.S. Coast Guard requested to join the investigation, and Panama consented. The NTSB provided two experts to assist the Coast Guard, following its request for technical assistance. Information on the progress of the investigation will eventually be released by the Panama Maritime Authority.
Any air carrier in the United States which operated in a similar manner would have questions raised about its lack of transparency, and loss of public confidence in that company's crisis management abilities.
Tell us your thoughts. Please leave comments below or by email and subscribe to get future updates. There is also expanded coverage of other recent news articles. You can also take part in the broader discussion, "Have al-Qaeda terrorists already won?"
Comments
I wonder if Carnival had to pay back the Navy for all the costs involved in the airlift?
Comment received by email on Sunday, December 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM PST:
Hopefully we can get an invite to risk assess, train and manage the fleet to avoid further incident?
Steve Wallis
Principal
BLUEBEAST MARINE FIRE MANAGEMENT
http://bluebeast.co.uk
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your email. I always enjoy hearing from my readers, who follow these reports from around the world.
I am curious to learn if British flag vessels, including cruise ships, have more stringent "Safety First" requirements, and especially if they employ outside contractors and fire safety professionals, such as your yourself and your firm, to do such training and risk assessments?
Have you found that foreign flag vessels have a lower standard when it comes to passenger and crew safety?
Do you have any recommendations to make to Carnival Cruise Lines, the United States Coast Guard, or the Panama Maritime Authority to prevent similar incidents in the future?
Thank you very much for getting back to me.
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.
Cheers and all good wishes,
Joel
Joel Siegfried
National Desk - Airlines/Airport Examiner
Email: ecto@cox.net
Examiner Home Page: http://www.examiner.com/airlinesairport-in-national/joel-siegfried
Portfolio Page: http://members.cox.net/joel.siegfried
Comment received by email on Saturday, December 25, 2010 at 5:42 PM PST:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the interesting article. Cruise lines like Carnival are about the least transparent companies around! There is always a story to write about the cruise lines and hope you continue to cover these stories in the future.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Cruise Law News
http://www.cruiselawnews.com/
Comment originally posted on LinkedIn Aviation Link Group on Sunday, December 26, 2010 at 5:18 AM PST:
Not sure why I care about this thing that floats; the FAA in my life is enough to worry about.
Hi David,
Thank you very much for your comments.
Here's a few reasons why I think that you and others on this group might care about this incident:
# 1 - Unlike the transparency of the commercial aviation industry, and the requirements for professionals, like yourself, to adhere to strict FAA and company imposed "Safety First" requirements, the cruise ship industry has blatantly disregarded passenger and crew safety, shown a complete lack of transparency, and placed first responder rescue workers, including aviation professionals, at risk.
# 2 - U.S. taxpayers assumed the costs of airlifting 70,000 pounds of critical food and water to the Carnival Splendor by Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopters and Grumman C-2A Greyhound logistics aircraft from the San Diego based aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, along with United States Coast Guard support, diverting these resources from other possible critical missions.
# 3 - Unlike Airbus, Boeing, Honeywell, General Electric, Rolls-Royce, or any responsible aviation related company, which would certainly want to learn from mistakes and correct them, Carnival Cruise Lines continues "business as usual" and won't even respond to questions from the media.
There are broader reasons as well, but these are some basic ones.
Hope this helps.
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.
Cheers and all good wishes,
Joel
Copy of an email sent to Ms. Aly Bello of Carnival Cruise Lines media department on Sunday, December 26, 2010 at 4:19 PM PST:
Dear Ms. Bello,
On behalf of my 600,000 readers worldwide, would CCL care to offer a comment on the two United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Alerts issued on 21 December 2010, and widely reported in the media, including my article, "Coast Guard blasts Carnival Splendor for fire negligence"?
Inasmuch as your Company has sustained numerous shipboard fires at sea, it would be extremely important to learn what measures you are taking to prevent a future recurrence of such an event, and a possible greater tragedy from happening.
Are there any plans to contract with an outside company to do a risk assessment, train, and manage your fleet in fire prevention, control, and suppression to avoid further similar incidents?
I hope that I may hear back from you at your first opportunity.
