Cruise ship ignores distressed boat

This is disgusting. I have no idea what the captain's rationale for not inspecting was, but he needs to see the walls of a maritime court and be charged with negligent homicide. And he will.

Where do these people come from?

reply to post by earthdude

and if they don't ya leave 'em to die? Come on.

No... If they don't then they never get the distress signal out. If they never send a distress signal out then nobody is really at fault except for them. Would you get mad at a 911 operator for not sending a police car when the caller dials 411 and says "hello"?

reply to post by DavidWillts


I definitely see and hear what you are saying. I think what most of us are concerned about here is that common sense was not used. I don't know anything about boating so I am just speculating here but I'm sure it's not very often you see a boat that small that far away from shore? That would have been my first question. But again...you are right in regards to the laws and standards put out there.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Insomniac

 

I know, right?
Most are foreign. Most of the ones I have seen are Italian, but in this case it seems they were English.

The Star Princess, which has an English captain, is said to have sailed on even though three passengers told the crew they had spotted the stricken boat.

dailymail

I think you misunderstood my post, I wasn't questioning the captain's nationality - only his integrity and the recent history of the performance of the captains in the employ of this lamentable company.

Originally posted by OhZone
Didn't the article say they were found 650 miles from shore?
Even if they were only 100 miles from shore....in a 9 foot boat?

Where did you get 9 foot boat from? Is there anything else you would like to make up?

It looks like likely it'll be covered up anyway as the ship is registered in Bermuda and the Bermudan authorites have decided not to investigate...

The other disturbing although predictable thing is that that Bermuda, the flag state, admits that it has not even decided to conduct an investigation. Remember, Princess incorporated in Bermuda and flies flags of convenience on its ships to avoid paying U.S. income taxes or comply with U.S. safety laws and labor / wage laws. Bermuda has a poor record of investigating crimes and instances of dereliction of duty.

Source: Cruise Law News

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
reply to post by DavidWillts

 

I don't know anything about boating so I am just speculating here but I'm sure it's not very often you see a boat that small that far away from shore? That would have been my first question. But again...you are right in regards to the laws and standards put out there.

Well this small boat was a 26 foot fishing boat and it was 130 miles off the coast. While that is far for a panga it would not be unheard of.

reply to post by HawkeyeNation


Americans disgust me, sometimes.

Originally posted by Glassbender777
Im pretty sure that is against international Maritime laws, If the cruise ship did see the destressed boat and kept going, that is a terrrible judgement call by the crew of the Cruise ship, and should be held responsible for the deaths of the other two men. Maritime law requires the closest vessel to aid in an SOS, or a rescue if they see one, not just pick and choose who you save, hell even during WW2 US vessels would come to the aid of sinking ships that had just been attacked even if they were the enemy.

It is against international maritime law. I've been teaching ship driving for 21 years. Liabilities can be assigned to the individuals AND the company. Someone is going to become quite wealthy, along with some lawyers.

Money and Money and then some, that is all that counts now.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by DavidWillts
You would think that a fishing boat would have had a radio,flares or at least some flags to display a distress signal.

That's easy for a rich westerner to say, but what if a radio costs more than you earn in a year? Do you feed your family or make em starve so you can get one?

I guess if poor people can't follow our rules then they aren't worthy of our help.

Total morality fail.

Where was the mercy?

What kind of heartless monsters could just keep rolling on?

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by OhZone
Didn't the article say they were found 650 miles from shore?
Even if they were only 100 miles from shore....in a 9 foot boat?

Where did you get 9 foot boat from? Is there anything else you would like to make up?

I dunno where you are getting your information from, either you arent reading the whole stories or reading something different..

LINK

Twenty-eight days later, Adrian Vasquez was found drifting alone in the 10-foot (three-meter) fishing boat.

yeah that far off shore in a 9-10 foot boat easy odds are something is amiss

Nobody else find it strange that he threw his friends bodys overboard?? Maybe its just me.

And for distress signal your supposed to make a capital letter 'Y' by putting your arms up either side.

Had this been anything other than a giant, faceless, floating corporate monolith, then these men would probably still be alive today.

As it was stated earlier, the sailing trash behemoth just kept rolling on.

Originally posted by Idonthaveabeard
Nobody else find it strange that he threw his friends bodys overboard?? Maybe its just me.

