|
|
Post by ferryfanyvr on Nov 20, 2011 9:16:16 GMT -8
Since there's been all of these trips on the Chilliwack lately, someone should be able to answer this- Has BC Ferries done a Karen recording (for the Welcome Aboard) for the Queen of Chilliwack? or is the chief steward doing one? Thanks! "Karen" is being used for the amenities and safety announcements, not for arrival announcements, though. This was the case during the three times I have been aboard the Chilliwack this year on Route 17... When I was on the Chilliwack on rt17 3 or so weeks ago, "Karen" made both the arrival and departure announcements at each terminal. |
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Nov 20, 2011 10:42:28 GMT -8
All it would take is any one of these individuals doing five minutes of research on the Queen of Chilliwack to note that this vessel is a North Route vessel and is built to operate in heavy weather conditions. For God sakes, I think we've all sailed in poor weather conditions - I've watched people being sick, having panic attacks and even a window get blown out on the Queen of Alberni - considering these incidents were on southern major routes, the operating conditions were accepted by the passengers and crew. Yes, there comes a point where a vessel should not sail, but it's pretty clear to me that this event was safe, and does not deserve the kind of attention it's getting. Unless Gary Coons was lying, the report came from a crewman onboard, who was relating how passengers were dealing with the crossing, and what his impressions were. Chances are, that crewman also works aboard the 'Burnaby, and is familiar with the comparative seaworthiness of both vessels. I'm not impressed with the seakeeping abilities of the Queen of Chilliwack in a moderate swell, so I can imagine how uncomfortable a lot of people might have been in the marginal conditions she was navigating that day. I know the default reaction on this forum is always to jump to the defence of our wonderful ferries whenever fuggles complain, but route 17 patrons (and crew) have a right to point out deficiencies in the ' Chilliwack, since it is at the moment one of their two lifelines to the outside world. |
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Nov 20, 2011 13:14:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Nov 20, 2011 14:45:53 GMT -8
I think the key issue in understanding the reaction to the Chilliwack's rough-weather sailing is the difference between "Passenger Comfort" and "Passenger Safety". Passenger safety isn't just a matter of whether the ship stays afloat. A ship that rolls around enough in bad weather that passengers are at risk of injury due to falls or sliding furniture isn't as safe as it should be even if the ship is in no danger of sinking. Getting passengers to the destination alive is an essential measure of safety, but it's not the only measure of safety. A ship which has such poor sea keeping that a mildly rough crossing makes a ferry-aware passenger base sick isn't a safe as it could be. I realize it's customary in BC to make public infrastructure as uncomfortable and unreliable as possible, but that's a political choice rather than a physical necessity. There's no reason other than a lack of political will why the mid coast routes couldn't be served by ships with stabilizers or active roll control rather than an overgrown bathtub like the Chilliwack. |
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Nov 20, 2011 16:05:58 GMT -8
Been while since I've been here, been reading about this whole Chilliwack thing. I have to agree that I think this situation is being blown out of proportion. I seriously wonder if the latest rough crossing of the Chilliwack would be so news worthy were it not for the drama created earlier about the ship simply being assigned to the route. I think the key issue in understanding the reaction to the Chilliwack's rough-weather sailing is the difference between "Passenger Comfort" and "Passenger Safety". Passenger safety isn't just a matter of whether the ship stays afloat. A ship that rolls around enough in bad weather that passengers are at risk of injury due to falls or sliding furniture isn't as safe as it should be even if the ship is in no danger of sinking. While it's true these are both "safety" issues, they are not the same. Whether or not a ship is safe to sail regarding it's ability to stay afloat is a matter of life and death. The issue of passengers being at risk of falls is not on the same level. There are certain realities to the fact that you are riding a ship on the water which by it's very nature is not as stable as ground. A ship will roll and move about, despite modern technology, anyone who boards a ship and expects the deck to behave the same as the terminal buildings floor is in for a disappointment. There are hand rails on a ship for a reason. There is also a reason for why tables are secured to the floor. The fact of the matter is that there are regulations governing how much roll a ship is allowed if it is to carry passengers. But there is no regulation saying that a ship must have a deck where one can stand still at any given time. People will get sick from time to time on ships, it is a moving platform. Despite what some may say, this instance with the Chilliwack seems to be more a problem with comfort and not safety, just because a ferry critic or news paper calls is safety doesn't automatically make it such. Okay, that may have come out harsher than I planned, but these are my thoughts on the matter. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080 
|
Post by Nick on Nov 20, 2011 16:14:32 GMT -8
^^ X2
|
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Nov 20, 2011 17:29:20 GMT -8
Transport Canada has tightened standards and increased safety. But an uncomfortable sailing doesn't mean it is unsafe.
