Signalling a cruise ship?

Posted by: dougwalkabout

Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/20/12 06:04 AM

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.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/20/12 09:30 AM

Isn't this a gross violation of international marine law/custom?
Posted by: williamlatham

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/20/12 12:53 PM

Yes
Posted by: Hikin_Jim

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/20/12 05:18 PM

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

From the article:
Quote:
Maritime law – and tradition – imposes a duty on all captains to “to assist persons in distress at sea.”


HJ
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/20/12 05:45 PM

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.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/20/12 07:05 PM

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

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/20/12 10:08 PM

Originally Posted By: chaosmagnet
According to the article, neither the captain nor the officer of the watch were notified...


That's rather convenient. I'm skeptical.
Posted by: Pete

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/21/12 12:50 AM

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
Posted by: Russ

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/21/12 01:13 AM

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

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/21/12 01:26 AM

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
Posted by: frediver

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/21/12 07:42 PM

There is a video of this small craft and after watching it I can see no obvious reason to park the ship and take a look.
If these guys had money for fuel to "go fish" then they had enough money for:
A distress Flag at the very minimum.
A small piece of Mirror.
A road flare.
Maybe even some Sea Dye.
They do not even seem to have OARS.
How tough would it have been to tie a shirt to an OAR
and use that as a distress Flag?

As others have stated there are a few reasons why a ship would not want to stop without actual proof of distress, Security is only one of them.
The Capt. at the time has assisted other vessels/crews.

Darwin sucks but does work.
Posted by: Brangdon

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/22/12 10:40 AM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
That's rather convenient. I'm skeptical.
It sounds like a cock-up rather than conspiracy to me. From the BBC report:

"Understandably, Capt Perrin is devastated that he is being accused of knowingly turning his back on people in distress. Had the captain received this information, he would have had the opportunity to respond."

Princess Cruises added that it understood its responsibility under the law of the sea to help any vessel in distress, and said its ships had been involved in more than 30 rescues over the past decade.
Posted by: dougwalkabout

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/22/12 08:04 PM

Skepticism is understandable, given that this cruise line has been in full damage control mode for months now.

That said, I find it unlikely that individuals in a position of responsibility and trust would deliberately ignore a vessel in distress.

But no question, it certainly is a cock-up, with serious implications. The only issue is how high it went, and who gets set adrift in a bedpan.
Posted by: Aussie

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/24/12 04:00 AM

The account is not very detailed, but
many of the crew are probably low paid hotel staff, rather that professional sailors.

Inspite of the passenger speaking to an officer, it may actually have been a "hotel supervisor", and there may have been a language issue too ? Possibly the message never did reach a "real" ships officer ? From the sounds of it, they needed good binoculars to spot the fishing boat, and by the time they spoke to the "officer", they may have passed further away.

I'm not making excuses for anyone here !

The bridge should have had radar and they would have known about the boat.

Even if the Captain was unable or unwilling to stop himself, his duty should have directed him to notify maratime safety - especially if he suspected piracy (as some folk have suggested).

A prudent capatin could even have reported it as a "... I didn't see anything but a passenger saw ... " and then left it to maratime safety to do a fly past and check it out properly.

The absolute minimum would have been to enter it into the ships log !
Posted by: dougwalkabout

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/24/12 05:17 AM

Salient points, Aussie.

This raises an important sidebar issue: say I'm on a cruise, and I see someone I think is in distress.

Realistically, what actions and language do I use to ensure that the ship's command structure (rather than the dept. of concierge) receives the information? All this, preferrably, without being tossed in the brig as an obvious troublemaker and disturber of the peace?
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/24/12 11:14 AM

If the crew is maintaining a proper watch on the bridge, your notification should e extremely redundant. Somehow one gets the notion that some cruise ships at least, are not up to snuff in some of the more basic aspects of maritime safety and good practice.
Posted by: frediver

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/25/12 08:49 PM

First thing, dial 911.
Report clearly what you have seen, where !
Then get the name/ID of the person you report
to, not just a "staff title" if your are able.
Getting their name/ID gives them incentive to promptly
report "your report" !
Posted by: dougwalkabout

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 12:46 AM

Originally Posted By: frediver
First thing, dial 911.
Report clearly what you have seen, where !
Then get the name/ID of the person you report
to, not just a "staff title" if your are able.
Getting their name/ID gives them incentive to promptly
report "your report" !


With all respect, I am not sure you have thought the matter through. Cell phone service does not extend to the open ocean. And bullying/intimidation often achieves the opposite of the desired behaviour.