And for distress signal your supposed to make a capital letter 'Y' by putting your arms up either side.

10-foot boat open to the glaring sun, I'd probably do the same eventually.

cruise ships will abandon you if your 45 seconds late. without a refund. the captains are a---holes.

buffet times are more important to carnival cruise than peoples lives.

if you're the father of one of the kids, is it morally wrong to find the captain of the ship and shoot him in the head for leaving your son to die a horrible death on the high seas.

especially if you find out it was most likely done out of arrogance and indifference or to keep a bunch of fat slobs happy at the buffet table.

believe me God has saved a lot of lives.

I read this earlier. It's a shame that the Captain didn't use a little common sense. If he had this whole thing could've been avoided.It's a sad story for sure.

Yes, the captain should have stopped, and it appears that he knew this, and this is why he fabricated a story and entered it in his logbook. It's probably a conspiracy among the officers on the bridge, as their word will be believed over the passengers. And only a handful of passengers actually saw the evidence, as they had bird-watching equipment handy to view the boat, which was pretty far away and not visible to the naked eye. Or at least distress could not be determined without some type of magnification device.

Anyway, the captain is saying that he passed through a FLEET of fishing boats...AND that he made contact via RADIO. I believe they didn't have a radio, or it was not working, and either way there is no way the captain made contact with them. There also were no other boats or ships in the area, and of course there will not be a fishing fleet of boats that small that far from the coast, and seeing one boat should raise alarms. I'm telling you that the captain is lying to cover his tracks, and he was probably hoping that the passengers would forget about the incident and not pursue it, and no one would ever know what happened to the fishing boat.

With all that said, it was highly irresponsible to take a boat out into the ocean without adequate supplies, especially equipment for use in an emergency situation. The article, if I remember correctly, stated that their engine would not start. If they had a working radio this should not have affected it one bit, unless it was setup to charge a battery, in which case there still would have been enough current to run a radio to make a distress call. So I am guessing that the radio, if there was one, was inoperable. I saw the picture of the boat, and it was nothing more than a rickety little fishing boat, and a boat of that size has no business being anywhere near out of eyesight of land...It should stay even closer than that, where the land is still highly visible, depending on the conditions.

The ocean is a VERY unforgiving place, and it is one of the hardest, if not the hardest, place to survive on the planet, and especially when you have no supplies. They may have had some supplies, but nowhere near enough for 2 weeks for 3 people, although rationing water and food has saved others in similar situations. But the point is that no one should have died in this situation. Yes, maritime law requires any ship that knows another ship is in distress, within a certain range, must make contact with the vessel to render aid.

To not do so, the captain must have a very good reason, such as endangering his own crew and passengers, and he must also make a written record of the incident in his logbook for later examination. Like I said, I'm sure he thought everyone would just forget about, and he probably assumed that they would just die out there, and he would not be called out for his failure to act per the legal requirements of a person in his position. These may have just been some kids having fun on a little fishing boat, or they may have been highly experienced...

I don't know, and I know that they cannot control that their motor broke down, but that is something that should have been tested and taken care of on dry land. So they did get themselves into an avoidable situation, but that doesn't mean that they should have died. On the contrary, with what happened, the brunt of the blame lies on the captain of the cruise ship, who probably didn't want to stop because it would have taken them off schedule, or may have required them to head into a port somewhere, or have to take care of those 3 men. Who knows, but I have a feeling he will not be prosecuted for this, and will probably continue sailing...

Originally posted by Glassbender777
Im pretty sure that is against international Maritime laws, If the cruise ship did see the destressed boat and kept going, that is a terrrible judgement call by the crew of the Cruise ship, and should be held responsible for the deaths of the other two men. Maritime law requires the closest vessel to aid in an SOS, or a rescue if they see one, not just pick and choose who you save, hell even during WW2 US vessels would come to the aid of sinking ships that had just been attacked even if they were the enemy.

You are 100% correct. This is a breach of Maritime law. Any boat at sea must lend assistance to any other boat in trouble even if it costs you money, time and even puts your life in some danger. The only reason you can give to get out of this is if it would be suicide to lend assistance. This includes even the smallest boat in the ocean sees (or hears) of the biggest ship in the ocean in distress.

I am not sure of the obligation of military vessels if they are on a mission or engaged in battle though.

The bottom line is a captain of a cruise ship is obligated to help