Cheers,
Joel
Joel Siegfried
National Desk - Airlines/Airport Examiner
Email: ecto@cox.net
Examiner Home Page: http://www.examiner.com/airlinesairport-in-national/joel-siegfried
Portfolio Page: http://members.cox.net/joel.siegfried
Comments received by email on December 25, 2010 at 8:34 PM PST:
Part 1 of 2 Parts
1. The nation a ship is registered in ALWAYS has control of the safety investigation. In this case it is Panama's job to do the work, and they can call on any other nation for help, if they need it. They can request help from the U.S. NTSB, or the Canadian TSB or the British, Australian, New Zealand or other equivalent, or any other such body. This is standard around the world. Your implication that the NTSB should have first call is plainly out of order and against the standard in use.
2. Any air carrier in the United States is a bit misleading also... Any air carrier that is American and has an accident in the United States would have their accident investigated by the NTSB, but if the accident happened over Canada or Canadian waters, it would be investigated by the TSB of Canada, and if it happened over Mexico it would be investigated by Mexico. Again this is an agreed International standard. The nation of the airline would be able to send representatives. The nation that built the aircraft would be able to send representatives. The company that built the engines also would be able to send representatives. However the NTSB would NOT be the lead agency if the accident did not happen over the U.S. or in U.S. waters.
Continued ...
Comments received by email on December 25, 2010 at 8:34 PM PST:
Part 2a of 2 Parts
Continued from previous comment ...
3. The ship was in international waters, but off Mexico, NOT the U.S., so again there would not be any reason that the NTSB would be the controlling party in the safety investigation. Party to the investigation? Certainly... but in control of the investigation and the report - never! When the ship is in U.S. waters the U.S. coast guard has the right and duty to inspect the ship and ensure it meets U.S. requirements. When the ship is in Canadian waters the Canadian Navy has that same right to ensure it meets Canadian requirements. In Mexican waters that falls to the Mexican government's naval arm, and while in the Panama Canal it falls to Panama. Stop suggesting that the U.S. has prime rights and responsibilities and all the rest of the naval world should defer to the NTSB. That simply is not on, nor should it be.
Continued ...
Comments received by email on December 25, 2010 at 8:34 PM PST:
Part 2b of 2 Parts
Continued from previous comment ...
4. I've read both U.S. coast guard reports from beginning to end and they do NOT blast Carnival at all. These are factual reports, and state the facts. They do NOT place blame at all. They specifically avoid placing blame, since that would permit the reports to be used in law suits as if the U.S. government was finding Carnival guilty of something. That simply is also NOT ON! Safety findings always avoid blaming or blasting anyone. Otherwise no one would cooperate in any of these investigations! So the headline used is both misleading and deliberately evocative, when it should NOT be. Perhaps the writer of the column wants to blast Carnival, but the Coast Guard simply does NOT do that, and he should be sued for libel by Carnival for writing this article with that headline.
FWIW
From Canada, where some of the passengers originated...
RsH
Dear RsH,
I thank you very much for your highly literate comments and corrections, and for sending me to the woodshed on these points.
I am greatly in your debt for furnishing this information to me.
I will of course learn from these oversights, and attempt to do better in the future. But I must say, not as an excuse, that it is frustrating trying to get a response from Carnival Cruise Lines, over an incident which is similar to many others that CCL and other cruise line companies have encountered over the years. At the very least, it is a poor crisis management technique, and one that cannot instill confidence in passengers and public alike.
Thank you again. It is always good hearing from my readers. While praise may be enjoyed, criticism is often more valuable.
Cheers and all good wishes,
Joel
Joel Siegfried
National Desk - Airlines/Airport Examiner
Email: ecto@cox.net
Examiner Home Page: http://www.examiner.com/airlinesairport-in-national/joel-siegfried
Portfolio Page: http://members.cox.net/joel.siegfried
Comments received by email on December 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM PST:
I totally agree that the cruise ship companies, including Carnival and NCL to name two, can be very frustrating to deal with when asking about something that they literally do NOT want to discuss. From a PR point of view I understand that they avoid, like the plague, anything that might reduce their passenger loads. That is the nature of any tourism business... accentuate the positive and ignore anything that is negative. I've even seen the cruise ship lines ignore the laws of the country their ship is in if it would be too inconvenient to obey them. Also note that most of the lines do not really have people assigned full time to crisis management... and those who get the task are often unskilled at it and too busy protecting their rumps to be of any use. I've noted, however, that most passengers do not really care, as long as THEY have a good time and enjoy themselves.