The goal is to ensure that the message is credible, that it gets to someone with actual authority, and that action has been taken.
Posted by: mattmayhem

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 01:17 AM

Originally Posted By: dougwalkabout


With all respect, I am not sure you have thought the matter through. Cell phone service does not extend to the open ocean. And bullying/intimidation often achieves the opposite of the desired behaviour.

The goal is to ensure that the message is credible, that it gets to someone with actual authority, and that action has been taken.


I think he meant the ship based phone network. The phones on a cruise ship are set to use "911" as the general emergency line so the landlubbers know what to do.
Posted by: dougwalkabout

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 03:25 AM

Thanks, matt_. I was not aware of that.
Posted by: frediver

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 05:31 AM

Yep I did.
Posted by: ILBob

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 02:57 PM

my guess would be that the bridge crew probably has orders not to engage in risky operations with a large ship like that unless there is immediate threat of loss of life. but I can't imagine they would not notify someone else who is in a much better position to actually come and help.

it can take a long time (like hours) for a ship that big just to come about and get in a position to drop a boat in the water to even start a rescue operation. and that assumes they have anyone on board capable of doing so.

it seems unlikely to me that there are any boats a ship like that can easily dispatch and retrieve in the open water.

another "news" report that leaves a lot of things open.
Posted by: Pete

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 03:28 PM

i'm in a much less forgiving position with Carnival.
They broke one of the prime rules - and laws - of the sea.
as others have noted - they should have spotted that vessel in distress from their bridge. think about the height of the bridge above the water - they have a huge advantage. as i said earlier, their seamanship is either in serious question, or there is some kind of "secret protocol" going on where the captains have been told not to stop for "suspicious" boats.

it may be true that it would take time to turn a cruise liner.
but surely they could figure out some way to get a few supplies (blankets, water, rations) to another vessel in distress.

or = as someone said - at least a radio call reporting a problem. but i would think that the laws of the sea would require them to perhaps do more than just make a call. if they are the closest vessel, and seaworthy themselves, it seems like they should be required to respond.

Pete2
Posted by: ILBob

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 03:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Pete
i'm in a much less forgiving position with Carnival.
They broke one of the prime rules - and laws - of the sea.
as others have noted - they should have spotted that vessel in distress from their bridge. think about the height of the bridge above the water - they have a huge advantage. as i said earlier, their seamanship is either in serious question, or there is some kind of "secret protocol" going on where the captains have been told not to stop for "suspicious" boats.

I don't know what they knew or when, or what rules they have been ordered to operate under. It would not surprise me one bit that they have been ordered by national authorities not to stop for anything on the high seas, fearing terrorism.

Quote:
it may be true that it would take time to turn a cruise liner.

A lot longer than you think. Several hours anyway.
Quote:
but surely they could figure out some way to get a few supplies (blankets, water, rations) to another vessel in distress.

How would you propose doing so with whatever resources they may have available? do they have any means to send out a small boat and retrieve it?

Quote:
or = as someone said - at least a radio call reporting a problem. but i would think that the laws of the sea would require them to perhaps do more than just make a call. if they are the closest vessel, and seaworthy themselves, it seems like they should be required to respond.

I am inclined to agree they are required to at least notify the proper authorities. Beyond that, I don't know what if anything they even could do, assuming they wanted to do more. That also assumes someone in responsible control had any inkling of what was really going on.

I am not sure that it is a good idea to risk a large passenger liner full of people in a rescue attempt in the open ocean. It sounds cold, but there are hard realities in life.

No doubt the stories made up by the PR flacks after the fact make it sound worse than it may actually be.
Posted by: Russ

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 04:30 PM

Originally Posted By: ILBob
Originally Posted By: Pete
i'm in a much less forgiving position with Carnival.
They broke one of the prime rules - and laws - of the sea.
as others have noted - they should have spotted that vessel in distress from their bridge. think about the height of the bridge above the water - they have a huge advantage. as i said earlier, their seamanship is either in serious question, or there is some kind of "secret protocol" going on where the captains have been told not to stop for "suspicious" boats.

I don't know what they knew or when, or what rules they have been ordered to operate under. It would not surprise me one bit that they have been ordered by national authorities not to stop for anything on the high seas, fearing terrorism.

Quote:
it may be true that it would take time to turn a cruise liner.

A lot longer than you think. Several hours anyway.
Quote:
but surely they could figure out some way to get a few supplies (blankets, water, rations) to another vessel in distress.

