Report a Tip
Retain our Firm

A “man overboard” situation took place yesterday evening on the Wonder of the Seas as it was sailing to Mexico.

A man apparently went overboard at some time shortly after 8:00 p.m. when the Wonder of the Seas was sailing south of Cuba. I received a message at 8:47 p.m. last night from a woman on the cruise, stating that she heard an “Oscar, Oscar, Oscar” announcement over the ship’s PA system 31 minutes earlier.

Cruise Radio’s Doug Parker was one of the first bloggers to report on the situation. He reported that a passenger who goes my the name “Cabana Girl” posted on the Cruise Critic message board:

  • “Heard an Oscar Oscar Oscar Port on Wonder of the Seas during dinner this evening. A crewmember told us it was a child. Don’t know if this is true but there are spotlights and a boat down searching. Very sad if this true.”

Another passengers posted on the Cruise critic message board that the captain made an announcement of the man overboard around 8:00 p.m. yesterday evening. Others commented that a rescue boat had been deployed to search for the man in the water. Due to Hurricane Idalia, the Royal Caribbean ship had already modified its original Western Caribbean itinerary. An unrelated medical emergency cut short the search (after only around two and one-half hours) for the overboard man as the Wonder of the Seas decided to sail the ill or injured passenger to the Cayman Islands.

  • “I am on board the Wonder of the Seas now. The Captain announced that there was a man overboard about 8pm CT tonight Tues 8-29. I started video taping the small boat that was searching for the person and I searched with my camera from my balcony for about an hour with no luck. Our ship already had to change course because we were headed right into the hurricane so we are missing Honduras as a result of Hurricane Idelia and so we had to come around the bottom of Cuba. We were stopped for about two and a half hours looking for the overboard person when another emergency happened on board and now we are headed as fast as possible to Grand Cayman which was not one of our stops.”

A family member (a sister who was not on the cruise) of a nineteen year-old passenger posted pleas on social media for the search to continue for her brother, who she identified as Sigmund Ropich of Paris, Texas.

Unfortunately, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) has indicated that it is not involved in the search. No explanation why the USCG declined to become involved was provided. According to Orlando Local News-6:

“When News 6 reached out to the U.S. Coast Guard, officials said they are not involved in the incident and that the Cuban Border Guard is the lead on the case.”

Royal Caribbean also told News-6 that it allegedly “is working closely with local authorities.” It is less than clear what Royal Caribbean means by this standard statement. I have never heard of Royal Caribbean or any other cruise line working with Cuba to locate a cruise guest missing from a U.S. based cruise ship. It is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that Cuba will devote any of its limited Coast Guard resources to search for a U.S. cruise passenger. It’s unknown whether the Cuban Coast Guard, known as “Tropas Guardafronteras,” has access to any C-130 type of aircraft to conduct search at sea.

Shown is the AIS chart of the Wonder of the Seas showing the slight change of course when it conducted a brief search for less than three hours. (Image credit: CruiseMapper)
Close up of AIS chart.

It seems outrageous if it is true that the crew of the Wonder of the Seas searched for less than three hours and then left their guest in the water at night, knowing that the USCG would not be dispatching cutters and helicopters to continue search and rescue operations.

In November of last year, a passenger was rescued after he fell from the Carnival Valor and treaded water for over twenty (20) hours.

In June of 2018, a crew member on the Norwegian Getaway fell overboard in the sea north of Cuba  and was rescued by a passing Carnival ship (Carnival Glory) 22 hours later (Read: How often do people fall overboard on cruise ships? by Rosie Spinks in Quartz).

In August 2018, a heavily intoxicated 46 year-old guest fell from the Norwegian Star and was eventually rescued, around 35 hours later, by the Croatian Coast Guard after the NCL cruise ship abandoned the passenger and returned to its home port.

In these two overboard cases from NCL cruise ships, the crew member and guest were eventually successfully rescued notwithstanding the fact that NCL abandoned them both.

Even though Royal Caribbean touted the Wonder of the Seas as the largest cruise ship in the world, the cruise line decided not to install an automatic man overboard (MOB) system, which are required by the 2010 Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act (CVSSA). State of the art MOB systems utilize motion detection, radar and infrared technologies to instantly send an image to the bridge officers that a person has gone over the rails and can then detect and track the person in the water even at night. The chances of a successful search and rescue are greatly increased.

Royal Caribbean is one of many cruise companies which has decided not to install this life-saving system, citing a range of excuses which we have discussed in prior articles.

Hannah Towney of Business Insider recently wrote an interesting article regarding the CVSSA and why the USCG doesn’t check cruise ships for man-overboard technology that has been legally required for over 10 years: 4 people have gone overboard on cruise ships this summer. Here’s why most cruise lines don’t use technology that could’ve helped save them. My response is here.

There have been 392 persons overboard from cruise ships and ferries since 1995, according to cruise expert Dr. Ross Klein. The vast majority of cruise passengers lost at sea occured after Congress enacted the CVSSA.

Have a comment or question? Please leave one below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Image credit: Wonder of the Seas – By Daniel Capilla, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons / wikimedia; AIS images of itinerary – CruiseMapper; Sigmund Ropich – Savannah Ropich Facebook.

 A U.S. Border Protection agent arrested a cruise passenger who sailed on the Scarlet Lady for possession of child pornography on Wednesday at Virgin Voyages’ terminal at the Port of Miami.

Michael Fanning, age 47, of Atlanta was arrested when authorities reportedly discovered multiple videos depicting child pornography on his phone, according to multiple news sources.

Federal agents searched Fanning’s phone and found three videos showing child pornography, according to local NBC-6 in Miami. A further search reportedly revealed two additional porn videos

“Fanning spoke with investigators and said he had numerous videos saved on his phone in a folder named ‘Y’ and said the ‘folder was used to categorize the pornography as young,’ the report said.”

WIOD-610 Radio in Miami reported that “the content of the discovered videos included scenes involving the rape of boys as young as 8 years old.”

We report routinely when cruise passengers or crew members are caught with pornography, and when guests are sexually assaulted during cruises.

One-third of the sexual assaults which occur on cruise ships involve minors. This firm continue to report on such cases which are consistent with the testimony of a senior FBI official before Congress and investigations by major national news outlets. See: Sex Assault Victims on Cruise Ships Are Often Under 18.

In March, we reported on the disturbing criminal cases of an assistant cruise director and guest activities officer employed by Princess Cruises who were involved in creating and distributing graphically violent child pronography iamges while on a Princess cruise ship.

Two Princess Crew Members, Including An Assistant Cruise Director, Sentenced to Over 45 Years for Child Pornography and Sex Scheme

To date, Princess Cruises have avoided any mention of these crimes involving a minor who sailed with her parents on a Princess cruise ship.

