Accident to the Crown Princess

[Joe Russo]

You're right. I just looked on Fincantieri's website and saw it. Here is the side view of the ship. Not much below the waterline is there?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

They designed the ship with such a low draft so as to not come aground on an under water ice shelf if it came upon an iceberg in the caribbean.

 

[Peter Spielvogel]

I always find the lightness of cruise ships amazing...that such little draft can hold up such a big machine. It's a hell of a trick to pull that off, I imagine.

 

[John Clifford]

quote:

...as to not come aground on an under water ice shelf if it came upon an iceberg in the caribbean

Well that would be something, if they encounterd an iceberg in the Caribbean

"Am I missing something"???

Yes, I know many of these ships sail up to Alaska, as well. Though it would be rather hard to miss some of the 'bergs they show, especially with GPS Navigation.​

 

[Samuel Halpern]

John, you obviously are not missing anything.

Peter, no trick at all. Despite a relatively low draft, the volume of water displaced by the ship equals the weight of the ship. They carry relatively wide beams.

 

[Peter Spielvogel]

Oh, I'm sure the numbers all work out. I'm just saying that it's impressive how buoyant they are. If you make 'em fat enough, they'll just float like a lily pad.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Princess Cruises published an open letter on it's website yesterday which can be read at http://www.princess.com/news/article.jsp?newsArticleId=na825

An interesting paragraph goes as follows:

quote:

We can appreciate there may be concern as to the cause of this incident, and questions about whether it could happen again. As you may be aware, there is an investigation into the incident being carried out by the U.S. authorities which has not yet been fully completed. It would therefore be inappropriate for us to comment in any detail before that investigation is complete and the results published.

However, we can confirm that the incident was due to human error and the appropriate personnel changes have been made.

Translation: Somebody got sacked even though the investigation is not complete.​

 

[Joe Russo]

It was Gilligan

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>It was Gilligan

And, about time he was dismissed, too. "Little Buddy" notwithstanding, he was lucky to have escaped with his life the first time around. Had the obvious thing happened, no jury in the world would have convicted whichever of the six finally snapped.

>Translation: Somebody got sacked even though the investigation is not complete.

Further translation: This generated so much horrible publicity that we felt the need to do SOMETHING that gives the appearance of positive action. So, we sent out this oddly worded statement that gives us the appearance of our having fired people before all of the relevant information was gathered and interpreted.

 

[Erik Wood]

I somewhat concur with Jim's assessment of the letter posted by Princess/Carnival. While I am not sure who they fired....I have heard rumor that it was NOT Captain Proctor and that there were several that where either transferred, demoted or sacked.

No matter what some personnel changes on that ship needed to be made if there is even a hint of a human error. The investigation is not complete, nor will it be complete (on the NTSB side) until the fall legistlative session.

I am eagerly awaiting the final word.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The problem with this from a PR sense is that if several people were involved it gives the public the impression that Princess/Carnival is not too particular in who they hire. A single individual is one thing, but a group of people is quite something else.

 

[Ryan Thompson]

Crown Princess had stabilizers, right? Were they not switched on?