A Letter to Our Passengers Regarding Crown Princess

Dear Passenger,

We at Princess Cruises would like to take the opportunity to comment about the incident of last week, when Crown Princess experienced a strong list following her departure from Port Canaveral, Florida. We express our sincerest apologies for this regrettable event, and fully understand that this was a distressing experience for all who were on board.

We especially extend our apologies to those passengers and crew who were injured. We are grateful that the injuries were not life-threatening, and also that those transferred to hospitals for evaluation and treatment have now been released with the exception of one passenger, for whom we wish a speedy and full recovery. Following the incident, we immediately cooperated with representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the Bermuda flag authorities. Following an extensive assessment, Crown Princess departed New York last Saturday July 22 on a seven-day voyage, having received clearance to sail by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bermuda flag authorities.

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. We want to unequivocally emphasize that we would never operate an unsafe ship, nor would the U.S. Coast Guard allow a ship to sail that had any safety issues.

We want to assure passengers who may be booked on an upcoming sailing, or those who may be thinking about traveling with Princess, that the highest priority for our company is the safety and well-being of our passengers and crew.

Sincerely,

Alan Buckelew
President
Princess Cruises

Here is a link to their letter to passengers:

Letter

Rich

[ 07-25-2006: Message edited by: joe at travelpage ]

". . . and the appropriate personnel changes have been made."

What a wonderful euphemism for "the idiot who was responsible has been sacked."

It could be like such obvious fail-safe components on aircraft that prevent inadvertent activation of reverse thrust while airborne, or retracting of landing gear while on the ground.

quote:

---

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

---

I have it on good authority from a highly placed source within Princess that the incident was the result of the actions of a junior staff person on duty at the time.

It appears that - without warning - he took it upon himself to open the starboard lido buffet while the port buffet remained closed. Apparently this maneuver was never tested during sea trials.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:
I wonder if the designers of autopilots and similar equipment will now incorporate a "fail safe" component in their designs, so that an override of the system would not cause such an effect.

It could be like such obvious fail-safe components on aircraft that prevent inadvertent activation of reverse thrust while airborne, or retracting of landing gear while on the ground.

Seems to me it would not be too difficult to set up.

---

My uncle has an auto pilot system on his 100 foot shrimping boat, and i whent out with him and it failed causing us to list to one side a great amout becuase it turned the rudder sharp right. Also to your comment about the airplanes all jet aircraft have a reverser unlock that is only activated when the landing gear are down and touching the ground then the pilots are able to bring the throtles back and into reverse thrust. As to the landing gear the lever is only able to be activated when the wheels are off the ground.

However, in terms of damage control (for the company reputation) it is better to throw a person under the bus and claim human error than to have speculation the ship is unsafe or flawed. Removing the employee may remove the concerns people may have the ship is flawed.

Considering the ship issues Princess has had, they must protect the reputation of their fleet otherwise the niave consumer will shop elsewhere. The average person just hears 'another issue with a Princess ship'.

You forget that the determination of human or mechanical problem has nothing to do with Princess but the US Coast Gaurd and NTSB. They certainly aren't going to falsify a report to help Princess in any way. I think you can rest assured that it is human error as reported.

I also find the wording in the letter from Princess interesting in that in one sentence they say it would be "...be inappropriate for us to comment in any detail before that investigation is complete..." and then in the next sentence they do exactly that by claiming it was "human error".

It is obviously written to make people feel more comfortable (preserver revenue) about future sailings but I think it is a disservice to dismiss the incident before the investigation is actually completed.

Can the simple sacking of a junior crew member really prevent this from happening again? Have any processes or systems been modified to prevent another crew member from accidentily doing the same thing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe at travelpage:
Note that the only attribution to "human error" is from Princess - not the US Coast Guard or the NTSB.

I also find the wording in the letter from Princess interesting in that in one sentence they say it would be "...be inappropriate for us to comment in any detail before that investigation is complete..." and then in the next sentence they do exactly that by claiming it was "human error".

---

Exactly my point. I am not debating whether or not this truly is human error at this point.

But it does appear to me that Princess is facilitating damage control.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe at travelpage:
..the incident was the result of the actions of a junior staff person on duty at the time.

It appears that - without warning - he took it upon himself to open the starboard lido buffet while the port buffet remained closed.

---

...and this is all that has to be said...

[ 07-29-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

Exactly my point per earlier posting. Certainly there will be an investigation, and the comments are appropriate. Even if it were human error, the system should not have allowed such a result, as I pointed out re: thrust reversers in flight and similar. I suspect an investigation will reveal that when human intervention in the automatic system occurs, there should be (and probably is not) a fail-safe element so this type of incident could not take place. I can see a recommendation coming out of this matter to see that such technolgical fixes are established. It should not be too difficult to implement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sslewis:
johnathan,
a bit OT, but I read a condensed NTSB report on the cause of the Austrian 767 crash in Thailand a few years ago.
One of the engines thrust reverser had deployed inflight(?), causing the plane to break apart on take off!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sslewis:
johnathan,
a bit OT, but I read a condensed NTSB report on the cause of the Austrian 767 crash in Thailand a few years ago.
One of the engines thrust reverser had deployed inflight(?), causing the plane to break apart on take off!

---

Malfunctions are a given to happen any time any place, you cant rely on computer systems or much technology today to not give you a hard time. But on normal safe everyday flights reverse thrusters are not able to be activated in the air. I know this is standard on all Boeing 737 aircraft and up the line. Im not familiar with MD aircraft. But even in aircraft human error can cause a crash or even crash and death. I would much rather be in an accident on a cruise ship.