Let me correct the above slightly. What I wrote above applies when a ship is in international waters. IF the ship, however, is in the waters of a given nation when it runs into difficulty, THEN that nation has control of the safety investigation. If, for example, this problem had happened two miles off of San Francisco, the NTSB would have had control, but once outside the 12 mile limit it becomes the flag of registry UNLESS they request a different authority take over the investigation.
Continued ...
Comments received by email on December 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM PST:
Continued from previous comments:
I have seen jurisdictions ask the UK body to do the investigation, and some of the smaller nations in the Caribbean defer to the NTSB or ask Canada's TSB to do the investigation of an accident that has happened in their jurisdiction. This is often because they recognize that they do NOT have the required expertise. As the ship was in International waters, my statement as written does apply, however.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980902-0 is a classic example. Read the full item and note that the aircraft accident was investigated by Canada because of where the aircraft ended up crashing. The investigation was one of the most expensive in history, and cost Canada millions of dollars. However the aircraft itself had nothing to do with Canada, as it was a Swissair owned airplane, built in the U.S. and flying from the U.S. to Switzerland. However it came down to the ocean just under 6 miles from Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia. The NTSB had representatives, as did the engine manufacturer and the aircraft manufacturer. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/a98h000... http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/01repor... You could spend days reading all of the material on this one accident!
Hi RsH,
The link you provided to the 1998 Swissair Flight 1991 accident is fascinating, and even has special significance as I used to live in Geneva. I appreciate your additional information as well. It is wonderful to have such critical and informed readers. I am assuming that you may do work in the aviation or transportation industries. Many of my readers are professionals in these fields, including pilots, airport managers, and airline executives. I'm blessed to have around 600,000 readers worldwide following my dispatches, and hope that you might join them. An easy way to do so would be to subscribe at no cost and receive notices of future articles.
Again, it is very good of you to share your knowledge and expertise. Thank you so much.
Cheers,
Joel
Joel Siegfried
National Desk - Airlines/Airport Examiner
Email: ecto@cox.net
Examiner Home Page: http://www.examiner.com/airlinesairport-in-national/joel-siegfried
Portfolio Page: http://members.cox.net/joel.siegfried
Comments received by email on December 26, 2010 at 6:25 PM PST:
Another minor correction to my prior statements.... When it comes to airplane accidents that happen over international waters, the nation responsible for the safety investigation is the nation whose air traffic controllers handle that part of the ocean. Thus if the accident happens over waters where Canada's air traffic controllers have jurisdiction, Canada has to do the investigating. That covers almost all of the western part of the North Atlantic, incidentally. That too is by international agreement, incidentally. The North Pacific has the same sort of jurisdictional division, with Canada responsible for a chunk, and the U.S. also responsible for a chunk, as is Russia, Korea and Japan. It just depends where the aircraft was/were when the incident happened.
RsH
I enjoyed reading this statement in your letter. I for one was on the ship and at first was a little bothered when I woke up at 5am to feel a shutter then an instant stop! This experience was one of most important of my life! I am 30 years old and my first cruise. Later in the day I seen the Mexico equivalent to our Coast guard here in the united states! I am an American paying taxes so having that relief you talk about was very important to us on the ship as well as piece of mind on the ship. (Thanks to John, cruise director and the staff)
I will say that while I didn't mind sitting in lines to eat or sitting out waiting for a rescue, It was a vacation without phones, without computers, and time for my whole family to appreciate each other and what life has to offer us. The American dream is out there you just have to pay for it sometimes. My father in law was with us and he is a chief in the Air force, as well as my father a retires Marine and a postal worker, we represent all Americans. So yes it was worth every penny spent from the tax payers because we all payed the price.
I appreciate our freedom and hold it at a higher regard, because not everyone has the same freedom! I do not blame Carnival, accidents happen, and sometimes planning for something of that magnitude is not easy. So my hats off to them!!
-Christopher Oeser
PS. No spam was served on the ship! No joke!
