Cruise Ship Ignores Distress Call

[markpierce]

On my first cruise (San Diego to the Hawaiian Islands and return, 2003), our cruise ship diverted 600 miles to rescue three sailors. Wonder if their boat is still floating in the Pacific?

[carstenb]

According to Sea Law, there is no excuse for not helping a boat in distress (except if you put your own or your crew at risk) A cruise ship has nothing to fear from a couple of guys in a rubber boat (most cruise ships actually do have firearms on board just in case oaf violence on board). If the word never reached the bridge, then the captain has failed in his responsibility to issue the correct standing orders (standing orders are for all crew - including the cleaning lady).

Sorry - court martial the guy.

[Adelie]

If the crew willfully ignored the standing orders then that would let the captain mostly off.

The skipper of a commercial boat is generally a civilian. Courts Martial are generally for military folk, that would be the "Martial" part.

[carstenb]

Adelie

I agree that if the crew has ignored standing orders then the captain is off the hook and yes, I do realize that a court martial is for military persons. But it is a good expression that virtually all people recognize.

Ok, let's say put the guy through a sea court (not a regular criminal court since very few attorneys or judges have the faintest idea of sea law unless they are sailors)

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Adelie

I agree that if the crew has ignored standing orders then the captain is off the hook and yes, I do realize that a court martial is for military persons. But it is a good expression that virtually all people recognize.

Ok, let's say put the guy through a sea court (not a regular criminal court since very few attorneys or judges have the faintest idea of sea law unless they are sailors)

Why don't we all just wait until we see what the USCG investigation turns up?

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Why don't we all just wait until we see what the USCG investigation turns up?

Where's the fun in that.....

<sarcasm>

[Dennis.G]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Why don't we all just wait until we see what the USCG investigation turns up?

A Bermuda flagged ship sailing in Panamanian waters. Why would the USCG be having an investigation?

[WScott52]

I realize this is an old thread but I thought some of you here would be interested in this:

Princess Cruises releases proof Star Princess didn't ignore boat in distress - Houston Cruise | Examiner.com

This appears to be a case of not very knowlegeable passengers making wild assumptions about what they saw and creating a lot of needless trouble.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by WScott52

I realize this is an old thread but I thought some of you here would be interested in this:

Princess Cruises releases proof Star Princess didn't ignore boat in distress - Houston Cruise | Examiner.com

This appears to be a case of not very knowlegeable passengers making wild assumptions about what they saw and creating a lot of needless trouble.

Cheers for the link . Seems to read like a press release from Princess Cruises.........

Whether or not the actual boat concerned seems that nonetheless despite reports of a vessel in potential distress that the Star Princess sailed on regardless:-

Soon after the story of the rescue made headlines, a group of birdwatchers who sailed on Star Princess thru the Panama Canal during that time frame, reported publically that they had seen a fishing boat in distress. They reported the sighting to a ship crew member who was to let the bridge know. Members of the group even contacted the United States Coast Guard to report the incident because of the perceived lack of action by Star’s crew. The birdwatchers indicated they never saw the cruise ship change course to check on the boat they believed to be in distress.

Maybe the vessel they sighted sank?

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, WScott52.


Excerpted from ➥ : fifty cents : Cruise Law News

“... Two different white hull fishing boats of the same size, both with blue trim, and both with blue tarps?

But if Princess' paid experts are right that the boat which the bird watchers observed and photographed was not the Fifty Cents, that hardly exculpates Princess. Remember there is no question that the fishing boat that the cruise passengers observed was in distress and its occupants were waving for help far out at sea and, yet, the Princess cruise ship kept on sailing. If Princess, the bird watchers and Vasquez are all right, this would logically and reasonably point to a conclusion that Princess Cruises failed to rescue Fifty Cents and a second fishing boat in distress as well ...”