However, I think people have become increasingly intolerant of a bunch of things. Don't inconvenience me in any way. I shouldn't have to wait for a sailing. Don't sail in uncomfortable seas. Don't cancel sailings. You can't win. People love to complain.
I remember one sailing in 74 or 75 where the ship was sailing in such rough weather that you couldn't see the sky when the shipped rolled. It was an unlifted V or B. There were vomit bags and lots of green people. Us kids had a great ride.
Similar to that was a Coho trip the next summer where no food or hot drinks was served. Lots of green people.
But I believe people were more tolerant and understood that travel sometimes meant discomfort.
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Nov 20, 2011 21:26:43 GMT -8
Been while since I've been here, been reading about this whole Chilliwack thing. I have to agree that I think this situation is being blown out of proportion. I seriously wonder if the latest rough crossing of the Chilliwack would be so news worthy were it not for the drama created earlier about the ship simply being assigned to the route. Passenger safety isn't just a matter of whether the ship stays afloat. A ship that rolls around enough in bad weather that passengers are at risk of injury due to falls or sliding furniture isn't as safe as it should be even if the ship is in no danger of sinking. While it's true these are both "safety" issues, they are not the same. Whether or not a ship is safe to sail regarding it's ability to stay afloat is a matter of life and death. The issue of passengers being at risk of falls is not on the same level. There are certain realities to the fact that you are riding a ship on the water which by it's very nature is not as stable as ground. A ship will roll and move about, despite modern technology, anyone who boards a ship and expects the deck to behave the same as the terminal buildings floor is in for a disappointment. There are hand rails on a ship for a reason. There is also a reason for why tables are secured to the floor. The fact of the matter is that there are regulations governing how much roll a ship is allowed if it is to carry passengers. But there is no regulation saying that a ship must have a deck where one can stand still at any given time. People will get sick from time to time on ships, it is a moving platform. Despite what some may say, this instance with the Chilliwack seems to be more a problem with comfort and not safety, just because a ferry critic or news paper calls is safety doesn't automatically make it such. Okay, that may have come out harsher than I planned, but these are my thoughts on the matter. I agree with you on all points. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Nov 20, 2011 22:32:01 GMT -8
A ship that rolls around enough in bad weather that passengers are at risk of injury due to falls or sliding furniture isn't as safe as it should be even if the ship is in no danger of sinking. Then why does the Northern Adventure exist? Seas were about a meter when I rode her, and she rolled and rocked like Ozzy Osbourne at his worst... Definitely 'unsafe' by your standards. I remember one sailing in 74 or 75 where the ship was sailing in such rough weather that you couldn't see the sky when the shipped rolled. It was an unlifted V or B. There were vomit bags and lots of green people. Us kids had a great ride. I was on a sailing just like this one on the April Long Weekend of 2010. The view was sea, sky, sea, sky, and water splashed up above C-Cel's deck 7.  Looking out the window on deck 5: "Can't See the Sea on the Super C."  This isn't it at it's worst. We did one roll down to what must have been almost 40 degrees, and people screamed and fell over. I wasn't able to take a picture of that, since I was too busy saving my own life.  |
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Nanaimo Teen on Nov 20, 2011 23:02:31 GMT -8
If anyone is going to do another trip on the Chilliwack while she is on this route, could they record the welcome aboard announcement?
