Carnival Cruise ship lost power in Gulf, passenger reactions overboard?

[SidewaysTakumi]

Ok...if anyone cares, I have discussed the trip with my student who was on the ship during this "incident".

First thing she told me was that they constantly lied about what was going on, how long things would take, what would be working, etc.

She also said shortly after the fire, and while the crew was calling for help via cell (only got reception on deck), she heard them say over and over that the captain was "unavailable at this time". She later saw the captain, obviously inebriated.

The elevators did not work most of the time and they were traveling with her younger brother who has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheel chair. The company, when calling the emergency contacts listed for the passengers, assured my student's grandmother that the elevators were always working.

She said she only knew that the few lower decks had "filth" leaking from their ceilings. But she did say that her little brother's room that was wheelchair accessible, did have some "backflow" because of his shower with no lip to hold it in when the boat swayed.

Also--many people slept outside and made make shift tents out of sheets and the deck chairs. However, right before the news helicopters got there, the crew made them take them down as they would be a "danger" in case of an emergency landing of a coast guard copter.

She also said two tow boats showed up, and the smaller one was placed at the help of the tow and they were going about 6mph it seemed the entire time. Once they were in US waters, the smaller tug (which was from a caribbean country I believe) left and they had to hook up to another tug.

She said the last few days they ate mostly "cucumber and onion sandwiches when the meat and cheeses went bad."

Let me know if you guys have any comments/questions and I'll see what I can do about finding answers for you through her.

 

[notjustjay]

First thing she told me was that they constantly lied about what was going on, how long things would take, what would be working, etc.

Glad to hear your student is OK. While I hate reading stories like the one you just posted, I think it also helps to realize that there are always three sides to every story (what he said happened, what she said happened, what really happened).

Also, that people are human, we make mistakes. We can't even expect everyone to follow protocol 100% on a good day, let alone when things go to hell.

I'm not trying to make excuses for the crew, the cruise line execs, or anybody. It could well be that they handled this incompetently and if so I am sure they will get what's coming to them. I'm just saying a little perspective is in order.

"Constantly being lied to" is different from "constantly being told inaccurate information". I've been in situations where I have been told "here's the situation" and then turned around and told that to other people, only to find out that what I was told was wrong. (Tell me that hasn't happened to you!) I didn't know I was lying to people. Also, you've all played that game "telephone" where messages get distorted as they get passed along from person to person. Ask three different people and you get three different answers. I'm just saying there are possible explanations other than "they were lying and deceiving us".

The photo a few posts back of the skimpy ham sandwich was at first glance kind of upsetting, until you think rationally about it. 4000 people onboard a ship with limited resources and no power. People still got fed. Not much, granted, but they were nowhere near starvation or in harm's way. I have worked in a facility where we lost power and still had to cook for 100 people, scrambling to come up with something from the available ingredients and facilities. I can't imagine doing that for 4000.

Then, finally, there are the passengers. I like to think that 90% of the folks on board were good natured, understanding people. But you know, some people are selfish. Some people don't follow directions. Tell everyone "the toilets are not working, please don't use them" and probably 90% will obey, but there's still those few people who either don't understand or don't care and they'll try it anyway. Again, I've seen it in person with 100 people, I can't imagine 4000.

Having said all this, I'm set to sail on a Carnival cruise in a few months, and I've decided to pack extra water bottles, dry food, and a roll of dog baggies in my daypack. You never know...

 

[LorenK]

I have never been interested in cruises to begin with and always wonder what the allure of them is.

I haven't read the whole thread, but the one issue that has caused me the most wonder is sanitation. You have 4200 people on a ship and it takes days to go from one point to another, and no one considers the sanitation facilities as a critical facility? Food, water? You can fly that in, but people have bodily functions that only stop when they die.

It would seem to me that, given that things always go wrong, the one one thing that should be a critical system is sanitation. There are some really stupid people designing these ships.

 

[GermanyChris]

Bodily functions could happen over water if necessary...

The allure of the cruise is it'a a floating hotel, with decent food. One day you're playing the the jungle of Belize the next you're on a beach on an island.

 

[G51989]

I have never been interested in cruises to begin with and always wonder what the allure of them is.

Lots of things, they can be fun. French cruise companies are the best.

