Near King George island, and about 75 miles north of the Antarctic Peninsula, she was sailing through 20 degree F air over freezing water when was punctured in a hole the "Size of a fist". Later observations mentioned "Some Cracking of the hull of the ship".
After 90 minutes of damage control, the captain ordered "Abandon Ship". After a debarkation in which not a single injury was sustained, the passengers were floating in the lifeboats in exposure suits through rough water towards an ice shelf. After a wait of about 4 hours, a helicopter arrived. Soon the MS Nordnorge hove into view, and rescued the passengers. Also on the way was the Endeavor (52 miles away).
The captain and some crew stayed aboard to try to save the ship, but the pumps could not keep up with "Sanitary Systems that could have compromised the watertight integrity" of the ship. After 20 hours, the ship slid to the bottom of the sea in 2000 feet of water. Leaving an relatively small oil slick behind for the large expanse of open ocean.
This type of cruising is called Soft Adventure, but after the NordKapp ran aground in January, It's time to look at both safety and environmental impact of the 37,000 people who tour Antarctica each year.
Answers that I wll be looking for in the investigation of this accident:
1) Ice is significantly lighter than liquid water, and cannot stay submerged unless it is fastened to other ice or land. In 2000 ft of water, land is not an issue unless the charts are wrong. What did she actually hit? Was a visible iceberg or shelf missed by the lookouts?
2) Just one fire pump could keep up with the leaks through a fist sized hole. Was the cracking of the hull mentioned in one report enough to spread the leaks beyond the capacity of the pumps to keep up. Existing damage control reports will have to suffice because the hull is now in 2000 feet of water. Perhaps some ROV's can find enough reason to brave the Antarctic to answer this question, but I doubt it.
3) Was the updating of the 38 year old ship's sanitary system done so that it allowed water to pass throught the watertight bulkheads?
4) While I have sailed safely on 50 year old ships, 38 year-old ships were not built with the SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) rules and regulations of today. Should older grandfathered ships be allowed in the Arctic regions?
5) The prompt response of rescue vessels and professionalism of the abandonment resulted in no injuries whatsoever. Does every ship in this environment have an emergency plan that recognizes where potential rescue vessels are at all times?
Lessons learned already:
The Antarctic is not a Disney ride. It is an adventure through one of the most hostile and beautiful environments on earth. Two vessels have been wrecked here this year. Now is the time to review the success of these 2 rescues, and the many ways that the outcome could have been worse. While the bigger ships now going there are probably cleaner and safer, how would you rescue 2500 passengers if one did get in trouble?
Because of the low temperatures, it is also one of the most fragile environments in the world.
We should continue and perhaps tighten the rules for insuring that we are not killing what we are looking at.