Comments received by email on December 27, 2010 at 3:19 AM PST:
Hi Joel,
It would seem that the majority of cruise ships prefer to keep their training "in house" and don't employ outside contractors. It is a problem as we know the standards of these passenger vessels, particularly Carnival are not satisfactory.
At present we are mainly involved with merchant vessels and deal with many Flags, again, most if not all of which are substandard with regard to SMS and ISM, particularly fire safety.
With regard to recommendations to Carnival - please invite us on board to work alongside and monitor current operations.
We are positive the experience would be of mutual benefit.
We would also welcome comprehensive liaison with the USCG and the PMA to establish a common ground and standardization which is one of the main complaints we hear from the Shipping Operators/Owners.
Best regards and a Happy New Year,
Steve
Bluebeast Marine Fire Management
59 Fairmile Road
Christchurch
Dorset
BH23 2LA
UK
http://www.bluebeast.co.uk/
Comments posted on the Carnival Splendor Forum by SarahOh! who replied on Monday, December 27, 2010 at 03:16 AM PST
Anybody who has a brain and actually reads the Coast Guard safety alerts will find that they hardly say what you claim they do. Really crappy reporting, there, buddy. I will be sure not to read a thing you write.
Sensation-1999 (Honeymoon Cruise #1 to Grand Cayman, Cozumel, New Orleans
Legend-2008 (Honeymoon Cruise #2 with Hurricane Gustav to Key West (changed from Grand Cayman), Cozumel, Belize, Isla Roatan)
ECSTASY-3/2011 (Sweet 16 Cruise for the kid to Cozumel and Progreso)
This occurred in 1999. In 2008 our entire family went on a cruise and used Carnival. Everyone aboard was put through an emergency simulation maneuver before we were allowed to leave the docking area.
Whether the training was improperly taught or not we probably will never know. The equipment may have been functioning fine on the previous cruise or test and something could have gone wrong when the fire broke out. You never know, being able to get help from other avenues quickly was a smart move. I am sure since there are anywhere from 3,000 to 6,000 people aboard these vessels the fire safety program would be looked into and improved upon as well as the fire suppressant equipment necessary to keep everyone save and the ship afloat.
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 1:37 AM PST:
Part 1 of 2 Parts
Well, there's a big fat DUH that failures occurred.
The reports speak for themselves, however, I don't need to take them out of context. They clearly blame much of the problem on the SHIPYARD, which Carnival does not own, the builders of the system as well. Carnival hired someone to build it-seems to me those reports mean Carnival has a claim against not only the builders, but the inspector/service provider that had "recently inspected and serviced" the system..
Further, not once is Carnival's name mentioned at all, much less "Blasted" as your title states. The Coast Guard report found some issues that need to be addressed. Not once does it call the ship owner negligent, nor is Carnival's name ever mentioned.
Enough of your emotional string pulling-I won't fall for it. Your reporting is nothing more than bullocks that tries to use people's emotions and fears against them-and your follow-up post is more of the same.
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 1:37 AM PST:
Part 2 of 2 Parts
Some of the citizens of this country actually have a brain and can read a safety alert and understand it all by our little ole selves. I can, and I call BS on your reporting...you might as well work for the National Enquirer because that's about how much truth your "report" holds. Was there a ship fire? Yes. Were there failures? Yes. Does the Coast Guard report "BLAST" Carnival? To the contrary, they actually state, first and foremost, that the fire was contained due to the quick and effective crew...HOWEVER there were problems with one system..the CO2 delivery system. That system didn't CAUSE the fire, and in the end, its failure had little to no bearing on the results of the fire. The fire was contained regardless of that system. Your reporting TRIES to suggest that the failed system somehow CAUSED the fire, and that the CG "Blasts" Carnival...neither of which are true if someone were to actually look at the (very basic) report.
IMO, relying on the stupidity of your reader is no way to gain readership.
Comments received via email on Saturday, January 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM PST:
Part 1 of 2 Parts
Regarding the Carnival Splendor, as a former NTSB investigator, Director of Carnival Corporate Maritime Audit and Carnival Cruise Line VP and Designated Person I just saw your article. It is well written but misses wide...
The USCG inspected the Splendor overseas in the foreign yard as she was being built and the USCG reviewed the plans and safety equipment. The USCG inspected the Splendor again here in the States when the ship arrived and she was boarded and checked routinely by the USCG.