How would you propose doing so with whatever resources they may have available? do they have any means to send out a small boat and retrieve it?

Quote:
or = as someone said - at least a radio call reporting a problem. but i would think that the laws of the sea would require them to perhaps do more than just make a call. if they are the closest vessel, and seaworthy themselves, it seems like they should be required to respond.

I am inclined to agree they are required to at least notify the proper authorities. Beyond that, I don't know what if anything they even could do, assuming they wanted to do more. That also assumes someone in responsible control had any inkling of what was really going on.

I am not sure that it is a good idea to risk a large passenger liner full of people in a rescue attempt in the open ocean. It sounds cold, but there are hard realities in life.

No doubt the stories made up by the PR flacks after the fact make it sound worse than it may actually be.

Like others, I have no way of knowing what the bridge crew knew or saw, but do know that any competent bridge crew has at least 7 power binoculars and should have seen any distress signals. Whether or not they have rules/protocols for not engaging smaller vessels at sea is unknown to me. What the ship does have though is outstanding communications and both US and local Coast Guards should have been notified -- apparently they were not.

As for it taking several hours to turn a cruise liner -- maybe if your primary concern is not upsetting the kitchen help. But in the case of a rescue at sea where there are other priorities, the ship can both stop and turn much faster than they do when in hotel/restaurant mode.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 05:06 PM

Perhaps they were concerned it was a ruse by pirates? That activity is bound to spread someday.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 06:16 PM

Whatever the problem is, I like the rule of 100% of the responsibility going on the captain. Anything other than, then the captain gets to watch as everybody else argues forever to figure out who's fault it is, accomplishing nothing.

Here's an audio recording of the captain of the Costa Concordia jumping ship and shirking his responsibility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM9sam2u_Tk

After hearing that audio, there is no wonder why that ship was a death trap at sea. This captain believes in "captain and children first..."
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/26/12 06:45 PM

It's not politicly correct, and the mods may chastise me for saying this, but I detest cowards. When you are in command you are the last one you should be worried about. Those under you are who deserve your immediate and devoted attention at all times. Especially in a crises. That captain was concerned only with his own safety. I hope he spends a long time in prison for desserting his post and those he was responsible for.
And you all thought Ol' Snake was warm and fuzzy, didn't you? I am most of the time.
Posted by: MostlyHarmless

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/27/12 09:27 PM

Originally Posted By: ILBob

it can take a long time (like hours) for a ship that big just to come about and get in a position to drop a boat in the water to even start a rescue operation. and that assumes they have anyone on board capable of doing so.


Huh? No Man-over-board boat?
]MOB boat definition (with picture)
Those are designed to be launched and retrieved while the mother vessel is moving. If someone falls in the water you drop a buoy (point of reference for where you were when somene went MOB), drop the MOB boat and then turn the boat around. But they require a trained and capable crew, and the will to deploy them.

I would have thought that MOB boats and crew to man them within some response time limit was a requirement for a cruise ship.
Posted by: Brangdon

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/29/12 02:25 PM

Originally Posted By: ILBob
It would not surprise me one bit that they have been ordered by national authorities not to stop for anything on the high seas, fearing terrorism.
So on the previous 30 times when they did stop, they were disobeying orders? Wow, I wonder how they got away with it.
Posted by: Russ

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/29/12 02:57 PM

Even if they did make a decision to not stop due to some possible terrorism/hijacking/pirate threat, they would still have had a responsibility to communicate the situation with national authorities (US Coast Guard, local Coast Guard, whomever). They didn't do that; they just ignored it.
Posted by: ILBob

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/30/12 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Russ
Even if they did make a decision to not stop due to some possible terrorism/hijacking/pirate threat, they would still have had a responsibility to communicate the situation with national authorities (US Coast Guard, local Coast Guard, whomever). They didn't do that; they just ignored it.