It would make a wonderful addition to my collection. I would be indebted to whoever forever!
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Nov 21, 2011 21:16:11 GMT -8
I'll likely be taking a trip on the Chilliwack this coming weekend so I'll attempt to capture the recorded announcement for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Nanaimo Teen on Nov 21, 2011 23:08:42 GMT -8
Hey Curtis - I really appreciate that!
All I want is the "welcome aboard" the safety announcement and the arriving aren't necessary. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 23, 2011 21:34:45 GMT -8
The Powell River Peak has more on last week's rough Comox to Powell River crossing. If you are looking for some entertainment read the comments that follow the article. Our very own Mr. F. Horn contributed some factual material at the end of the comments. |
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Nov 23, 2011 23:00:52 GMT -8
What I find most interesting in the above article is that Mr. Coons sites an email from "a" crewmember. It seems someone on board is trying to stir up some trouble. What is of particular interest is the comment from crewmember anonymous that there was no discussion with the crew before the decision to sail was made. Last time I checked the Master of the vessel did not need the crews consent to sail. A ship is not a democracy.
If I get anything from that article is that there is a crew member on the Chilliwak who is dancing dangerously close to crossing a line. It is one thing to disagree with decisions made by leadership, but to handle it the way this crew member is choosing to, either this crewmember is lacking experience, or is trying to stir the pot for some reason.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Nov 24, 2011 4:38:52 GMT -8
Having been on a vessel out in the Great Lakes in rough water (which can be just as bad as the crossing the Strait of Georgia at some times) I've come to the conclusion that people that are not regular boat farers panic when their coffee cup slides on the table. They think something akin to the Poseidon Adventure is going to happen.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Nov 24, 2011 14:07:16 GMT -8
What I find most interesting in the above article is that Mr. Coons sites an email from "a" crewmember. It seems someone on board is trying to stir up some trouble. What is of particular interest is the comment from crewmember anonymous that there was no discussion with the crew before the decision to sail was made. Last time I checked the Master of the vessel did not need the crews consent to sail. A ship is not a democracy. If I get anything from that article is that there is a crew member on the Chilliwak who is dancing dangerously close to crossing a line. It is one thing to disagree with decisions made by leadership, but to handle it the way this crew member is choosing to, either this crewmember is lacking experience, or is trying to stir the pot for some reason. Shoot the messenger if you wish, but if we looked for all information on BC Ferries through 'official' channels, like the public relations department, we'd have a very small part of the story. The crewman's account of the crossing has been corroborated by several passengers, and this is certainly not the first time that wallowing slothful hulk of a ferry has generated this kind of publicity. Is basic safety in question with the ' Chilliwack on the route? Probably not. Are acceptable standards for passenger comfort being met in less than ideal conditions? Definitely not, it would seem. Along with capacity, and to a lesser extent, length of crossing, Powell River residents have some justifiable complaints. I wonder too how much BC Ferries is going to spend over the long run if they have to periodically employ three boats on those two runs because the ' Chilliwack can't keep a decent schedule and handle traffic. The money they're pumping into keeping it going for another ten years or so might be better spent on a more suitable vessel, but that's a decision that involves the province as well. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Nov 24, 2011 14:43:45 GMT -8
:)it is quite amazing how much extended life has been breathed into both the wack and the nip, but a real private shipping concern would have done far less than this with the profitability to be gained from this upper island crossing. this route needs a heaping help with subsidies, to stay afloat, and no fast buck pvte. outfit will jump in, I'am afraid! :omrdot.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Nov 24, 2011 14:50:32 GMT -8