In addition the Splendor was checked by Class on behalf of the yard during building and again by Class on behalf of Flag and the owner after acceptance by the owner.
The people doing the investigation are the same people that allowed the ship into service. Conflict of interest?
Continued...
Comments received via email on Saturday, January 1, 2011 at 1:30 PM PST:
Part 2 of 2 Parts
Continued from previous post...
After the investigation and handling of the collision with the container ship M/V COSCO Busan do you really expect the same people to come clean with how their organization failed to provide the US taxpayers with value for their dollar.
M/V COSCO Busan - who watched and wagered that the ship was going to hit the bridge - were those same people drug tested?
Who was in charge of estimating the amount of oil released? Check the USCG record on estimating oil releases - from Buzzard's Bay to the Gulf of Mexico, a history of too little, too late and always erring on the side of the operator.
CCL has a group that looks after new builds. How did they miss this? How did CCL Corporate internal maritime audit function miss this? And how did CCL operating company operations miss this? Go on a CCL ship with my family, not likely.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write and comment on my article, and for sharing your insights, expertise, and knowledge.
I am in your debt for such valuable information, and broader references, which I hope to apply in future articles. I found your remarks to be fascinating and eye opening.
I really enjoy hearing from my readers, many of whom are very knowledgeable like yourself.
Please follow my writings in the future. I good way to do so is through a free subscription to receive email notices of new dispatches, by clicking on the "Subscribe" button at the top of each article.
Thank you again.
Cheers and Happy New Year,
Joel
Joel Siegfried
National Desk - Airlines/Airport Examiner
Email: ecto@cox.net
Examiner Home Page: http://www.examiner.com/airlinesairport-in-national/joel-siegfried
Portfolio Page: http://members.cox.net/joel.siegfried
Comments originally posted on LinkedIn AviationLink Group on Sunday, December 2, 2011 at 7:09 p.m. PST:
Well said Joel.
It would be nice to see a "B list" of passenger ships operators similar to the one the FAA issued to certain countries which are forbidden to operate in the US.
Even better would be to require them to be flagged in the US and comply with ALL the US laws and regulations for these ships based in our ports and doing business here. But that probably would be too much to ask.
Thank you David for those excellent ideas. Much to my surprise, this article has generated more controversy than I would have guessed. I've collected and consolidated all of the comments in the original article itself, as people make their remarks through various channels, via email directly to me, and postings on other forums, including this one.
The people who seem most offended by anything remotely critical of Carnival Cruise Lines are former CCL passengers. I don't know if it's denial, or if they see this article as an attack on their beliefs. It reminds me of an abused spouse not wanting to leave the person abusing them, or the "Stockholm Syndrome".
Not to say that Carnival or any of the cruise ship operators are all bad. They provide affordable vacation escapes and good leisure values for the masses.
Thank you again David. It was good hearing from you.
Cheers,
Joel
Joel Siegfried
National Desk - Airlines/Airport Examiner
Email: ecto@cox.net
Examiner Home Page: http://www.examiner.com/airlinesairport-in-national/joel-siegfried
Portfolio Page: http://members.cox.net/joel.siegfried
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Tuesday December 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM PST:
Part 1 of 4
Fascinating. You make assertions and cite your assertions as proof of veracity.
Are you sure you don't work for the government?
For a hunk of machinery that's in more/less continual operation for over a decade at a time, that's a pretty small number. ...I mean, compared to automobiles, and airplanes, and buses ... which are both turned off for a large portion of their running life and have more incidence of mechanical fires.
Unquestionably. But there's risk and then there's risk. And this risk was pretty much confined to "having a bad vacation". Now, while it's all kind of fun to play an endless game of What Iffing, it's also rather pointless and - sadly - fairly masturbatory. What if the fire hadn't been put out? It was. And in the end we're left with the same futile exercise as "what if the next airplane you fly on, Joel, has a mechanical system fire despite its tight FAA regulation and falls out of the sky over Poughkeepsie?"
