If you're in trouble at sea, signalling a cruise ship doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop to help.

Dying men on a disabled fishing boat were left drifting, despite the close passage of a huge cruise ship that didn’t stop even after its crew was alerted by anxious passengers who saw frantic signalling from the tiny craft, according to the survivor and those who spotted him.

For Adrian Vasquez, sole survivor of the drifting boat, the joy over near-certain rescue as the Star Princess sailed closer and closer turned to despair as it sailed on past.

He said one of his fellow fishermen died hours after the ship passed and the other five days later. He was eventually rescued by Ecuadorians near the Galapagos Islands on March 28 after a month adrift and two weeks after seeing the Star Princess.

www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world...article2407401/

The article suggests a breakdown in communication to the bridge officers, or a misunderstanding of the intent of the message. It's pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if piracy/security concerns are also part of the mix in a situation like this?

If nothing else, this underlines the value of having some sort of reference material at hand -- allowing you to send/display a formal, internationally recognized distress message.

Isn't this a gross violation of international marine law/custom?

Yes

Yipes. I don't disagree, but I wonder if it would have mattered with this crew. That's cold blooded.

From the article:


HJ

The captain should have at least called in for a smaller, more capable boat and/or helicopter. This case makes me wonder how a captain of this cruise line would treat a "man overboard". The rest of what I have to say is probably a minority opinion...

It's seems entirely impractical and uber-dangerous for a huge cruise ship to stop every time it appears a small vessel may need a rescue in the open seas. It seems to me that a large cruise ship would be stopping maybe 3 times every cruise. By the way, I have to wonder how many of these cases happen where a cruise ship keeps going. This case just happens to have a survivor who can report what happened.

The point about the pirates is valid. There are some really evil monsters out there that only happen to have DNA similar to human beings. The captain is entirely responsible if the people in the small vessel board the ship, turn out to be pirates, and kill some passengers. The alternative is for the captain just keep going, as he did here, and have some people say he's a really bad person.

By the way, pirates could easily learn the international distress signal. So, that'a a non-starter.

According to the article, neither the captain nor the officer of the watch were notified. That's abysmal.

That's rather convenient. I'm skeptical.

Does sound like a breakdown in communication.
I wonder if crew can be held responsible for not informing the captain properly??

Seems to point to the necessity of having something really tangible - like distress flares or smoke to signal emergencies.
After reading this, I am not convinced that a signal mirror would have changed the outcome of events.

Pete2

A PLB or in the case of a ship an EPIRB would be an obvious thing to mention about now.

For those of us in a first-world country - a PLB or some type of satellite distress device would be an excellent choice. I'm not sure that the fishermen (Ecuadorian or Panamanian?) had the opportunity to buy such a device.

I went back and read the actual article from the Globe and Mail.

It leaves a convincing feeling in your head that the crews of some of these cruise ships don't have much mastery of seamanship or emergency drills.
OR alternatively ... that the crew and the captain knew exactly what they were doing. And they pretended to have bad communications. But really the cruise line had given secret instructions to avoid picking members of stranded vessels - perhaps to avoid legal liability or risks from piracy ???

Pete2