That assumes that someone with the ability to contact those authorities was aware of the situation. We just do not know that is the case. IF they did know what was going on, they certainly had such an obligation.
Posted by: Russ

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/30/12 05:33 PM

Someone on the ship's bridge had to see the fishing boat and that information should have been relayed. If not, then the competency of the crews hired by the cruise lines really needs to be evaluated. What are they doing up there if the passengers are seeing things and the bridge crew is not? I may have answered my own question on competency.
Posted by: Pete

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 04/30/12 06:44 PM

Yep ... I think you've found the answer to the problem.
They need to replace the ship's First Officer with bird watchers :-)

Pete2
Posted by: Brangdon

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/05/12 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Russ
Even if they did make a decision to not stop due to some possible terrorism/hijacking/pirate threat, they would still have had a responsibility to communicate the situation with national authorities (US Coast Guard, local Coast Guard, whomever). They didn't do that; they just ignored it.
They say they didn't ignore it. They weren't aware of it. Given that they did stop on 30 previous occasions, the notion that they aren't allowed to stop or for some reason decided not to, is ludicrous speculation.
Posted by: ILBob

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/07/12 04:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Brangdon
Originally Posted By: Russ
Even if they did make a decision to not stop due to some possible terrorism/hijacking/pirate threat, they would still have had a responsibility to communicate the situation with national authorities (US Coast Guard, local Coast Guard, whomever). They didn't do that; they just ignored it.
They say they didn't ignore it. They weren't aware of it. Given that they did stop on 30 previous occasions, the notion that they aren't allowed to stop or for some reason decided not to, is ludicrous speculation.


Quote:
Princess Cruises added that it understood its responsibility under the law of the sea to help any vessel in distress, and said its ships had been involved in more than 30 rescues over the past decade.


It may be worth noting that the report does not say they actually "stopped" 30 times in the past decade.
Posted by: MDinana

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/08/12 01:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Russ
Someone on the ship's bridge had to see the fishing boat and that information should have been relayed. If not, then the competency of the crews hired by the cruise lines really needs to be evaluated. What are they doing up there if the passengers are seeing things and the bridge crew is not? I may have answered my own question on competency.
My guess would be they're taking care of the passengers ...
Posted by: Russ

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/08/12 02:20 AM

Quite a few of the crew are there for passenger comfort. The bridge crew is there to drive the ship and not hit things.
Posted by: MDinana

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/08/12 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Russ
Quite a few of the crew are there for passenger comfort. The bridge crew is there to drive the ship and not hit things.


Well, they succeeded, right? Didn't hit the people trying to signal. crazy

But, we don't necessarily know the circumstances - perhaps they had some sort of VIP or other issue going on that would distract them. Ideally, you're right - bridge should keep their 'eyes on the road' so to speak. But really, given how much water there is and how boring that horizon has to get, I can't imagine someone has eyes outboard every second of the day.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/09/12 12:38 AM

On the professionally run vessels I have encountered, that is precisely what happens- usually more than one pair of eyeballs, as a matter of fact. All the same, I can readily imagine there are lots of exceptions.
Posted by: AKSAR

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/09/12 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Russ
Someone on the ship's bridge had to see the fishing boat and that information should have been relayed. If not, then the competency of the crews hired by the cruise lines really needs to be evaluated. What are they doing up there if the passengers are seeing things and the bridge crew is not? I may have answered my own question on competency.
Actually, it is quite possible that the the bridge crew didn't see the boat, or if they saw it they may not have realized it was in distress. It is a really big ocean, and this was a rather small (9 meter) fishing boat. In any kind of waves, a small boat is partially (or even completely) hidden from view when down in the troughs.

Understand that at sea the bridge crew is mostly concerned with not colliding with other large vessels. That means they are concentrating their view forward, not off to the sides. Small boats don't always show up that well on radar, and at sea ships probably have their radar set on longer ranges, to give early warning of other big ships in the area. Or they may have seen the fishing boat, realized they were not on a collision course, and then paid it no further mind. If it was somewhat far off, they might not see someone "...waving a red T-shirt, and ...waving a bright orange life jacket over his head...” if they didn't take the time to study it carefully. Note that the "...birders..... spotted the drifting fishing vessel with powerful binoculars..."

If you spend any time at all reading about shipwrecked sailors you will find many, many accounts of ships sailing right by and not seeing survivors in rafts or lifeboats. It has happened many times before. People who have not spent much time at sea have no idea of how tiny a small boat can seem when viewed against the immensity of the ocean.

I am reminded of when I was in grad school, I made several voyages on oceanographic ships. Once we were trying to find an instrument we had set out a day or two before. It was a relatively small peice of gear (much smaller than a skiff), but had a mast on top with a flag. It also had a radio homing beacon, so knew we were very close, and even knew which direction to look. Even so, with all hands looking intently, it still took quite an effort to find the darn thing.

I don't find it at all surprising that the bridge crew either didn't see it, or saw it but didn't realize it was in distress. The real issue was that when the birders saw it, the information that it was there and in distress was not relayed effectively to the bridge.
Posted by: thseng

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/09/12 04:27 PM

Many (true) sea survival stories include incidents of ships failing to see the survivor, even when flares and smoke signals were used.