In June, we reported that a cruise ship employee, who describes himself as a music director of Royal Caribbean, was jailed in Australia for obtaining and accessing child abuse photographs and videos.

Music Director of Royal Caribbean Jailed for Child Abuse Images

Have a comment or question? Please leave one below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Image credit: Scarlett Lady – Virgin Voyages; Michael Fanning – Miami-Dade Police Department via NBC-6.

Last Friday morning, a cruise ship carrying over 3,000 passengers reported to the local police department in Hilo, Hawaii that it was missing a guest as it sailed toward that port. The police department in Hilo received the call at 8:40 a.m. on Friday, stating that 59 year old Kenneth Schwalbe had not been seen on the ship since 8:30 p.m. the previous evening. The cruise ship had spent time searching for passenger Schwalbe on the ship after he had not been seen since the previous evening. A detective from the Hilo police department met the cruise ship at the port on Friday morning and reviewed closed circuit surveillance video from a camera on deck 9 which showed, at 4:18 a.m. on Friday, Mr. Schwalbe falling from the ship.

There is no information regarding the circumstances surrounding his situation before he went overboard.

The local news reports failed to mention the name of the cruise ship, which we later determined to be the Emerald Princess, as AIS systems indicate that it was the only cruise ship calling on Hilo on August 11th.

The United States Coast Guard was eventually notified despite the fact that there was a delay of over 4 hours from when the cruise guest fell from the cruise ship. Because the cruise ship was a Carnival-owned vessel operated by Princess Cruises, it lacked an automated man-overboard system (“MOB”) which would have immediately alerted the bridge that a person went over the rails (via a motion detection apparatus) and then track the person in the water using infrared and radar technologies.

MOB systems would have promptly alerted the navigational officer that an emergency situation was developing and would have permitted a fast search for the overboard person in the water. Without such a system which is required by the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act (CVSSA) of 2010, the cruise ship would have first conducted a laborious search for the missing guest on the cruise ship and then a frame-by-frame review of available CCTV images. All the while, the cruise ship would continue on its path to the next port as the chances for a successful rescue diminished by the minute.

When we first reported on this sad case, we received the usual comments by some readers that “you can’t fall from a cruise ship.” These types of comments usually reflect an effort to cast blame on the missing passenger and suggest that the person went overboard intentionally. Cruise lines often comment when their after-the-fact review of CCTV shows someone jumping into the sea. So the fact that the initial report of the overboard is that the CCTV shows him falling (i.s., not jumping) is not insignificant.

Yes, there are some people who decide to end their lives at sea, mostly crew members who become depressed after working long eight month contracts away from their families. But the vast majority of passengers who go overboard are grossly intoxicated. (There is insufficient information regarding this particular case). When the cruise ship eventually reviews CCTV images, the film often shows the person leaning over the railing to vomit before he or she falls overboard. There is usually a delay of several hours before traveling companions observe the person is no longer in their cabin. There is further delay while the ship wastes time searching on the ship while the overboard passenger treads water. Often, like this case, the cruise ship has already arrived at the next port before the ship finally confirms that the person went into the ocean.

One of the first things that the cruise ship security officers do after a passenger goes overboard is to print out and review the passenger’s onboard purchases, which show when the guest purchases alcohol in the ship’s bars and restaurants.The print-out shows exactly when and where the drink was purchased. There is a direct correlation between alcohol sales and guests going overboard. The most booze consumed by a guest who later went overboard was when Royal Caribbean sold 22 drinks to a 21 year old passenger who fell from the Oasis of the Seas in January 2015. Like Carnival Corporation-owned cruise ships, Royal Caribbean has not installed any auto MOB systems in its fleet of ships.

When the young man stumbled out of a ship bar on the Oasis of the Seas after drinking nearly two-dozen drinks in just four hours, he somehow ended up climbing onto a lifeboat where he passed out, only to fall off the lifeboat early in the morning as the Oasis approached Cozumel. Several hours later, the Disney Dream, which was sailing the same route to the Mexican port, observed the young man in the water and miraculously rescued him. (Kudos to the Disney watch keepers on the Disney Dream!)

Coincidentally, only Disney Cruises (and one MSC cruise ship, the MSC Meraviglia) have installed auto-MOB systems in compliance with the CVSSA

MSC Cruises Implements New Man Overboard System Amidst Industry Delays

There have been 391 people who have gone overboard from cruise ships and ferries in the last 25 years, per cruise expert Dr. Ross Klein. 238 people have gone overboard since the CVSSA went into effect,

Carnival Corporation-owned ships like the Princess Emerald violate U.S. law every time they depart from a U.S. port without the required life-saving MOB system installed. Many cruise fans don’t seem to care, mindlessly arguing that “it’s impossible to fall off a cruise ship.”

Have a comment or question? Please leave on below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Image credit: By kees torn – flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0 commons / wikimedia.

It has been a month since the public learned that the fire-resistant panels used during the construction of the new Explora I cruise ship, owned by MSC Cruises and operated by Europa Journeys, failed safety certification. The Financial Times (“FT”), which broke the story, reported that a total of around forty-five cruise ships had incorporated the defective panels in their construction.

Since then, I have been trying to determine which cruise ships have the Paroc panels which failed safety certification last month. The cruise industry has remained mum, refusing to inform journalists (or the pubic) of this basic safety information. Last week, we reported on the marine underwriters’ pleas for information from the industry: Insurers of Dozens of Cruise Ships With Potentially Dangerous Fire Panels Seek Transparency: “We Demand Names of All Ships Equipped With Paroc Panels.”

Due to this lack of transparency by the cruise industry (including the manufacturers/suppliers, shipowners, cruise operators, trade organization, certification societies and governmental agencies), no one knows exactly what products failed and why.

Images Credit: Paroc

Yesterday, I located a list of cruise ship titled “Examples of latest Paroc Marine References” which lists the vessel where Paroc marine products were installed through 2017. The FT article refers to Paroc fire-resistant “panels” which failed safety certification. The Paroc literature references various fire-resistant “wall panels, ceiling panels and floor panels.” Paroc primarily advertises that its products include a wide range of “marine wired mats” and marine fire slabs” which can be covered with aluminum foil or different types of glass fiber facing. We do not know exactly which of these specific fire-resistant products failed safety certification. (Paroc also make fire insulation for air ducts and pipes).

The list mentions one-hundred and eighty-three (183) vessels with Paroc fire-resistant products installed, including cruise ships, passenger and car ferries, oil and LNG carriers, container and cargo ships, roll on / roll off (“ro ro”) carriers, tug boats and at least one “missile boat.” There are fifty-nine (59) cruise ships listed, excluding ferries and cruise ferries, which I highlighted here.