Shoot the messenger if you wish, but if we looked for all information on BC Ferries through 'official' channels, like the public relations department, we'd have a very small part of the story. The crewman's account of the crossing has been corroborated by several passengers, and this is certainly not the first time that wallowing slothful hulk of a ferry has generated this kind of publicity. Is basic safety in question with the ' Chilliwack on the route? Probably not. Are acceptable standards for passenger comfort being met in less than ideal conditions? Definitely not, it would seem. Along with capacity, and to a lesser extent, length of crossing, Powell River residents have some justifiable complaints. I wonder too how much BC Ferries is going to spend over the long run if they have to periodically employ three boats on those two runs because the ' Chilliwack can't keep a decent schedule and handle traffic. The money they're pumping into keeping it going for another ten years or so might be better spent on a more suitable vessel, but that's a decision that involves the province as well. The fact is that the sailing in question took place in 1.6m seas. This has been confirmed by Environment Canada by the article in question. The Chilliwack sees 1.6m seas on a regular basis on the Discovery Coast run during the summer season, and has never had any "safety" concerns before. 1.6m is NOT significant for ship stability, nor should it really be an issue for passenger safety. It's enough to cause some movement, and if passengers get seasick easily then they should be seated. I doubt the pax load was enough that there weren't enough seats for everybody. The crew member quoted mentioned seeing semis moving so that they almost collided with the upper ramp deck. Anybody who's seen the way they load the 'Wack knows that what he's referring to could easily have been something as small as 2 inches, which is reasonably normal for movement on a car deck. If it was in fact close to colliding, I would be calling into question the skills of the mate in charge of loading... not the safety of the ship itself. I'm not going to get into the argument over whether BCF should be building a new boat instead of dumping $$ into the Chilliwack... we've been there and done that. BUT... the Chilliwack is what's available. It is not an unsafe boat, it can handle the traffic almost all the time and it works. It seems as if people have forgotten that they are crossing a body of water in the height of storm season. It's not a railway, it's not going to be smooth all the time. We're dealing with Mother Nature, and she's not always kind. I can just see it... BCF will re-evaluate their sailing procedures, choose not to sail in anything over 2 foot chop due to passenger comfort, and then all these same people will be complaining about BCF's poor customer service. I'm sorry, but those people chose to live in Powell River. They knew that taking a ferry across sometimes stormy waters was going to be a part of their lives. Either get used to it, or don't go when it's stormy. |
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Nov 24, 2011 15:39:11 GMT -8
Shoot the messenger if you wish, but if we looked for all information on BC Ferries through 'official' channels, like the public relations department, we'd have a very small part of the story. The crewman's account of the crossing has been corroborated by several passengers, and this is certainly not the first time that wallowing slothful hulk of a ferry has generated this kind of publicity. Is basic safety in question with the ' Chilliwack on the route? Probably not. Are acceptable standards for passenger comfort being met in less than ideal conditions? Definitely not, it would seem. Along with capacity, and to a lesser extent, length of crossing, Powell River residents have some justifiable complaints. Not really looking to shoot the messenger, but their chosen tactics for bringing a perceived issue to light is not the best way to go. Such tactics only serve to create a division and possibly a resulting hostile debate. If the crew member really has an issue and feels that they are not being listened to then there are reporting agencies that they can turn to. If they still feel that they are being ignored then perhaps they need to stop and really examine what their grievances are, maybe it is not as big an issue as they originally thought. Then again, maybe it is, there are still better ways to handle it then to write to a media outlet and "broadcast" their grievances. From the article, “We need your help up here please, winter has only just begun.” Enlisting the help of an outside media source to affect some change within a company is simply not a good idea to say the least. Although this crew member is likely protected from any backlash due to being part of a union, if they were part of an "at will employer" they likely might not have a job to complain about after a stunt like that, or at least would be moved to a position where they can do less "damage." I've encountered people like this in the past, they act as if they are some sort of whistle blower, when in reality they are not getting something they want, recognition, influence, etc. They are using the "whistle blower" approach to try and force an issue or "stick it to the man." Now I admit that I may be way off on my assumption here, and the crew member may just be inexperienced and has made an unfortunate choice in how they are dealing with their issues. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Nov 24, 2011 16:15:51 GMT -8