Steven Callahan and the Robinson family come to mind as examples.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/09/12 07:37 PM

I'm revisiting this thread...

Originally Posted By: Pete
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


If it's true the bridge didn't see the boat, then the value of a signalling mirror is the moral of the story here.
Posted by: Arney

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/14/12 12:47 AM

Apparently the surviving Panamanian fisherman is suing Princess Cruise Line in Florida state court.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/14/12 12:49 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
I'm revisiting this thread...

Originally Posted By: Pete
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


If it's true the bridge didn't see the boat, then the value of a signalling mirror is the moral of the story here.


Hard to believe there would not have been some sort of a mirrored/shiny surface on board the fishing vessel somewhere. One of the best things one can do when adrift at sea is start flashing, whether or not vessels and airplanes are in sight.
Posted by: ILBob

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/14/12 01:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Arney
Apparently the surviving Panamanian fisherman is suing Princess Cruise Line in Florida state court.

One has to wonder on what basis a FL state court would have any jurisdiction in such a case.
Posted by: JerryFountain

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/14/12 02:58 PM

From the original story "Princess Cruises, owned by Miami-based Carnival Cruise Lines" would be my first guess. Last I heard Miami was still in Florida even if lots of other parts of the state would wish it otherwise :-)

Originally Posted By: ILBob
Originally Posted By: Arney
Apparently the surviving Panamanian fisherman is suing Princess Cruise Line in Florida state court.

One has to wonder on what basis a FL state court would have any jurisdiction in such a case.


Other possibilities that can be used is that the Departure or Arrival cities are in a state.

Respectfully,

Jerry
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/14/12 04:49 PM

A lawsuit should reveal a better representation of the true facts, which are necessary for learning purposes here.
Posted by: bws48

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/14/12 07:05 PM

Here is a link to a BBC story on the lawsuit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18055087

The BBC cites the UN Convention on the law of sea, which contains a "Duty to Render assistance."
Posted by: Teslinhiker

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/14/12 10:48 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
A lawsuit should reveal a better representation of the true facts, which are necessary for learning purposes here.


I wanted to stay out of this thread, however the above comment deserves a comment in return.

Whether there is a lawsuit or not and whatever the outcome may be between the parties, it does not take this lawsuit..or any other for "learning purposes here."

In hundreds of past threads here, it has been discussed in many different forms that if you venture out onto the water, up into the mountains, trek through the desert etc, it is up to you and your group to ensure your own safety and well being. Bottom line, this means that you should never count any one person, group and or organization to come to your rescue in your time of need regardless who may of seen or heard you.

I am in no way, defending the actions or inaction of the ship crew, however had the fishermen in the boat had any amount of basic supplies, radio equipment and signalling gear, this thread would of been a footnote with a successful and probable better outcome instead of dragging on for almost as long now as the boat was adrift...
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Signalling a cruise ship? - 05/14/12 11:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Teslinhiker
Originally Posted By: ireckon
A lawsuit should reveal a better representation of the true facts, which are necessary for learning purposes here.


I wanted to stay out of this thread, however the above comment deserves a comment in return.

Whether there is a lawsuit or not and whatever the outcome may be between the parties, it does not take this lawsuit..or any other for "learning purposes here."

In hundreds of past threads here, it has been discussed in many different forms that if you venture out onto the water, up into the mountains, trek through the desert etc, it is up to you and your group to ensure your own safety and well being. Bottom line, this means that you should never count any one person, group and or organization to come to your rescue in your time of need regardless who may of seen or heard you.

I am in no way, defending the actions or inaction of the ship crew, however had the fishermen in the boat had any amount of basic supplies, radio equipment and signalling gear, this thread would of been a footnote with a successful and probable better outcome instead of dragging on for almost as long now as the boat was adrift...


How do you know they did not have this equipment? Internet news articles? Articles I've read said they did signal, but the articles don't give details on the signalling.

Anyway, for crying out loud, people on board the ship did see people in distress on the boat. The sailors' job of signalling, however it was done, was successful. Under Maritime Law, I believe a distress signal still counts if it's not performed with the latest and greatest technology.

There was a breakdown somewhere in the ship's chain of response. The problem could be at the communication interface between the passengers and the crew. The captain and crew must now give their explanation in court, and we can better determine what happened. Will the court decide that it's OK to have a communication breakdown between passengers and crew? Or is that not even the problem here? We'll see.