I haven't read the whole thread, but the one issue that has caused me the most wonder is sanitation. You have 4200 people on a ship and it takes days to go from one point to another, and no one considers the sanitation facilities as a critical facility? Food, water? You can fly that in, but people have bodily functions that only stop when they die.

The ship is capable of dumping human waste, but to much law prevents them from doing it 12 miles from Shore, if they were allowed to there would be no problem.

It would seem to me that, given that things always go wrong, the one one thing that should be a critical system is sanitation. There are some really stupid people designing these ships.

Do you even know anything about these ships? They are engineering marvels, very smart and intelligent people design and build them. Emergency systems are made to keep the ship afloat and safe, not make people comfy.

----------

It's funny that the news site didn't publish any photos of conditions:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/instagrams-from-carnival-triumph

such as this awesome sandwich
https://twitter.com/mattflener/status/302170824557879297/
from
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...graphs-from-carnival-triumph-cruise-ship.html

Wow, what a bunch of pansies.

----------

Why have a ship that can house over 4500 people and not have back up systems to support it. This sounds like a new age Titanic.

Because backup systems are made to keep people alive, not keep them comfy.

----------

A CNN legal analyst reported a couple days ago the passengers were likely legally SOL due to contracts. As long as the cruise line dropped them on dry ground, even in a foreign country, basically relieved them of most liability. I don't know if the analysit knows what he's talking about as each case has their own merit. Of course reputation will likely rule the day.

Do you have a better way to get the ship and passengers back to safety?

----------

I thought these ships are supposed to have emergency backup systems. It sounds like the whole ships life support system went down.

Nope, backup systems keep the ship afloat, keep the radars and maneuvering thrusters going, and the blidge pump and emergency lights going. The basics.

----------

It sounds like bad engineering or overconfidence that something bad could never happen.

That ship is anything but badly engineered.

----------

I thought these ships are supposed to have emergency backup systems. It sounds like the whole ships life support system went down.

Nope, backup systems keep the ship afloat, keep the radars and maneuvering thrusters going, and the blidge pump and emergency lights going. The basics.

----------

Yikes, I'm scheduled for my first cruise -- with Carnival, no less -- in a few months. I know these things don't happen very often but... yikes!

At first it didn't seem so bad. Dead in the water, being towed back to a port, OK. You get a refund of everything you spent on the cruise, plus a free cruise next time, free airfare, etc. Other cruise ships were dropping off food.

Then the reports of raw sewage came in, and many hours of waiting to be fed, and that's when I figure it stopped being a good deal I guess dealing with 4000+ people in any sort of emergency situation isn't going to be fun.

I'm going to be sure to keep bottled water and some non-perishable snacks in my day pack when I arrive...

This isn't something you need to worry about, this was a freak accident, like getting a flat tire no one saw it coming.

----------

I agree. If I was on that cruise, I would be happy with that settlement.

As would I, cash plus another free ride. It was a freak accident.

----------

They also waited 10 hours before calling for help.

That was most likely due to the engineerings trying to repair the ship, seeing if they might be able to rig a new fuel line.

----------

Carnival's bigger problem is that this has happened multiple times before. How safe are these ships and should more be done to prevent things like this from happening.

The ship was never in danger of sinking, a fire in the engine room disabled the engines. Tow it back to port, fix it and shes good to go.

----------

If done properly it shouldn't be a problem, honestly it's one of those things they should have a procedure for.

Even with the tenders, it would take DAYS to empty the ship, which would be at port in the same time anyway, and most people are pretty stupid and wouldn't follow safety laws in the transfer.

----------

These ships are designed for transfers like this. In fact, many Carnival ships don't even dock at certain ports because they're too large. They transfer guests (yes thousands in open water) aboard tender boats and take those to the actual port.

They are not built to transfer 4000 people onto tenders at sea, even not moving, the ship will move all over the place. Not safe.

Towing the ship back was the safest way to make sure everyone got back ok.

 

[Gutwrench]

G51989, insofar as your comment of my quote I haven't a clue what you're talking about or trying to say. Would you like to clarify?

 

[dma550]

I like the modern age titanic comparison - I just couldn't understand why food/supplies couldn't be coptered onto the ship, or some sort of "relief" vessel pulled alongside and remove passengers. Very strange.