Shoot the messenger if you wish, but if we looked for all information on BC Ferries through 'official' channels, like the public relations department, we'd have a very small part of the story. The crewman's account of the crossing has been corroborated by several passengers, and this is certainly not the first time that wallowing slothful hulk of a ferry has generated this kind of publicity. Is basic safety in question with the ' Chilliwack on the route? Probably not. Are acceptable standards for passenger comfort being met in less than ideal conditions? Definitely not, it would seem. Along with capacity, and to a lesser extent, length of crossing, Powell River residents have some justifiable complaints. Not really looking to shoot the messenger, but their chosen tactics for bringing a perceived issue to light is not the best way to go. Such tactics only serve to create a division and possibly a resulting hostile debate. If the crew member really has an issue and feels that they are not being listened to then there are reporting agencies that they can turn to. If they still feel that they are being ignored then perhaps they need to stop and really examine what their grievances are, maybe it is not as big an issue as they originally thought. Then again, maybe it is, there are still better ways to handle it then to write to a media outlet and "broadcast" their grievances. From the article, “We need your help up here please, winter has only just begun.” Enlisting the help of an outside media source to affect some change within a company is simply not a good idea to say the least. Although this crew member is likely protected from any backlash due to being part of a union, if they were part of an "at will employer" they likely might not have a job to complain about after a stunt like that, or at least would be moved to a position where they can do less "damage." I've encountered people like this in the past, they act as if they are some sort of whistle blower, when in reality they are not getting something they want, recognition, influence, etc. They are using the "whistle blower" approach to try and force an issue or "stick it to the man." Now I admit that I may be way off on my assumption here, and the crew member may just be inexperienced and has made an unfortunate choice in how they are dealing with their issues. The crewman didn't go to the media- he sent his email to Gary Coons, the NDP ferries critic who has a number of years representing the interests of coastal ferry users. Coons contacted the media. Obviously it would have been pointless to go to the company, since they've made the decision that the ' Chilliwack is suitable for the route. Taking his concern to an MLA who has a long association with BC Ferries issues seems an entirely appropriate course of action, and certainly not a 'stunt'. |
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Nov 24, 2011 16:51:31 GMT -8
The crewman didn't go to the media- he sent his email to Gary Coons, the NDP ferries critic who has a number of years representing the interests of coastal ferry users. Coons contacted the media. Obviously it would have been pointless to go to the company, since they've made the decision that the ' Chilliwack is suitable for the route. Taking his concern to an MLA who has a long association with BC Ferries issues seems an entirely appropriate course of action, and certainly not a 'stunt'. There are still government agencies in place to address safety concerns. Granted dealing with them can be frustrating to say the least, and they do have rules that protect the company as well as the individual, but there is still a proper way to handle issues. Circumventing the proper channels of leadership and reporting creates more problems than it solves. Individuals who do this often lack an understanding what it is they are complaining about. Never thought I would be siding with the company over the individual, but such actions as what appears to be happening here are divisive. You chose to work for the company, therefore you agreed to operate under their rules. I guess my biggest problem with all of this, is that when something like this takes center stage, something that is not as big an issue as it is made out to be, then it is easier to overlook other more serious issues. And people like Mr. Coons become the proverbial "boy who cried wolf" who raised the alarm so many times that when something serious did happen, few listened to what they had to say. |
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Nov 24, 2011 19:32:49 GMT -8
Not really looking to shoot the messenger, but their chosen tactics for bringing a perceived issue to light is not the best way to go. Such tactics only serve to create a division and possibly a resulting hostile debate. If the crew member really has an issue and feels that they are not being listened to then there are reporting agencies that they can turn to. If they still feel that they are being ignored then perhaps they need to stop and really examine what their grievances are, maybe it is not as big an issue as they originally thought. Then again, maybe it is, there are still better ways to handle it then to write to a media outlet and "broadcast" their grievances. From the article, “We need your help up here please, winter has only just begun.” Enlisting the help of an