A New Jersey woman testified on Wednesday that she still gets nightmares about an April 2005 cruise that was slammed by heavy seas for hours and eventually struck by a 70-foot wave.

"It's always about water," said Sandra Krahling, a passenger on the Norwegian Dawn cruise from Miami to New York. "I just remember seeing propellers coming out of the water. I open doors and there's water coming in."

Krahling is one of four people suing Norwegian Cruise Line for emotional damage from the cruise, which was forced to divert to Charleston, S.C., after windows broke, flooding 62 cabins.

The suit filed by Miami lawyer Brett Rivkind alleges Norwegian recklessly tried to sail through the storm to tape an appearance on the Donald Trump show The Apprentice, for which it had agreed to pay $800,000.

"NCL's choices ended up risking the lives and safety of those passengers," Rivkind told jurors.

Attorneys for the cruise line said that the ship's course was reasonable given the weather forecasts and that of 2,200 passengers only four were injured. They contend that no one had lasting psychological trauma. "At some point people were scared and uncomfortable. But then it was over," attorney Curtis Mase said.

Krahling said the weather gradually worsened on Friday, April 15, 2005, as the ship tried to make a 5 a.m. Sunday arrival in New York. "The ship started to feel and sound like it was twisted," said Krahling, who testified she was thrown across a dining-room table by the force of one wave and later jolted out of bed onto the floor by another.

She made her way to the atrium of the ship, where many passengers had gathered. "I just stayed there because I was so terrified," she said. Around 6:10 a.m. on Saturday, a wave estimated at 60 to 70 feet struck the ninth and 10th decks of the 13-story ship, prompting panic among the passengers, Krahling said. "They weren't just talking, they weren't hollering, they were screaming for life because they were so terrified."

Krahling said the captain told passengers moments later over the public address system that the ship was OK, but rather than talking, as in previous announcements, he was yelling. "Then I knew we were going to die," she said.

After the cruise, Krahling said she was out of sorts for weeks. "I was just scrambled. I couldn't get myself together," she said.

Krahling testified that she still gets anxious talking about the cruise or watching television shows about boats. But questioned by NCL attorneys, she said she had no physical injuries from the cruise and did not see a psychologist or psychiatrist afterward, other than the expert ones hired in preparation for the lawsuit.

A National Transportation Safety Board report concluded that damage sustained by the ship did not pose a serious safety hazard.

The trial before U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami is expected to take about three weeks.

[ 05-20-2007: Message edited by: joe at travelpage ]

Really hope she must pay damage to NCL 1.5 million us dollars. Would bet there would be a sudden drop in such law suites.

NCL dilibritly sailed in to that wave!

Really what are ship suppost to do? Sail around every storm that comes in? No. Ships are built to withstand storms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunard Fan:
Ships are built to withstand storms.

---

Cruise ships are certainly NOT comfortable in storms and not designed to handle them if they are very severe. They are also not designed to handle them too often for that matter, compared to an ‘Ocean Liner’.

What worries me is the forward facing balcony Cabins on NCL (and some other cruise ships). I recall the story of a wave breaking the patio doors, flooding the forward-facing cabins and injuring some passengers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:
[...]

Cruise ships are certainly NOT comfortable in storms and not designed to handle them if they are very severe. They are also not designed to handle them too often for that matter, compared to an ‘Ocean Liner’. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

Cruise ships are certainly NOT comfortable in storms and not designed to handle them if they are very severe. They are also not designed to handle them too often for that matter, compared to an ‘Ocean Liner’.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:

Exactly. QM2 and QE2 are designed to cut through severe seas-keeping passengers as comfortable as possible while keeping to a schedule.

---

I may assure you that also QE2 and QM2 are not going into a storm deliberately. Every reasonable seaman will first try to avoid the storm. (and thier speed actually makes it easier to do that an keep the schedule)

QE2 and QM2 have certainly good seakeeping abilities - but do not underestimate the abilities of other passenger ships - most are actually not bad at all. (mind you that most passenger ships are slower than QE2 or QM2)

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
Ernst-I knew that would get a response.

---

I admit that it is somehow easy to predict. Don't misunderstand it as disrespect for QE2 or QM2 or old ships or 'liners' - I just do not like this notion that all modern passenger ships are badly built - this is certainly not the case.

I am not a big friend of this casuistic aruments - and it is not representative either - but still fun to watch: 'box boat 'slicing' trough the waves'

(I hope nobody is traumatized and sues me )

[ 05-18-2007: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

Cruise ships are certainly NOT comfortable in storms and not designed to handle them if they are very severe. They are also not designed to handle them too often for that matter, compared to an ‘Ocean Liner’.

---

I know that. They are not built to sail through severe storms a lot, however cruises ships are built so that they would not be in danger if a storm hit them. Obviously they don't have to deal with them on as regular a basis as the Queens but they are not so badly built that they can't handle them on occasion, if there was no other way to go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
NOBODY (beside idiots) deliberately sails into a sever storm. Sometimes it can not be avoided..

---

It's not that simple Ernst.

I did a December crossing on the QE2 a few years back. The Captain announced that there was a force 10 storm in the middle of the Atlantic. He went on to say that 'the computer' said the conditions would be better if the ship passed through the heart of the storm, rather than if it tried to go around it.

Was this ship here built for storms: See Here? I think she lost power BECAUSE a wave shattered the bridge windows and flooded the bridge.

The ship has a low profile and there is not much between the bow and the bridge windows, unlike the Queens which have Bridges perched high up on the superstructure.

[ 05-19-2007: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

Was this ship here built for storms: See Here? I think she lost power BECAUSE a wave shattered the bridge windows and flooded the bridge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunard Fan:
..I believe it was said that the power was not lost but cut on purpose for a test or something.

---

No, see HERE.

The helicopter is a rescue chopper, they are not filming it for 'fun'.

[ 05-19-2007: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:
[...]

I did a December crossing on the QE2 a few years back. The Captain announced that there was a force 10 storm in the middle of the Atlantic. He went on to say that 'the computer' said the conditions would be better if the ship passed through the heart of the storm, rather than if it tried to go around it. [...]

---

But this IS what I mean - one would certainly do anything to avoid the storm - sometimes one just can not avoid the storm - as in this case.

Broken glass is a different issue than a structural failure (as discussed above) - rest assured that also the windows of QE2 can break. (nothing against QE2)

One can certainly not discuss this topic by citing single events which have nothing to do with each other, nevertheless - here an
'old' ship in rough sea - to show you that water can very well make it to the bridge windows on an old ship too.

Considering structural strength, there is no doubt that the foreward works of newer ships are considerably more robust than those of older ships. In fact, many newer cruise ships have bow shell plating thicker than found on the bows of "ocean liners", simply because newer ships have more bow flare, which increases the loadings on the plating from wave impact. (Class rules state that bow plating thickness should be based on the height above waterline, ship's maximum speed, and most importantly of all, flare.)