The list mentions twenty-six (26) cruise ships owned by Carnival Corporation, including nine cruise ships operated by Carnival Cruise Line: Carnival Vista, Carnival Miracle, Carnival Valor, Carnival Victory, Carnival Spirit, Carnival Pride, Carnival Legend, Carnival Conquest and Carnival Glory; four cruise ships operated by Princess Cruises: Crown Princess, Star Princess, Crown Princess, and Royal Princess; four cruise ships operated by Holland American Line: Zaandam, Koningsdam, Amsterdam, and Westerdam; five cruise ships operated by Costa Cruises: Costa Atlantica, Costa Mediterranea, Costa Diadema and two unnamed ships; two cruise ships operated by AIDA Cruises: AIDAvita and AIDAaura; one ship operated by Peninsular Oriental (P&O) Cruises: Britannia; and one cruise ship operated by Seabourn Cruise Line: Seabourn Encore.

The list includes sixteen (16) cruise ships owned by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.: ten (10) cruise ships operated by Royal Caribbean: Adventure of the Seas, Navigator of the Seas, Mariner of the Seas, Freedom of the Seas, Oasis of the Seas, Allure of the Seas, Anthem of the Seas, Independence of the Seas, Ovation of the Seas, and Liberty of the Seas; and four ships operated by Mein Schiff, a joint venture between Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and German shipping and travel giant TUI AG: Mein Schiff 3, Mein Schiff 4, Mein Schiff 5 and Mein Schiff 6; and two cruise ships operated by Silver Seas Cruises: Silver Shadow and Silver Mirage.

There are five cruise ships on the list owned by Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings: three operated by Norwegian Cruise Line: Norwegian Sky, Norwegian Sun and Norwegian Escape and two cruise ships operated by Seven Seas Cruises: Seven Seas Explorer and Seven Seas Voyager.

The list contains three cruise ships owned and operated by Viking Cruises: Viking Star, Viking Sea and Viking Sky.

The list also includes the following nine cruise ships with Paroc products installed:

  • MSC Meraviglia (MSC Cruises)
  • Midnattsol (Hurtigruten)
  • Birka Paradise (Rederi AB Gotland)
  • Genting Dream (Resorts World Cruises)
  • The World (Residences at Sea)
  • Trollfjord (Trollfjord Cruises)
  • Le Lyrial (Ponant Cruises)
  • Olympic Spirit (Mada Cruises)
  • Viking Grace (Viking Line)

A couple of comments about this list prepared by Paroc: It is not current (i.e., through 2023). It shows the vessels where Paroc fire installation products were installed from the years 2000 through 2017. The list fails to mention the names of several cruise ships discussed by FT in its articles Luxury Cruise Liner’s Launch Delayed As Dozens of Ships Face Potential Safety Hazard published on July 8th (which mentioned that 45 cruise ships were equipped with the faulty fire panels) and Cruise Liner Supplier Halts Sales of Deficient Fire-Resistant Panels published on July 21st. The Explora I, for example, was mentioned in one or more of these articles. Two ships in the MSC Cruises fleet were also mentioned. One is the MSC Euribia (photo above), which was previously delivered by shipyard Chantiers de L’Atlantique and is currently at sea with guests. The other cruise ship remains unidentified in FT’s original reporting. It may be the MSC Meraviglia which is on this list.

Also missing from the list are two Royal Caribbean cruise ships, Explorer of the Seas and Voyager of the Seas. which are listed by Paroc on its website.

Images Credit: Paroc

As previously stated, another issue to keep in mind is that the initial FT article did not mention the precise Paroc fire-resistant products which failed safety certification or the exact nature of the failures. The list of 59 cruise ships with Paroc products does not necessarily mean that the products, whether they include panels, slabs or wired mats, failed certification. Due to the lack of transparency, the cruise industry is content to let this uncertainty continue to exist while as many as fifty-nine cruise ships are sailing with tens of thousands of passengers who have no reason to be confident of their safety if a fire breaks out on the high seas.

Have a comment or question? Please leave one below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Image Credit: Paroc marine product MSC Euribia By ND44 – CC BY-SA 4.0, commons / wikimedia.

The marine insurers for cruise ships which may have the faulty fire-resistant Paroc panels are demanding transparency that cruise lines / ship owners disclose which vessels contain the faulty panels, according to Lloyd’s List. The London-based news website for the shipping industry recently published two articles, focusing on the potentially dangerous Paroc fire-resistant panels. The articles address the uncertainty created by the relevant cruise lines’ failure to disclose the specific reasons why the fire-resistant panels failed certification and the names of the dozens of cruise ships which are operating at sea with this potential fire hazard. The articles are:

We have written several articles about this significant issue, after the Financial Times (“FT”) first reported that the launch of MSC’s newest cruise ship, Explora I, was delayed because the luxury ship had been constructed with faulty fire-resistant panels. The first article published by the FT, titled Luxury Cruise Liner’s Launch Delayed as Dozens of Ships Face Potential Safety Hazard, reported that many dozens of cruise ships and other vessels had been fitted with fire-resistant materials manufactured by the Finnish company Paroc, which is a division of U.S. corporate giant Owens Corning.

The Cruise Industry Downplayed the Danger While Withholding the Identity of the Ships at Issue

Since our initial article, we have seen MSC Cruises and its new brand which is operating the Explora I, Explora Journeys, downplay the dangers of the failed certification of panels. The manufacturer / supplier (Paroc) and the shipyard (Fincantieri) have stayed mum, refusing to respond to inquiries regarding the names of the ships with the defective materials. Meanwhile, the cruise trade organization, Cruise Line International Association (CLIA). touted the cruise industry as having the health and safety of its guests and crew as its highest priority, despite the fact that the public has been denied basic information regarding which cruise ships (currently sailing with many thousands of passengers and crew members) have the potentially dangerous materials installed.

Following the delivery of the Explora I (in less than just two weeks after the problems were first made public), FT, in a follow up article on July 21, 2023, reported that the shipbuilder stated that it allegedly replaced Paroc’s products with other insulation material “where possible” and “doubled the insulation where necessary.” Meanwhile, the ship owner / operator and shipyard have generated a media frenzied surrounding the new ship which is now sailing on its initial itineraries. Travel writers gush about such things as the elegance of the decor while avoiding any mention of whether the faulty Paroc panels were all replaced as would be prudent.

Underwriters Are Demanding Transparency From the Cruise Industry

Lloyd’s List reports that marine insurers are continuing to seek the names of all ships fitted with the Paroc panels and are “demanding transparency as they assess how much the fallout will cost.” Although it’s possible that the replacement costs may be limited, the underwriters are obviously concerned with the possibility that “dozens of ships will need to be recalled to have existing panels stripped out and replaced, at considerable expense.”