I am glad I don't have to listen to news stories about the toilet problems anymore, I was ready to lose it.

 

[12dylan34]

Ok...if anyone cares, I have discussed the trip with my student who was on the ship during this "incident".

Thanks for posting! This is actually why I came back to this thread.

 

[notjustjay]

G51989, insofar as your comment of my quote I haven't a clue what you're talking about or trying to say. Would you like to clarify?

I like the modern age titanic comparison - I just couldn't understand why food/supplies couldn't be coptered onto the ship, or some sort of "relief" vessel pulled alongside and remove passengers. Very strange.

My understanding was that they DID bring in extra food and supplies, and remove at least one (possibly several?) passengers who needed to urgently get off that ship.

As for everyone saying "why couldn't they just take the passengers off?", I think it's been explained already, but again, that would not have been a trivial task at all. It would have taken hours upon hours (if not days) to tender 4,000 people from one ship to another. I remember reading about 25 knot winds and 4-to-6-foot-tall waves. Can you imagine the risk of putting people out into lifeboats or tenders in those kinds of conditions? "So, just wait it out", you say. Well, they did that anyway.

And I can't picture people being told "OK, we're going to evacuate the ship!" and then calmly and obediently wait their turn for hours, even days. You've all seen Titanic. You know what would have happened.

And, supposing that they did manage to get 4,000 people off the Triumph and onto another ship. Can you imagine the logistics? Assigning new rooms for everyone, getting their luggage and cargo aboard and sorted out (it would be taking up a lot of room in the tenders, too, by the way, slowing the transfer)... can you imagine dealing with "I paid for a suite on the Triumph, I want at least the equivalent on this vessel! I want my premium meals! ..." So in addition to hours waiting to switch vessels, now you've got to queue everyone up to get them settled into the new ship. And plan meals for everyone.

By the time you've done all that, you've taken up just as much time as you did towing the Triumph back to shore, and since your average person spent half of that time waiting on the Triumph anyway for their turn to board the rescue ship, what have you really gained for all the time and effort and risk?

 

[Gutwrench]

Ok. Again, so what's that have to do with me?

 

[notjustjay]

Ok. Again, so what's that have to do with me?

Oh, I see where you're going. Sorry, I didn't read the quote portion from you as carefully as I did the response from G51989.

 

[Gutwrench]

Oh, I see where you're going. Sorry, I didn't read the quote portion from you as carefully as I did the response from G51989.

No problem at all. Thank you.

 

[GermanyChris]

My understanding was that they DID bring in extra food and supplies, and remove at least one (possibly several?) passengers who needed to urgently get off that ship.

As for everyone saying "why couldn't they just take the passengers off?", I think it's been explained already, but again, that would not have been a trivial task at all. It would have taken hours upon hours (if not days) to tender 4,000 people from one ship to another. I remember reading about 25 knot winds and 4-to-6-foot-tall waves. Can you imagine the risk of putting people out into lifeboats or tenders in those kinds of conditions? "So, just wait it out", you say. Well, they did that anyway.

And I can't picture people being told "OK, we're going to evacuate the ship!" and then calmly and obediently wait their turn for hours, even days. You've all seen Titanic. You know what would have happened.

And, supposing that they did manage to get 4,000 people off the Triumph and onto another ship. Can you imagine the logistics? Assigning new rooms for everyone, getting their luggage and cargo aboard and sorted out (it would be taking up a lot of room in the tenders, too, by the way, slowing the transfer)... can you imagine dealing with "I paid for a suite on the Triumph, I want at least the equivalent on this vessel! I want my premium meals! ..." So in addition to hours waiting to switch vessels, now you've got to queue everyone up to get them settled into the new ship. And plan meals for everyone.

By the time you've done all that, you've taken up just as much time as you did towing the Triumph back to shore, and since your average person spent half of that time waiting on the Triumph anyway for their turn to board the rescue ship, what have you really gained for all the time and effort and risk?

I haven't actually

 

[notjustjay]

I haven't actually

Count yourself lucky!

 

[gnasher729]

The tenders are the same exact same vessels you would be on if it sank. The orange vessels that are on the side of ship are the tenders/life boats.