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Tuesday December 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM PST:
Part 2 of 4
The only thing we can all do is continue on with life. If you choose not to, that is your business. If you choose to mock and insult those who choose to by declaring them to be idiots, that is also your business. But public commentary on a public board invites public response. And as someone who is [apparently] your 600,001st reader - albeit contrary to my better judgment - you can probably expect a good dose of response from me.
..which is imposed by a government which [correctly or otherwise] interprets its authorities under the Commerce Clause to allow it, there is no such grasping manner for this - or any - government to regulate commerce on the high seas. Such "regulation" can be interpreted as piracy - and has been at several critical points during the course of history.
Yeah, we see how well that's worked, don't we?
Person for person, cruise lines catering to "western" pleasure cruises are just about at the top of the "passenger and crew safety" pile. What you meant to say was that you can't get them to answer your questions, and so - conspiracy theorist that you are - you're going to assert all manner of vivid conclusions; that'll show 'em!!
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Tuesday December 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM PST:
Part 3 of 4
And this is the key point. You - the self-acknowledged center of the universe - can't get anyone to answer your challenges and therefore you're going to up the game. Your 600,000 previous readers are of such obvious import that your "upped" game is to come on the message board of the very outfit you're trying to conpiratorialize and - essentially - leave graffiti on their walls. That's some comeuppance!
What truth?
They had a fire. Statistically, [more truth], there is less chance of fire on a pleasure cruise ship in continual operation and without nosy and officious government regulation than there is on a commercial aircraft which is besotted with such regulation. Do you particularly like that truth? or are you in denial because it's inconvenient to your current conspiratorial belief system?
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Tuesday December 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM PST:
Part 4 of 4
Here's more truth for you, bubby:
1] the number of mechanical fires on Carnival can be counted - by your own admission - on one hand, so the "no matter how many" line up there is unwarranted alarmism from someone desperate to claim Truth as a boon companion;
2] everyone, including you, undertakes a huge amount of their life risking statistical calamity, and they do so without thinking about it, and they do so in ways that are - statistically - far more likely to actually have that calamity than they do by setting foot aboard a pleasure cruise ship in the western hemisphere, so categorizing everyone who fails to see the necessity of your erstwhile "investigative journalism" as in denial is another swing-and-a-miss.
Now, compared to stepping into your own shower, getting on the Splendor is comparable to getting swaddled in bubble wrap.
Deny it all you want, it's your choice. But American Standard refuses to return my phone calls and answer my letters asking what they've learned about bathtub design - if anything - that can reduce the huge number of accidental falls while using their product. They're obviously stonewalling me, probably to cover their negligence.
Is there room on that cross of yours for a fellow self-involved martyr, Joel?
SIG: Saying what needs to be said for over 30 years.
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 07:43 PM PST:
Well said Ross.......... I'm not really sure what this clown is trying accomplish......other than feed his own ego.....
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 07:37 PM PST:
*claps*...
clearly you have more patience than I to answer so many points line by line! lol I just want to tell this guy to bugger off and show his faux reporting to the idiots that believe him and can't research anything for themselves. The same people that say, "It must be true..I read it on the INTERNET!"
Sensation-1999 (Honeymoon Cruise #1 to Grand Cayman, Cozumel, New Orleans
Legend-2008 (Honeymoon Cruise #2 with Hurricane Gustav to Key West (changed from Grand Cayman), Cozumel, Belize, Isla Roatan)
ECSTASY-3/2011 (Sweet 16 Cruise for the kid to Cozumel and Progreso)
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 01:22 PM PST:
I got off the Splendor on Sunday November 7, at the same time the Coast Guard was coming aboard to do a full Coast Guard inspection, so what did the Coast Guard overlook, so lets blame them for the fire. S**t happens, things break. Get over it.
Comments originally posted on Carnival Splendor Forum on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 03:08 PM PST:
Yeah, I find it odd that just after this very system was inspected, it catches fire. Maybe the CG turned something on and forgot to turn it off.
Sensation-1999 (Honeymoon Cruise #1 to Grand Cayman, Cozumel, New Orleans
Legend-2008 (Honeymoon Cruise #2 with Hurricane Gustav to Key West (changed from Grand Cayman), Cozumel, Belize, Isla Roatan)
ECSTASY-3/2011 (Sweet 16 Cruise for the kid to Cozumel and Progreso)
Call Brian Swensen
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!