outside media source to affect some change within a company is simply not a good idea to say the least. Although this crew member is likely protected from any backlash due to being part of a union, if they were part of an "at will employer" they likely might not have a job to complain about after a stunt like that, or at least would be moved to a position where they can do less "damage." I've encountered people like this in the past, they act as if they are some sort of whistle blower, when in reality they are not getting something they want, recognition, influence, etc. They are using the "whistle blower" approach to try and force an issue or "stick it to the man." Now I admit that I may be way off on my assumption here, and the crew member may just be inexperienced and has made an unfortunate choice in how they are dealing with their issues. The crewman didn't go to the media- he sent his email to Gary Coons, the NDP ferries critic who has a number of years representing the interests of coastal ferry users. Coons contacted the media. Obviously it would have been pointless to go to the company, since they've made the decision that the ' Chilliwack is suitable for the route. Taking his concern to an MLA who has a long association with BC Ferries issues seems an entirely appropriate course of action, and certainly not a 'stunt'. Going to Coons is just going to the media by proxy. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Nov 24, 2011 19:46:22 GMT -8
I was in almost one meter seas on the friggin SeaBus today and it barely shook the frame. 1.6? Pfft, I navigated aboard the 'Wack in worse than that. And it was snowing to boot. No offense intended, Powell Riverites, but go find something else to complain about like your lack of a bridge to Comox, or even better, grow up. That's just my personal opinion. Shoot me down if you may, but voicing our opinions is allowed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, so I'm using my liberty to speak here and now.  |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Nov 24, 2011 20:16:46 GMT -8
Never thought I would be siding with the company over the individual, but such actions as what appears to be happening here are divisive. You chose to work for the company, therefore you agreed to operate under their rules. . This chap wouldn't be the first whistle blower to go outside of corporate or government hierarchy to bring something worthwhile to the public's attention. I can think of a prominent Vancouver blogger who has had numerous police officers give an account of police operations around the June riot that differs significantly from chief Jim Chu's. Whether they're entirely accurate is another matter, but it's a perspective that we simply wouldn't be aware of if everyone buttoned their lips, or went through the filters of officialdom. I don't understand your 'divisive' comment. Aside from his admittedly odd remark about the crew not being consulted about sailing, all the crewman was doing was relating what he was seeing, hearing and dealing with from the passengers. I note young Mr Viking, stoutly referencing Canada's free speech laws to defend his right to tell Powell Riverites to, in effect, shut up. |
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Nov 24, 2011 21:34:19 GMT -8
This chap wouldn't be the first whistle blower to go outside of corporate or government hierarchy to bring something worthwhile to the public's attention. I can think of a prominent Vancouver blogger who has had numerous police officers give an account of police operations around the June riot that differs significantly from chief Jim Chu's. Whether they're entirely accurate is another matter, but it's a perspective that we simply wouldn't be aware of if everyone buttoned their lips, or went through the filters of officialdom. Perhaps I am muddling the issue here. I have no desire to silence a whistle blower; it is just that I have seen actions similar to this before in another company. The result was that it created a difficult working environment for their coworkers when the public sensed a slight amount of discord amongst the team. Sometimes when people go outside of the proper channels it has unintended side effects. Perhaps it is more the way Mr. Coons is presenting the information, reading the original email may clarify the crew members intent. The thing that I think people need to be careful of when it comes to raising public awareness in situations like this is to consider whether this is an issue of safety, or simply one of comfort or preference? Is an issue of comfort or preference worth the concern it is causing? There does need to be some concern given to comfort, but is it worth the attention it’s getting? In my opinion the real issue here has nothing to do with a “rough crossing,” it seems to be more that some people just do not like the Chilliwack and they are looking for flaws to try and get something more in line with what they like. Off topic: a side note regarding free speech, just wanted to say that I have rather enjoyed the civil discussion that has been happening here, doesn’t always happen on discussion boards, all in the name of free speech. |
|