The only difference is that the same boat that transports 90 people towards land in a comfortable way will hold 160 people when the ship needs evacuating. People only, no luggage. Not comfortable. Significantly better than swimming if the ship is hit by an iceberg, but not better than staying on board of a ship with sanitation problems.

 

[quagmire]

The only difference is that the same boat that transports 90 people towards land in a comfortable way will hold 160 people when the ship needs evacuating. People only, no luggage. Not comfortable. Significantly better than swimming if the ship is hit by an iceberg, but not better than staying on board of a ship with sanitation problems.

So people would rather tolerate a boat filled with feces than to spend 2 minutes in a tender while they transfer to another ship?

Plus, I doubt they would fill the tenders to 160 people to transfer people....

 

[G51989]

So people would rather tolerate a boat filled with feces than to spend 2 minutes in a tender while they transfer to another ship?

Plus, I doubt they would fill the tenders to 160 people to transfer people....

It would have taken days to offload the ship, maybe even longer than it took to tow it back to port.

Its not like anyones lives were in danger, the ship was never ever in danger of sinking.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

I haven't actually

Jack dies cause his fat girlfriend is too stupid to stay on the lifeboat he gets her on. Apparently, its more romantic to stay together during a tragedy and have one die, then split up but both of you live. Women think this is romantic but they also thought Pretty Woman is romantic. That's a movie about a whore by the way who is rented out for a weekend by a rich, gay dude who sweeps her off her feet by the end of the film. I don't know, this may be off topic...

 

[notjustjay]

The only difference is that the same boat that transports 90 people towards land in a comfortable way will hold 160 people when the ship needs evacuating. People only, no luggage. Not comfortable. Significantly better than swimming if the ship is hit by an iceberg, but not better than staying on board of a ship with sanitation problems.

Plus, evacuating only the people and not all their baggage is a recipe for another disaster. Now you've got to go back and get everyone's belongings, and worry about looters or other theft or loss... if you take all of their things, you've got people swinging big heavy containers onto these boats now and you've just delayed the transfer by that much longer.

It would have taken days to offload the ship, maybe even longer than it took to tow it back to port.

I think that's the bottom line here. People underestimate how long it takes to move 4000 people -- and all their stuff -- from point A to point B even under the best of circumstances, let alone between two giant moving targets.

Plus, all this time that you'd spend transferring all these people, the two ships would have to be essentially sitting still, right? So now you've added that much more time in addition to the days it took to tow the ship back to port.

 

[quagmire]

It would have taken days to offload the ship, maybe even longer than it took to tow it back to port.

Its not like anyones lives were in danger, the ship was never ever in danger of sinking.

As I said earlier, I am not saying that is what they should have done.

Just saying it was a feasible option.

 

[sim667]

All these moaning passengers going on about faeces and lack of food have clearly never been to a music festival (especially one in the UK, with the amount of rain we have you can never tell what is and isnt mud)

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Looks like the lawsuits keep coming:

http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/02/tr...c-dog-sues-carnival-cruise-lines/#more-213532

 

[Moyank24]

So people would rather tolerate a boat filled with feces than to spend 2 minutes in a tender while they transfer to another ship?

Plus, I doubt they would fill the tenders to 160 people to transfer people....

I'm actually curious as to why we haven't seen any pictures of this boat filled with feces....

Jack dies cause his fat girlfriend is too stupid to stay on the lifeboat he gets her on. Apparently, its more romantic to stay together during a tragedy and have one die, then split up but both of you live. Women think this is romantic but they also thought Pretty Woman is romantic. That's a movie about a whore by the way who is rented out for a weekend by a rich, gay dude who sweeps her off her feet by the end of the film. I don't know, this may be off topic...

Kate Winslet is not fat.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

I'm actually curious as to why we haven't seen any pictures of this boat filled with feces....




Kate Winslet is not fat.

Not now. But back then even the director called her "Kate Weighs-a-lot" She did diet and lost weight for the nude scene, though.

 

[Orange Crane]

So people would rather tolerate a boat filled with feces than to spend 2 minutes in a tender while they transfer to another ship?

Plus, I doubt they would fill the tenders to 160 people to transfer people....

I'm actually curious as to why we haven't seen any pictures of this boat filled with feces....

I'm curious about how it's possible to spend "two minutes" on a tender boat and get anywhere at all.