The marine underwriters appear to be understandably nervous about being kept in the dark regarding the identity of the vessels involved. The insurers are seeking the “names of dozens of vessels that may have to be recalled to have equipment stripped out.” Lloyd’s List added that “insurers are known to be keen to know the names, but have so far not been given the identities of the ships at risk.”

The Lloyd’s List articles confirm that Finland’s transport agency (Traficom) was made aware of the withdrawal of the safety certification of the Paroc fire-resistant panels and that all European countries and flag states, shipowners, and shipyards have been notified. However, a representative of Traficom refused to provide Lloyd’s List with the identity any of the 45 or so other vessels with the Paroc materials, stating that “it is up to each ships flag state to give relevant information to the public, if they are willing to do so.”

It appears that underwriters are uncertain not only of the scope of the danger (and the scope of the risk which they have underwritten) but the nature of the failed certification itself. “What exactly went wrong has yet to be established, with only limited details made available to the public.”

Lloyd’s List made it clear that the affected vessels are “mainly cruiseships, ro-ro passengers ferries and yachts” but also include “at least one product tanker and one transhipment barge.”

Paroc’s parent company, Owens Corning, acknowledged the failed certification, stating that: “We have suspended the distribution and sales of these products and have alerted the relevant regulatory authorities. In parallel, we recalled the products and notified our customers.”

Underwriters Want to Avoid a Panic?

The underwriters expressed to Lloyd’s List the desire for “full disclosure” but recognized the shipping industry’s desire to deal with the issue discretely rather than in public. The insurers also seemed to recognize the cruise lines'”obvious desire to minimize the kind of publicity that could deter cruiseship bookings.”

One insurer with what was described as having a “substantial exposure to cruiseships” informed Lloyd’s List “we don’t know which the other ships are, but we will be inquiring. Gently, because we don’t want to create a panic.”

Business As Usual for Cruise Lines and Travel Agents

Meanwhile, travel agents are continuing to sell cruises on the heavily marketed new ship without a clear disclosure whether the fire hazard has been abated.

More importantly, the public and crew members are sailing on many dozens of other cruise ships which may contain the potentially dangerous panels without any disclosure by the cruise lines. As we discussed in Which Cruise Ships are Equipped With Faulty Paroc Fire-Resistant Panels? (The Cruise Lines, Product Supplier, Shipyards and CLIA Won’t Say!), major cruise lines like Carnival Cruise Line, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line and MSC Cruises may be operating cruise ships with the faulty panels installed.

Paroc advertises that its product were installed in numerous cruise ships owned by Royal Caribbean, including the Oasis of the Seas, Allure of the Seas, Explorer of the Seas, Mariner of the Seas, Navigator of the Seas and Voyager of the Seas. “250 full truck loads of Paroc products” were used in building the Oasis of the Sea alone, according to Paroc.

It is unknown whether any of the companies operating the 45 ships at sea have any intention of inspecting and testing the panels used in their construction to determine whether they meet fire safety standards. The traveling public has an absolute right to understand this basic safety issue. Unfortunately, the cruise lines are committed to keeping this information secret.

Have a comment or questions? Please leave one below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Images: Paroc Fire Insulation Materials – Paroc Group; Explora I – Explora Journeys; Oasis of the Seas – Paroc Group

According to The Straights Times, sometime in the very early hours of Monday, July 31st, Royal Caribbean cruise passenger Jakesh Sahani, age 70, woke up to find his 64 year-old wife, Reeta Sahani, missing from their cabin on the Spectrum of the Seas as it sailed back to Singapore. The Royal Caribbean ship was returning from a four day cruise to ports in Malaysia.

Wife Allegedly Sitting Atop A Railing?

The article originally states that the “retiree tried to locate his 64-year-old wife on the sprawling cruise ship but did not succeed, so he informed the ship’s crew, who later told him that his wife was (allegedly) seen sitting atop a railing at about 4 am, according to closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage.” (emphasis added). The next sentence originally stated: “The ship’s overboard detection systems meanwhile had been alerted that something had fallen from the vessel into the Singapore Strait.”

The newspaper was subsequently “updated,” without explanation, to omit any reference to the allegation that the wife had allegedly been “seen sitting atop a railing at about 4 am . . . ”

No Mention of “Sitting Atop A Railing” But A MOB “Detection System” Alerting A Fall?

The revised sentence now reads: “The retiree tried to locate his 64-year-old wife on the sprawling cruise ship but did not succeed, so he informed the ship’s crew, who later told him the ship’s overboard detection systems had been alerted that something had fallen from the vessel into the Singapore Strait.”

Putting aside, for the moment, that The Straights Times subsequently abandoned the claim that Ms. Sahani was allegedly “sitting atop a railing,” the article fails to state when her husband first noticed her to be absent from her cabin, or how long her husband looked for her, or when he finally reported her missing from the ship. Assuming that crew members told Mr. Sahani that his wife was seen on CCTV sitting on a railing (as the newspaper first claimed), there’s no indication when or who allegedly saw her on CCTV or when the cruise line first reported her missing from the ship.

The other curious issue raised by this questionable reporting is the reference to the alleged “overboard detection systems”(“MOB system”) on the ship. To my knowledge, Royal Caribbean is one of many cruise companies which has steadfastly refused to install state-of-the-art automatic MOB systems for the past thirteen years. If there were such a system on the ship which was allegedly triggered because “something had fallen from the vessel in the Singapore Strait” why didn’t Royal Caribbean immediately initiate search and rescue efforts shortly after the woman was allegedly seen on CCTV at 4:00 a.m. on the rails? Why did it wait for nearly an hour (until 7:50 a.m.) after it arrived at port in Singapore (at around 7:00 a.m.) and many hours after she went overboard to notify maritime authorities identified as the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) Singapore?

And who at Royal Caribbean, if anyone, reportedly told the newspaper that this cruise ship allegedly has a overboard detection system?

News reports are that the Spectrum of the Seas left Singapore for its next cruise (to Vietnam, China, Taiwan and Japan) at some time after 9:00 p.m. As matters now stand, reports are that a (belated) search is underway for the missing passenger. Meanwhile, her family naturally has expressed confusion about these events. Her son, who lives in India, is “still in the dark about his mother’s status.” He added “We’ve asked to see the CCTV footage, but so far we’ve not received anything yet for us to confirm that it was her.”

The Strait Times asked Royal Caribbean for a comment and the cruise line was quick to tell the newspaper that it allegedly reported the overboard passenger to local authorities “immediately.”