“... In a motion to dismiss filed in Federal District Court on Miami, Princess argues that it has no legal duty to assist mariners in distress on the high seas. It cites the Brussels Convention (also known as the "Salvage Treaty") for the proposition that although the captain of a ship has the duty to provide assistance to disabled vessels at sea, the cruise line itself has no legal obligation whatsoever. It argues that it cannot be held liable for the captain's refusal to assist mariners in distress ...”

➥ : fifty cents : Cruise Law News

[ccgarnaal]

I've sailed 6 months on a cruise ship as a cadet officer as part of my nautical college training. (Never going back. I prefer cargo that doesn't talk)
When I read this I can not help but wonder if the passenger office really contacted the bridge and if the officer of the watch warned the captain. Most captains aren't that bad. Some officers however would have the ship burn down before disturbing the captain when he's busy.
If you are ever in a similar situation on board a cruise ship this might help:
On most ships owned by carnival (including princess) the following phone numbers work from any phone, normally only for crew.
Bridge: 1200 and 1201
Engine control room: 2201

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by ccgarnaal

I've sailed 6 months on a cruise ship as a cadet officer as part of my nautical college training. (Never going back. I prefer cargo that doesn't talk)
When I read this I can not help but wonder if the passenger office really contacted the bridge and if the officer of the watch warned the captain. Most captains aren't that bad. Some officers however would have the ship burn down before disturbing the captain when he's busy.
If you are ever in a similar situation on board a cruise ship this might help:
On most ships owned by carnival (including princess) the following phone numbers work from any phone, normally only for crew.
Bridge: 1200 and 1201
Engine control room: 2201

That doesn't come as any great surprise - not because of any knowledge of Princess Cruises or the Cruise ship industry, but simply from longgggggg experiance of human nature in the commercial environment .

Those numbers would be useful to know - especially if you recorded the conversation .

[WScott52]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, WScott52.


Excerpted from ➥ : fifty cents : Cruise Law News

“... Two different white hull fishing boats of the same size, both with blue trim, and both with blue tarps?

But if Princess' paid experts are right that the boat which the bird watchers observed and photographed was not the Fifty Cents, that hardly exculpates Princess. Remember there is no question that the fishing boat that the cruise passengers observed was in distress and its occupants were waving for help

There's lots of question whether the one passenger on some unnamed fishing boat was attempting to send a distress signal. There's another article which I didn't save claims the bridge crew did examine the vessel pointed out by the bird watchers and concluded it was not in distress. Some guy waving a red shirt could be signalling a distress situation or could be drying his shirt. If it were me and it was a distress situation I would have everyone waving and be firing flares and be on the VHF. Since the boat was clearly not Fifty Cent, unless you're a desperate lawyer seeing a big fee disappear, there's no telling whether it had VHF or not.

I'm not a maritime lawyer so can't say whether Carnival is right or not that the line has no obligation to aid mariners in distress but the Captain does. It seems like splitting hairs and a rather crass attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

I can not find any article on the incident dated later than Sept. 3, 2012, which suggests to me either they're waiting on a court date or the courts threw out the case based on the new evidence and the media didn't deem that fact newsworthy.

The photos in the article below pretty well establish the boat seen by the birders was not Fifty Cent.

Carnival also points out there were no other reports of boats in distress or lost in that same area at the same time. Pretty good evidence the boat the birders saw was not in distress.

Princess Cruises unveils new evidence proving they did not fail to rescue adrift fisherman as alleged | expertcruiser

[hellosailor]

"Remember there is no question that the fishing boat that the cruise passengers observed was in distress and its occupants were waving for help "
But Gord. Of course there is a question. Unless some other fishing boat was lost, or evenutally rescued, in that location, then there is in fact no reason to conclude that the birdwatchers saw a boat in distress. Conjecture, yes. Conclude? Not without proof. They are birdwatchers, not professional SAR personnel.

As for Princess...nice weasel work, stick it all on the Captain. I wouldn't be surprised if there's something in maritime law, or other, about wrongful conduct on the part of an employee. Wouldn't want to bet on it either though.