Queen Mary 2 - What were they thinking? Fire safety rule breaches

[Wes Bucey]

I came across this item Wednesday, June 30, 2004 and it has nagged at me ever since:

Saturday, 26 June, 2004, 14:29 GMT 15:29 UK
Urgent safety work starts on QM2

The Queen Mary 2 is the largest passenger ship ever built
The world's biggest luxury liner has arrived in its home port with just hours to put right fire safety rule breaches revealed by a BBC probe.
The Marine and Coastguard Agency has told Cunard to fit extra sprinklers in the Queen Mary 2's 1,300 cabins.

Extra smoke detectors are to be fitted in the cabins before the liner sails to New York from Southampton this evening.

The BBC investigation led to tests which revealed material used in many of the cabins was too flammable.

Each passenger on board has received a letter from Cunard reassuring them that the ship, which was launched in January and cost £500m to build, is safe.

Clearly the tests today have proven that the material does not come up to the standard

Passengers disembarking from the QM2, which arrived in Southampton at 0530 BST on Friday, seemed happy with the liner's safety standards.

Bill Carroll, from St George, Utah, said: "I didn't have any qualms. I think they are making a mountain out of a molehill."

The alert is over the use of material in the majority of the ship's bathroom units which does not meet international fire safety regulations for marine use.

Tests carried out on Thursday morning by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on two samples taken from the ship confirmed concerns first raised by a manufacturer in the Czech Republic.

Increased patrols

Alan Fairney, of the MCA, said: "Clearly the tests today have proven that the material does not come up to the standard.

"We have taken immediate action in conjunction with Cunard and agreed that sprinklers will be fitted in the bathrooms.

"Smoke detection is being fitted adjacent to the bathrooms and the fire patrols have been increased to every 15 minutes."

Eric Flounders, Cunard's spokesman, said extra staff had been drafted in to ensure that the smoke alarms would be fitted in time for the sailing at 1800 BST.

He said: "Work has started and this will be completed in time."

Work to fit additional sprinklers in the bathrooms will be made simpler because each cabin already has a sprinkler in place.

It is feared the ship may contain as much as 65,000 kg of the material causing concern.

Anyone else wonder about the lack of concept for FMEA, mistake proofing, or failure of inspections (from internal to governmental regulations) to prevent this expensive situation?

Why did an independent news organization getting info from a whistleblower have to discover this glitch? The worst part in my view is that no one in the Cunard Queen Mary 2 organization nor government seem to be willing to admit they should have listened to the whistleblower in the first place and only got stirred to action when the glare of publicity from the BBC forced the issue. Seems like no lessons were learned from the "unsinkable" Titanic.

Comments?

 

[Jen Kirley]

After 10 years in U.S. Navy (five in Navy QA) I went to work for a family owned machine shop and marveled at how differently things are run.

Cunard has experience at making ships. Cunard should know how to ensure the right material is used. Were there material certs that did not get checked, was a substitution made?

Did Cunard get too big to catch all the details?

Was Cunard simply keeping one Marty Feldman eye on profits, and lost sight of the importance of following rules? We won't know the answer, but my guess it's a mix of the three.

I have often thought about going on a cruise, but was stopped by questions such as how well they could handle emergencies. I have been through firefighter school, where a shipboard fire was simulated. I sure wouldn't want to be in a situation like that on an ocean liner.

Let us be glad it was not found out after a fire.

 

[The Taz!]

Ya know. . . after reading your post, I have to believe that pinching pennies on a 500M Euro ocean liner is rediculous. . . but. . . I now wonder, what did they miss?? Where else were pennies pinched that have not been discovered?

I love cruises. . .but with the incidents of the past 5 to 10 years, and the rapid growth of that industry, I am wondering if things are moving a tad too fast. . .

Just some thoughts. . .

 

[Wes Bucey]

Not just cruise ships

Ya know. . . after reading your post, I have to believe that pinching pennies on a 500M Euro ocean liner is rediculous. . . but. . . I now wonder, what did they miss?? Where else were pennies pinched that have not been discovered?

I love cruises. . .but with the incidents of the past 5 to 10 years, and the rapid growth of that industry, I am wondering if things are moving a tad too fast. . .

Just some thoughts. . .

The situation, of course, is not limited to cruise ships. Similar lapses (or knowing omissions) occur in hotel/motel buildings, apartment houses, office buildings, industrial workplaces.
It seems to me that all too often, life, health, and safety concerns are shunted aside because some guy put pressure on another guy to ("overlook this - it won't hurt anyone. However, we could lose a lot of money if we have to do it the right way.")