That claim seems far fetched if the MRCC wasn’t notified until the ship had been in port for nearly an hour after the ship had returned to Singapore and several hours more after she went overboard. The automatic information system (AIS) tracking data shows no movement of the ship consistent with searching for an overboard passenger.

Have you a comments or question, please leave one below or join the conversation on our Facebook page.

Image Credit: Spectrum of the Seas – Singapore Cruise Society via TodayOnLine

August 1, 2023 Update: Channel News Asia (CNA) reports in an article titled “I had no idea”: Spectrum of the Seas Passengers in the Dark After Person Falls Overboard Cruise Ship that “Several passengers told CNA that there were a few announcements paging for a woman to report to guest services sometime between 5.30am and 6.30am on Monday (Jul 31) morning.”

This is consistent with the passenger going overboard earlier in the morning (around 4:00 a.m.) and the cruise ship searching on the ship for several hours after her husband reported her missing until Royal Caribbean finally notified the MRCC around 7:50 a.m. – a delay of around 3-4 hours.

Also, it appears clear that notwithstanding some reports to the contrary, Royal Caribbean did not conduct a search for Ms. Sahani in the water. Her son stated in an Instagram post that cruise staff “didn’t carry out any full rescue operation and off boarded my dad to carry on with their next cruise.”

The Straights Times, citing an Instagram post, reports that the son of Ms. Sahani states that the family “has seen closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage from the Spectrum of the Seas” which confirms that she went overboard.

A thirty-year old man reportedly went overboard from the Carnival Elation which was returning to the port in Jacksonville Sunday afternoon from a five day cruise. News reports say that the man’s traveling companion reported him missing from the ship sometime in the “late afternoon” of July 23, 2023. Carnival conducted a search on the ship and then eventually reviewed surveillance videos which, Carnival claims, show him jumping overboard.

Carnival then contacted the United States Coast Guard which is conducting a search. The Carnival cruise ship did not conduct a search for the missing man in the water and returned to port in Jacksonville.

The man went overboard while the ship was about 95 miles east of Melbourne, Florida.

Carnival, which has not made the video public, claims that CCTV video shows the man allegedly jumping. Carnival did not disclose the deck where the passenger fell from or the circumstances surrounding the incident.

It is unknown when the passenger went overboard. Most people who go overboard from Carnival ships are heavily intoxicated and go into the water late at night or very early in the morning.

Despite the fact that the U.S. Congress in 2010 passed the Cruise Vessel Safety & Security Act which requires cruise ships to install automatic man overboard systems, there are no cruise ships operated by Carnival Cruise Lines or owned by Carnival Corporation which have such life-saving MOB systems. Current auto MOB technology utilizes motion detection systems to detect when someone goes over the rails of a ship and then, using infrared and radar systems, tracks the person in the water even at nighttime.

Only Disney Cruise Line has installed the systems on all of its cruise ships. MSC Cruises installed an auto MOB system on one cruise ship, the MSC Meraviglia, which it installed in 2017.

According to cruise expert Dr. Ross Klein, at least 386 people have gone overboard from cruise ships and ferries since 1995.

Have a comment or question? Please leave one below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Image credit: Carnival Elation – Jersyko commons / wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0, Man Overboard (1981) Richard Bosman Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) (“With expressionist cuts to the woodblock in this ambitious eight-color print, the artist depicted a moment in an unknown narrative somewhere between beginning and end.”)

July 24, 2023 P.M. Update: The Coast Guard is continuing to search for the missing man as of 3:00 p.m. today (July 24). The USCG dispatched the 87-foot cutter Tarpon from St. Petersburg, a Hercules aircraft based out of Clearwater, and a Miami-based Ocean Sentry aircraft. Meanwhile, the Carnival ship is preparing to leave on a 3:30 p.m. departure back to the Bahamas.

The missing passenger was identified as Jaylen Hill.

The USCG ended it search this evening.

MSC Cruises and Explora Journeys, the owner and operator of the new luxury cruise ship Explorer I, announced the delivery of the ship with great fanfare last week. During the media blitz and hype surrounding the delivery of the new cruise ship on July 20th, both companies carefully avoided any mention of whether the fire-resistant materials used in its construction had been replaced or repaired.

Two weeks ago, The Financial Times reported that the Paroc fire-resistant panels used during the construction of the Explora I failed fire safety certifications. This resulted in the last-minute cancellation of the delivery of the Explora I from the shipyard which had been scheduled for July 6, 2023.

In light of the fact that, as The Financial Times reported, it would be difficult to replace “all the panels, fitted to both the floors and walls,” the issue arose as to exactly how long it would take to replace all of the defective materials before the Explora I could be safely delivered. The Financial Times suggested that such work would be “time consuming and expensive.”

But due to ticket sales, Explora Journeys faced pressure to begin operations of the luxury cruise ship which had been under construction for two years. Cruises on the ship for earlier this month had to be cancelled due to the failed certification of the panels. The cruise operator told the Cruise Industry News on July 9, 2023 that the necessary additional work will allegedly require only “a couple more weeks.” As a result, the cruise line suggested that “the delivery of the vessel has been pushed back to July 24, 2023” and “the inaugural cruise, meanwhile, is now scheduled to take place on August 1, 2023.”

So with the delivery of the ship taking place last week (on July 20, 2023), the Explora I is somehow now ahead of its new schedule. Many cruise and travel publications did not even mention the serious safety issue which delayed delivery of Explora Journeys’ new ship.

When the reasons for the delay were mentioned by a few media outlets, it was assumed that the problem had been resolved. A master mariner who I respect and follow on Twitter commented that the issue with the Paroc insulating panel was “now sorted out” without further explanation.

The Financial Times, which first broke the story, provided the most straightforward information, in a follow up article on July 21, 2023, when it reported that the shipbuilder stated that it allegedly replaced Paroc’s products with other insulation material “where possible” and “doubled the insulation where necessary.”

What this means is anyone’s guess. It leaves open the distinct possibility that the substandard insulation has not been removed in its entirety or completely remediated.

Fincantieri added to its comments to the Financial Times: “The remedies have been approved by regulatory bodies and no Paroc products will be used on other ships under construction.”

Many travel publication which covered the Explora I‘s delivery wrote “fluff” pieces where MSC talked about the “extraordinary new ship. We have pushed the boundaries of innovation and design to create a ship that embodies our commitment to excellence.” But putting this obvious gobbledygook aside for a minute, it remains a mystery exactly what MSC or Explora Journeys or the shipyard Fincantieri did with the non-certified fire-resistant panels. How many of the panels were in fact replaced? How much of the ship received “double insulation?” What criteria, if any, was used to determine whether to rip out the panels or use the faulty panels with additional panels? Did the “double” panels also fail the first certification tests?

