TravelTalkOnline Forums Travel and Vacation Forums Afloat If you were a ship designer, after Triumph...

...what would you do differently?? Maybe the answer is 'nothing', as this was such an unusual situation. I do not aspire to have ANY engineering knowledge, but lack of knowledge has not stopped many people from expounding on this situation. <img src="http://www.traveltalkonline.com/forums/images/graemlins/Grin.gif" alt="" /> Despite the inconvenience of no a/c and little hot food, it is obvious what the 'number one' and 'number two' problems were for the passengers. <img src="http://www.traveltalkonline.com/forums/images/graemlins/Wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.traveltalkonline.com/forums/images/graemlins/Grin.gif" alt="" /> It is my understanding that cruise ships are legally required to treat their sewage before it is disposed of in the water, so a 'low tech' solution does not seem possible. Possibly have the sewage system part of the emergency systems and put the public bathrooms (only) on a separate 'circuit' to ensure that at least all the public bathrooms are operational?

It sounds like in this case they could have started other engines but chose not to. Coast guard said that was a good choice. Why not fly a team to the ship to investigate the issue and determine if the other engine can be used?

I think the single best solution is to have generators on board to run critical systems. Water, food prep and sewage.

I guess the latest is that the engines were not actually damaged, although I don't know if they could have flown someone there to examine them or not. I think the problem is that if they did try to re-start the engines and there was a problem, the automatic fire supression system had already fired, so they couldn't use it again and if there was another fire, it would have been out of control?

I guess for newer ships, built after 2010, redundency systems are required, so I supposed the answer is, don't sail on a ship built before 2010!

2010 being the cutoff is scary........alot of these big babies were built just prior.

seems silly their engineering dept could rig, reroute, divert electrical power.

I took Princeess ultimate ship tour and I think they even showed up backup generator which I think is by the stacks.
I want to say they clicked it on for us-loud bang noise at kick on.

I guess that is why you don't see Carnival doing around the world blue ocean cruises, they keep it close to home.

Clearly when you buy your ship you can go deluxe or bare bones

If the fire supression only gets one use, then perhaps they should have a way to recharge or two systems?

They did fly a generator in, so I don't see why they couldn't fly some engineers in.

Or perhaps simply better inspections and advanced alerts so they could have detected the leak and/or shut down things before a fire started.

I don't think there is anyway to recharge a supression system that is easy. Not like it is water, sort of the same thing in restaurants. When they go off, it is days before the location can open back up because it not something the restaurnat can do to fix/recharge.

I can only imagine that an engine room supression system would need, especially since you are talking a whole lot of diesel fuel.

Only time will tell with what resources were left to use AFTER a thorough investigation. And possibly made public. I am sure Carnival upper management, engineers, lawyers and to hedge the situation US Cost Guard were in the decision process on what to do. Remember the first consideration is saving lives, the passengers were uncomfortable ( different people have different levels/expectations of this) but all returned safe. And this might be why Mexico was taken out of the equation. Anyhow I guess we will see what the fine print that was accepted by the passengers is in due process.

SXM??? Wendell

I am sure the Bahamian Coast Guard will do a proper investigation of one of their vessels and issue a report of changes to be made.....

Anyone ever see the Panamian report from the Carnival ship towed in off CA 2 years ago? I bet it was detailed and very specific... I heard that USCG wasn't allowed to investigate...but I don't have sources on that.

There was a report about that incident, I'm sure, but I haven't seen it.

I'm deff no engineer or ship designer but could they include some type of bladder in the fresh water holding tanks kind of like how my carpet cleaner works - fresh water in the bladder, bad water in the same tub just outside of the bladder - that way they'd at least have a way of storing #1 and #2 until such a time as they can treat it before emptying into the ocean - not for use all the time when they have power etc just for emergency storage during situations such as these. (I hope I made sense how I wrote it and I have no idea how it would work large scale, works great for my little 1 gal carpet cleaner holding tank thing)

Big difference between your vacuum and drinking water. I wouldn't want to drink water that was surrounded by sewage, would you?

I was thinking more along the lines of the tank that holds the flushing water...but I guess all "fresh" water could be held in 1 large tank on a ship? (seems like a diff distaster waiting to happen to me and again I'm deff no engineer or ship designer, was just a thought) =)

if I knew fresh water was surrounded by sewage water but kept seperate by a bladder and the crew were all drinking it then yes I'd drink it too esp if I had no other choice.