If I had a ticket on the Queen Mary 2,
I'd sure want a refund unless I could see a complete re-inspection report by an unbiased 3rd party (no offense, auditors, but some 3rd party auditors have a history of bias for their clients.)

In light of obvious lapses like this that can be directly tracked to money issues, doesn't it seem strange so many of our politicians are eager to limit the liability for corporations with such lapses when the disaster DOES occur?

This really is a Preventative Action/Continuous Improvement issue. The question in my mind now is WHO in Cunard knew there was an issue and kept silent or was silenced? These are the same folks who would use shredded tires for a safety layer in your kid's playground without bothering to remove the sharp steel cable pieces first. (Why? It costs money to remove the cable pieces!) Your child's safety is not an issue (to them!)

 

[Jen Kirley]

The situation, of course, is not limited to cruise ships. Similar lapses (or knowing omissions) occur in hotel/motel buildings, apartment houses, office buildings, industrial workplaces.
It seems to me that all too often, life, health, and safety concerns are shunted aside because some guy put pressure on another guy to ("overlook this - it won't hurt anyone. However, we could lose a lot of money if we have to do it the right way.")

If I had a ticket on the Queen Mary 2,
I'd sure want a refund unless I could see a complete re-inspection report by an unbiased 3rd party (no offense, auditors, but some 3rd party auditors have a history of bias for their clients.)

In light of obvious lapses like this that can be directly tracked to money issues, doesn't it seem strange so many of our politicians are eager to limit the liability for corporations with such lapses when the disaster DOES occur?

This really is a Preventative Action/Continuous Improvement issue. The question in my mind now is WHO in Cunard knew there was an issue and kept silent or was silenced? These are the same folks who would use shredded tires for a safety layer in your kid's playground without bothering to remove the sharp steel cable pieces first. (Why? It costs money to remove the cable pieces!) Your child's safety is not an issue (to them!)

Obviously we are not like most folks who ride those boats, sleep in the motel rooms and so on. Imagine having an entire customer base that demanded safety and obeying the law!

I do believe it is based on risk management principles. The risk is managed according to the likelihood of disaster or getting caught. The math gets more far out and fuzzy looking when bonuses are at stake, yes?

Consider the long trend of it: car makers whose management insists on using door latches after the engineers insisted they be redesigned (Chrysler and Ford) and exploding gas tanks (Ford) and even the Challenger's o-ring debacle. NASA knew better, for sure, but their management was not oriented on safety and reliability--only reliable that they would launch, even when warned not to because of cold.

How great was the cost of their being wrong on those examples.

There is a pschological term for adolescents who behave as though nothing bad will happen to them: Infallability Syndrome. When they grow up, they might take on the Narcissitic Personality Disorder, always blaming others and feeling superior.

 

[Randy]

After 10 years in U.S. Navy (five in Navy QA) I went to work for a family owned machine shop and marveled at how differently things are run.

Jennifer is a Squidette? :mg: Now my Marine buddies, here in the Cove, and I have both boys and girls we can dance with.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Jennifer is a Squidette? :mg: Now my Marine buddies, here in the Cove, and I have both boys and girls we can dance with.

Squidette? I've been called a lot of things, but... well, I guess it's benign. Heh!

 

[Jen Kirley]

There is a pschological term for adolescents who behave as though nothing bad will happen to them: Infallability Syndrome. When they grow up, they might take on the Narcissitic Personality Disorder, always blaming others and feeling superior.

I should have said Invincibility Fable.

 

[Al Dyer]

To the original;

Wes, I agree!!!


It is mind blowing to think that a ship like this could be built and commissioned without the oversight of at least 100 government agencies. And now they complain????


As they say , government works for all, or is it all work for government?


Al... in a cynical mood.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Excellent thread, this...

The situation, of course, is not limited to cruise ships. Similar lapses (or knowing omissions) occur in hotel/motel buildings, apartment houses, office buildings, industrial workplaces.
It seems to me that all too often, life, health, and safety concerns are shunted aside because some guy put pressure on another guy to ("overlook this - it won't hurt anyone. However, we could lose a lot of money if we have to do it the right way.")

You're right Wes. This kind of reasoning has killed lots of people over the years. Are we fighting human nature here? Neither this phenomenon nor attempts to counter it are anything new. One example:

If a building collapses, killing the owner, the constructor shall be killed too. If one of the owners children is killed one of the cunstructors children shall be.... and so on

I suppose that made people think before cutting corners...:mg:

Another reflection is that it is one thing to enforce legislation because you are required to, and something completely different to enforce it because you believe in it. In the latter case you have to understand why you are doing it...

/Claes