These basic questions remain unanswered mostly because the product manufacturer/supplier, shipyard, owner/operator of the cruise ship and the cruise trade organization all refused to provide basic information. One cruise journal, based in Germany wrote about what appears to be a cover-up in an article titled “Explora I Panel-Gate: Many questions arise, manufacturers are silent.” Crucero Magazine wrote “Ten days after the publication of an article in the Financial Times (FT) about faulty fireproof panels, there are more questions than answers.” After inquiries to the cruise companies, suppliers and classification societies, remained unanswered, the journal wrote “questions about which individual products are problematic, what type of certification test failed and what the technical reason for the failure of the test are also left unanswered.”

An article in The Shipping Italy, which reads like a press release for Fincantieri, made conclusory statements about the shipyard’s “incredible” work. The publication made no mention whatsoever of any replaced or repaired panels but, instead, talked about new “tests” of mock-ups ashore: “Fincantieri . . . solved the problem by successfully launching supplementary tests on reproductions of ships on the quay.” The Italian journal also noted that if the shipyard did not perform the “additional tests” (emphasis added), the delay in delivery times could have reached even six months.” It mentioned that the shipyard had faced a “crazy obstacle”  and successfully tackled “a problem that seemed truly unsolvable.”

What on earth is a supplementary or additional test when Paroc has already stated that it was recalling the materials?

The larger issue also remains a mystery – what’s the status of the 45 other ships at seas with the Paroc panels at issue? Have any of these unidentified ships had their insulation panels tested and replaced? Or tare he cruise owners going to insist on “supplementary tests” which allegedly exonerate the past failed certifications? Don’t hold your breath waiting for an explanation. It’s doubtful that Explora Journeys, MSC Cruises or Fincantieri will be transparent any time soon.

Have a comment or question? Please leave one below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Image credit: Explora I – Fincantieri; Fincantieri shipyard via CruiseTricks; Paroc materials – Paroc.

The recent slaughter of pilot whales witnessed by guests who had sailed aboard the Ambition operated by Ambassador Cruise line earlier this week to the port capital of Torshavn in the Faroe Islands reminded me of the first time I became aware of this repulsive activity. Eight years ago (July 2015), a reader of Cruise Law News asked me what I thought of cruise lines sailing to the Faroe Islands where they routinely slaughter pilot whales. I didn’t know anything about the issue at the time. Quite frankly, I had not heard of the Faroe Islands back then. I wasn’t even exactly sure what a pilot whale was, but I promised her that I would look into it.

I was shocked with what I quickly learned of the so-called “tradition” of slaughtering pilot whales in the Faroes. I remain appalled by the brutal and senseless killing in what I now feel comfortable calling the evil, murderous, bloody Faroe Islands. I was absolutely disgusted by what I read and the horrific images I saw back in 2015 and just this week.

Image credit: Captain Paul Watson Foundation UK

These sentient, highly intelligent social beings which travel in pods with around 20 other family members. They sense fear when the pods are under attack. The people in the Faroe Islands gut the whales and rip their babies out after terrorizing the pods. (photo above via Sea Shepherd was of prior hunt). The violence is ruthless. Cruising to these killing zones is barbaric and unconscionable.

Grim Facts of the Carnage

Many hundreds of pilot whales are slaughtered annually in the Faroe Islands which has admitted that around 800 pilot whales are killed each year. This year, 646 whale killings have been slaughtered.

These are not far out-at-sea murders by huge Japanese ships away from civilization. These are well attended sporting events where the whales are chased into a harbor and killed by the locals with knives while their family members cheer them on. The locals call it the “Grindadráp Grind.” I call it the killing of defenseless mammals for fun by sick sociopaths. There is nothing “traditional” about using helicopters and power boats to herd and kill whales.

John Hourston, founder of Blue Planet Society, told the Washington Post: “It’s a blood sport. It’s no more than a summer pastime.” 

Image credit: abdpost.

But the people in the Faroes are not satisfied with killing just whales; they view most anything swimming in their waters as fair game to slaughter. The Washington Post wrote that in addition to pilot whales, the Faroes’ hunters “target other small whales and dolphins, such as orcas, Atlantic white-sided dolphins and Northern bottlenose whales . . .” More than 20,000 marine mammals have perished in these hunts in the Faroe Islands, the Post writes.

Here’s what one person described about a whale hunt:

The whales “are dragged to the shallow water, where participants kill them in the sea to around waist height. There they are slaughtered with traditional knives whose blades are usually 16 to 19 cm (6.3 to 7.5 in) long. Usually two deep cuts are made on either side of the animal’s neck, just behind the blow hole, causing the head to drop forward. A third cut is then made through the middle of the neck down to the carotid arteries and spinal cord, which are severed. After a period of violent thrashing the animal is paralyzed and loses consciousness, (eventually) dying of blood loss in most cases. With this the sea turns bright red with blood.”

This is exactly what hundreds of clueless Ambassador cruise passengers witnessed earlier this week where numerous media outlets reported that seventy-eight pilot whale were butchered.

Subsequently, the CEO of Ambassador Cruise Line sheepishly acknowledged the incident on Twitter and professed some degree of remorse that the guests were “upset” by the gruesome carnage. But Ambassador’s expressions of “disappointment” seem to be limited to the fact that the horrific slaughter occurred while the ship was in port in Torshavn. In other words, Ambassador was upset that the customers saw the gruesome truth of the local port’s so-called traditions. It doesn’t appear that Ambassador was concerned enough with the fact that terrorizing and killing these sensitive mammals is, in itself, inherently evil as to lose any profits by not cruising to Torshavn.

Indeed, the sincerity of Ambassador’s newly found regret is belied by the fact that the company’s itinerary reveals that it will return its cruise ships to the Faroe several times within the next year.

The core values and moral compass of any reputable business should keep any cruise line from having anything to do with a country which carries out such cruelty to animals in such a routine and widespread manner. But taking paying customers to the bloody Faroes is business as usual for most cruise lines.

A few years ago, I urged the readers and followers of this blog (we have over 260,000 subscribers and followers of our Facebook / Instagram / Twitter / Threads pages) to boycott the Faroe Islands. (I’ll repeat that call again here, now).

The tourist board Visit Faroe Islands (whose Twitter name is @VisitFaroe), as well as the tourism board for the capital Torshavn (whose Twitter name is @VisitTorshavn) blocked our firm on Twitter, which should give you some insight into how the Faroes handles criticism of its barbaric pastime.

