Royal Caribbean’s latest cruise ships. Are the evacuation rafts practical in a real emergency?

[PeterChappell]

In order to cram enough people into lifeboats, Royal Caribbean obtained a waiver to increase the maximum lifeboat capacity up to 370 people. These are enough for 6,660 people. However Oasis has a total maximum population of around 8,500 which means 1,850 people (in theory the crew) make do with large Life-rafts. These are connected to a series of chutes running up to deck 4, so evacuees have to jump into these and slide or fall into the inflated life-raft.

Imagine a scenario where the ship is listing so all the lifeboats can't be launched. This would mean that passengers, including those who are elderly, or adults with infants and babies, have to use these! I just can't see this being practical, and I would imagine some would refuse to jump.

 

[Doug Criner]

I wonder what happens if somebody gets snagged while half-way down?

 

[Stephen Carey]

Those things are terrible, especially if there are blockages and people start piling up on top of you.
Here's a fit, trained crew not finding it easy (there are others showing even more problems). Wouldn't fancy throwing granny and kids into one of these - bad enough in calm water, lethal in a panic situation.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

What a way to kill a few people.

 

[Doug Criner]

So Royal Caribbean was "granted a waiver" approving this? Who or what organization granted the waiver?

 

[LydiaMaria]

This sounds like an outrageous disregard for life and safety. In this day and age, how could such a thing be approved?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

As large as ships are becoming, there aren't a lot of options. You only have so much length in the hull to play with in which to hang boats under davits, all of which can...and do...cause topweight problems. Even worse, half of them are rendered useless if the ship takes on a heavy list, such as which happened with the Lusitania and more recently, the Costa Concordia.
Rafts are far from ideal, but there aren't a lot of better ideas out there.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

but there aren't a lot of better ideas out there.

Yes they are, but they get in the way of passenger living space and recreation.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Yes they are, but they get in the way of passenger living space and recreation.

And that's one of the oldest and most treacherous games going: How do you balance safety with the utility of the ship so passengers won't stay away in droves?

 

[Stephen Carey]

Yes they are, but they get in the way of passenger living space and recreation.

I suppose your more than accurate comment intentionally paraphrases that used for the lack of lifeboats on the Olympic class!
My opinion of the narrowly averted grounding of Viking Sky is that had it happened, it would have kept more cruise ships in port than covid did... But it hasn't happened yet, and life goes on - we hope.

 

[LydiaMaria]

I wonder if cruise ships have to disclose to prospective passengers that a lifeboat may not be available in a catastrophe and explain this possible chute escape route? Answering myself, probably not, who in their right mind would sign up but it should at the very least be a requirement. As members who know all too well about lack of lifeboats, is there a marine safety organization that could be petitioned to investigate what could amount to a death sentence for many passengers? I just find this disregard for life and safety so outrageous.