The Washington Post wrote about the slaughter, saying that the cruise ships were allegedly “blindsided” when they arrived at the port capital of Torshavn, “where a traditional hunt had turned the sea red. Hunters used motorboats and a helicopter to corral the whales in a beach nearby before dragging them with hooks and butchering them with knives.”

Andrija Ilic/AFP/Getty Images via Washington Post

Predictably, the “Visit Faroe Islands” tourism office did not respond to the Washington Post’s requests for comment. A chief adviser in the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Culture however said in an email to the Post that tourism and whaling taking place side by side “does not cause concern for the government, although whale drives can be a dramatic sight for spectators unfamiliar with the slaughter of mammals.” (emphasis added)

Image credit: CPWF / Triangle New via Daily Mail

The Post explained that although “the carnage caught the cruise line by surprise when it pulled into Torshavn, the company had been aware of the annual event.” The cruise line’s CEO had even “expressed his dismay over a dolphin hunt” that had occurred in 2021. Ironically, Ambassador teamed up with a marine conservation group called ORCA based in the United Kingdom, on an anti-whaling and dolphin hunt campaign.

Ambassador needs to commit to pulling its ships from visiting the Faroe Islands in the future, like a few cruise companies have responsibly done.

The Good Guys:

A few cruise lines have discontinued supporting cruises to the deadly Faroes Islands in protest of the annual slaughter of pilot whales, namely two German lines, Hapag-Lloyd and AIDA.

Disney Cruises was planning to include the Faroes on its itinerary eight years ago but decided not to cruise there after it learned of the ground swell of opposition to such a barbaric practice. So, kudos to Hapag-Lloyd, AIDA and Disney which all decided to do the right thing!

Other Cruise Lines Which Take Tourists to the Bloody Faroe Islands

Sadly, the vast majority of cruise lines still sail to the Faroe Islands and have all ignored prior boycott efforts.

NCL promotes excursions to Torshavn, which it describes as the “colorful capital city of the Faroe Islands on the island of Steymoy (which) features a panoply of Nordic landscapes, with fjords, straits, deep green valleys, and a wonderful harbor dotted with colorful boats. Thorshavn began as a Viking settlement, and later became a thriving town, replete with quaint, colorful neighborhoods, and historic cathedrals and fortresses from the Middle Ages.” But no mention, of course, of the horrific whale slaughters.

Princess Cruises encourages it guests to buy tours to the Faroes and advertises the capital as a “pretty town of 20,000 (which) rises gently up the hillside from the water’s edge, dotted with red painted government buildings and charming turf-roofed cottages. Restaurants and cafes can be found nestled alongside the national theater, the national library and several delightful museums.” But the cruise line obviously doesn’t mention that the quaint “red-haired, freckle-faced Faroese people” murder hundreds of whales a year.  

Oceania Cruises joins parent company NCL in selling cruises to the Faroe Islands, characterizing the port of Torshavn as a “picturesque fishing town.” 

Cunard makes money by convincing its guests to buy outings to the “colourfully painted wooden houses of the old town (of Torshavn) with turfed roofs.” The captain of the  Queen Victoria is a native of the Faroe Islands and there was great fanfare when he sailed the Cunard cruise liner into the port of Klaksvik in the Faroes.

Other cruise lines which are on the Bloody-Faroes-Wall-of-Shame: Holland America Line P&O Cruises, Regent Seven Seas, Viking Ocean Cruises, Seabourn,  Windstar, Silversea, Crystal, Explora Journeys, Fred Olsen and Azamara among other smaller companies like Hurtigruten Expeditions, Aurora Expeditions, Albatros Expeditions, Lindblad Expeditions (National Geographic), Quark Expeditions, and Poseidon Expeditions (Listed under Adventure Life’s Best Faroe Islands Cruises & Tours).

The public awareness of the barbaric, grisly practice is due to the tireless hard work of volunteers at the organization of Captain Paul Watson.   

The residents of the Faroes try to justify their deadly hobby of killing whales by pointing to their “heritage and tradition” of eating whale meat. (Read: Faroe Islands ‘cherish’ their bloody whale-hunting tradition). (I say cruelty for a long time is hardly a tradition).   

The Faroe Islands has a high standard of living today and the distribution of whale meat is completely unnecessary. It is a stretch to claim the residents of the Faroes are desperate for a source of food in their completely modern society today. (Indeed, the island even boasts that it has a Burger King). Whale meat is also high in toxins and dangerous to eat anyway.

We again recommend boycotting the Faroe Islands and any cruise line which stops there. We suggest taking any or all of the following six steps:

  1. Don’t buy any product, particularly fish products such as salmon, from the Faroe Islands. Tell your local supermarket, fish store or sushi restaurant to stop buying fish from the Faroe Islands.
  2. Don’t travel to the Faroe Islands; tell your travel agents to cross the Faroe Islands off your bucket list.
  3. Don’t cruise to the Faroe Islands or support cruise lines that do; contact your favorite cruise line and tell them to stop calling on the Faroe Islands.
  4. Let the public know that slaughtering families of whales is wrong. Post your thoughts on Twitter, Threads, Instagram and Facebook.
  5. Join and support the Captain Paul Watson Foundation UK.
  6. Join and support the “Stop the Grind” effort of Sea Shepherd, including signing the petitions listed on its site.

Have a comment or question?. Please leave one below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Image credit: Whale slaughter – Sea Sheppard and Captain Paul Watson Foundation UK; Andrija Ilic/AFP/Getty Images via Washington Post; carnage at beach – abdpost; beached whale being slaughtered – CPWF / Triangle New via Daily Mail; Ambition cruise ship – Ambassador Cruise Line.

The Financial Times article published last week titled Luxury Cruise Liner’s Launch Delayed as Dozens of Ships Face Potential Safety Hazard raised the issue that as many as forty-five (45) cruise ships may be equipped with faulty fire-resistant panels manufactured by Paroc. This raises important issue of safety for the guests and crew members on ships at sea. But the cruise companies which own and operate these ships are currently playing coy with the public. They refuse to acknowledge which of their ship have these Paroc panels, whether the panels are faulty and, if so, when and how they intend to deal with the potential fire safety problem.

As The Financial Times previously reported, Paroc apparently informed the newspaper that certain cruise companies have Paroc panels on their ships at sea. The newspaper reports that “Paroc has identified 45 boats in operation with the faulty panels.”

Carnival Corporation claimed to have not heard of the problem when The Financial Times first contacted it last week for a comment. Royal Caribbean initially refused to respond to the newspaper’s request for a comment. Both cruise lines are now acknowledging only that they generally know of some “concerns involving a third-party vendor” but neither have said that there is a problem which they acknowledge, much less intend to fix. Both companies are essentially saying “trust us, we’re looking into it.”

The cruise trade organization, Cruise Line International Association (CLIA), which has a well earned reputation for a lack of transparency, is touting that the safety of guests and crew members is the industry’s “highest priority.” CLIA suggests, without even stating which cruise ships may be affected by the defective panels at issue, that the public should trust the industry to fix any problems that may exist. This is a hard sell in light of the fact that around 15% of the global cruise industry may be sailing with defective fire-resistant panels.

At this point, the public is left with unanswered questions whether the cruise ship which they are already on or have booked or are considering in the future may have the faulty panels installed. Here’s what we know so far:

Explora I:

The Explora I is the MSC-owned cruise ship, to be operated by the new luxury brand Explora Journeys, which had fire resistant panels fail fire safety certification as reported by the Financial Times. Explora Journey tells Seatrade Cruise News that unspecified “work is underway” and they are “working tirelessly” with the Fincantieri shipyard to “replace the affected materials immediately . . .” The number, size and location of the panels are unknown.

In any event, Explora Journeys says that the first sailing of the Explora I will occur on August 1 from Copenhagen.   

MSC Euribia:

According to The Financial Times, two ships in the MSC Cruises fleet are affected. One is MSC Euribia, which was previously delivered by shipyard Chantiers de L’Atlantique and is currently at sea with guests. The other cruise ship remains unidentified.

Seatrade Cruise News says that MSC Cruises and the Chantiers de L’Atlantique shipyard are “currently measuring which actions, if any, will need to be taken when it comes to MSC Euribia.”

MSC hedges its response further by saying “other ships afloat with the same insulation tiles are not automatically implicated.” MSC adds to the uncertainty with this nebulous explanation: “Chantiers de l’Atlantique, is working with the classification society and maritime industry experts to analyze the situation for MSC Euribia in detail and performing the necessary tests, and we will then develop any necessary action plans if required . . .”

The bottom line is that the MSC Euribia is currently sailing with passengers and there are no concrete remediation plans for the panels.

Royal Caribbean’s Oasis of the Seas:

Paroc’s website states that the Oasis of the Seas, which was built by STX Europe (formerly Aker Yards) over ten years ago in Turku, Finland, was insulated with Paroc insulation products. Paroc represents that”250 full truckloads of Paroc products” were used in building the Oasis of the Seas, including supplies to the “cruise ship cabins, corridors, ceilings and fire doors using our products in them.”

Royal Caribbean’s Allure of the Seas:

Paroc states on its website that unspecified “insulation products” were also installed on the Allure of the Seas while built by STX Europe in Turku, Finland.

Royal Caribbean’s Adventure of the Seas, Explorer of the Seas, Mariner of the Seas, Navigator of the Seas and Voyager of the Seas:

Paroc lists the Adventure of the Seas as a client as well as its sister ships: Explorer of the Seas, Mariner of the Seas, Navigator of the Seas and Voyager of the Seas. Paroc claims that these Royal Caribbean ships “have all used our materials to guarantee the best possible insulation.”

There is no acknowledgement by Royal Caribbean that there is a potential problem with Paroc materials or a plan to replace Paroc products on any Royal Caribbean ship, including the ships listed above.

 Tallink’s Baltic Queen:

The Baltic Queen is a cruise ferry which was built with unspecified Paroc materials, according to Paroc’s website. Again, there is no confirmation either by the supplier, shipyard or the vessel owner or operator that the Paroc products are faulty or will be replaced.

Norwegian Viva and Carnival-Owned Sun Princess?

The same shipyard (Fincantieri) currently building the Explora I is also working on Norwegian Viva and Sun Princess, as recently mentioned in Doug Parker’s Cruise Radio . However, there has been no word whether Paroc panels were used on these vessels or will be replaced.

Mystery Ship

A Carnival Corporation PR spokesperson told Seatrade Cruise News that “A60 insulation manufactured by Paroc … was installed on one ship in our fleet,” but Carnival otherwise refused to identify the cruise ship or its operator or indicate whether there is a potential problem with the insulation.

Gobbledygook from CLIA:

The cruise trade group CLIA did not identify any affected cruise ships or even acknowledge any issues with fire safety caused by the Paroc panels which failed fire safety certification. Instead, CLIA gave the following evasive, happy-talk non-statement to Travel Agent Central:

“The safety of passengers and crew is the highest priority for the cruise industry and our cruise line members—as is evident by the industry’s strong safety record and multi-layered approach to regulation, testing, certification and ongoing inspection of ships, in addition to advanced detection and mitigation systems and highly trained crew onboard. Our cruise line members are confident that the responsible parties are taking all steps to determine and resolve any issues, and they remain vigilant in monitoring of all safety systems to degrees that often exceed that of other industries and maritime requirements.”

As matters now stand, none of the cruise lines owning or operating the 45 cruise ships that may be affected by the failed fire safety product certifications have been forthcoming with basic information regarding what Paroc product have been installed, whether they are defective or whether there are plans to replace the faulty materials or make repairs.

In the Absence of a Strong U.S. Oversight Agency, Cruise Lines Are Permitted to Squirm and Evade Public Scrutiny and Accountability

This predicament illustrated the difference between the U.S. commercial aviation fleet and the foreign incorporated and registered cruise lines. If U.S. based airplanes were equipped with faulty components, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would identify and promptly ground all airplanes with the potentially defective products. Unlike reputable U.S. companies like Delta, United or American, cruise companies like Carnival or Royal Caribbean (both corporate felons for environmental crimes and cover ups) will try and get away with whatever they can and as long as they can on the high seas. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), unlike the FAA, has been called a “paper tiger” by the former head of the NTSB, and permits rogue actors like Carnival Corporation to get away with routinely skirting reasonable safety regulations with impunity.

Is the public really expected to take their families to sea on cruises without any assurance that the ships meet minimum fire safety standards?

Have a comment or question? Leave one below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Image Credit: Explora I – Explora Journeys; MSC Euribia – ND44 – wikipedia / creative commons license 4.0; Paroc Product – paroc; Gandhi’s Thee Monkeys Bapu, Ketan and Bandar, at the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Kalyan Shah – Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0);

*/ Mr. Hall, head of the NTSB during the Clinton administration, says the industry is watched over by “paper tigers” like the International Maritime Organization and suffers from “bad actors.” “The maritime industry is the oldest transportation industry around. We’re talking centuries. It’s a culture that has never been broken as the aviation industry was, and you see evidence of that culture in the [Costa Concordia] accident,” says Hall.

Ships may seem and feel American but are mostly “flagged” in countries like the Bahamas or Panama in order to operate outside of what he says are reasonable safety standards. “It is, and has been, an outlaw industry,” says Hall. “People who book cruises should be aware of that.”