Princess Cruise Ignores Distressed Fishermen.

[bobconnie]

I guess Im looking at this from a little different point of view. Im Old, and been at sea in some way since I was 9 yrs old Im now 73. I have seen, been a part of, been helped, and helped others in bad situations many times over the years of my life at sea ! Ive always been taught to aid a fellow boater in need to the best of my and my vessels ability! I feel as strongly about this grave admission of Sea Going Rules, but I feel we should wait for the hearing reports before we convict anyone. I also feel theres some bad stuff going on with the different reports being shown around ! But I don't really know anymore then anyone who was not on the Bridge at the time of the reported phone call or we have not seen a log report !! Come on lets let this drop till the proper folks get a chance to make their Report and judgment. Just my 2 cents

[captainKJ]

Originally Posted by SailingwithSoul

Every human life is priceless.

I am not sure of that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,You never ran into my ex-mother-in-law
,,,if u did u jight change your mind

[Sailor g]

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

Maybe with a bit of luck the jury will be picked from CF

Maybe with a bit of luck the jury will be picked from the families who lost lived ones on the Costa Concodia. There is just no excuse for not checking. They were just kids-I hope whoever made the decision not to check further remembers that every day

[BojanglesIV]

Originally Posted by Kalinka1

What ever happened to waiting for all the facts before making a conviction? We're an awfully sad bunch if we'll convict on what we read in a newspaper or hear on the radio or see on TV. I'd bet dollar's to donuts that there are a lot more rescues than not. But they don't make the news.

Yes, wait for facts.. but at this point it's not contested that the passengers on the ship saw the vessel in distress and notified the crew. It's also not contested that the vessel sailed onward without altering course. For me, that's enough to know that something went horribly wrong on the cruise ship - and people should be held accountable for that.

Now, if you read the British papers, the captain claims that he was never notified of the vessel in distress. While that may be an interesting point to research, it doesn't change my view that someone on that ship screwed up big time. Carnival Star Princess 'ignored' passenger pleas to help stranded fishing boat | Mail Online

Cheers,
Colin

[sv.horizon]

Isn't it about time the regulatory agency that is responsible for allowing this cruise line operate, take a very long, hard look at their safety and seamanship procedures?

[netplus1]

Originally Posted by BojanglesIV

Yes, wait for facts.. but at this point it's not contested that the passengers on the ship saw the vessel in distress and notified the crew. It's also not contested that the vessel sailed onward without altering course. For me, that's enough to know that something went horribly wrong on the cruise ship - and people should be held accountable for that.

Now, if you read the British papers, the captain claims that he was never notified of the vessel in distress. While that may be an interesting point to research, it doesn't change my view that someone on that ship screwed up big time. Carnival Star Princess 'ignored' passenger pleas to help stranded fishing boat | Mail Online

Cheers,
Colin

Notified the crew of what? We saw this boat way out there and the dudes were waving their arms? That's about it right? Unless they were psychic or had x-ray vision, that's all they knew.
Should a ship turn around everytime it's reported that someone was out there waving their arms? How about when that's the 10th time that day they passed by fishing nets where the fishermen waved them off? There's always ay least 2 sides to a story.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by BojanglesIV

Yes, wait for facts.. but at this point it's not contested that the passengers on the ship saw the vessel in distress and notified the crew. It's also not contested that the vessel sailed onward without altering course. For me, that's enough to know that something went horribly wrong on the cruise ship - and people should be held accountable for that.

Now, if you read the British papers, the captain claims that he was never notified of the vessel in distress. While that may be an interesting point to research, it doesn't change my view that someone on that ship screwed up big time. Carnival Star Princess 'ignored' passenger pleas to help stranded fishing boat | Mail Online

Cheers,
Colin

Yeah, to me it's the same as: "I didn't see that ship and that's why we collided." How well would that excuse work? I think it's inexcusable that they didn't see the fishermen and civilians did. The breakdown in communication / poor decision making are just 'extra' nails in the coffin of their guilt as far as I'm concerned.

[JayCall]

I get kind of ticked at attempts to separate individuals' actions from corporate actions, as inwe, as individuals would stop or help but "corporations" put pressure on their employees to not stop and help or to not upset the schedule. Corporations are run by people, all these decisions are human decisions, made by a real, or group of real, living breathing human beings. As in our individual lives, those living breathing human beings need to be held accountable for their decisions, whether at the top corprate level or not. If you are in the commercial shipping business including the cruise business, and you are handing a several hundred million $$ asset off to a licensed captain, you had better know exactly what his legal responsibilities are in all circumstances and you should not only expect him to carry out each and every legal responsibility, you should demand that he do so. It is morally right, maritime law and custom that the captain is responsible for all that happens on his ship, and he should bear the responsibility and the consequences of command or give up ship-driving. But the corporate people that put him there bear just as much responsibility, and if they have policies, written, unwritten, spoken or unspoken, that contravene a cptains' responsiblities under maritime law and custom, they have no business being in the business. Licensing and ship's registration agenicies should remove them from the business.

[Mr B]

Originally Posted by JayCall

I get kind of ticked at attempts to separate individuals' actions from corporate actions, as inwe, as individuals would stop or help but "corporations" put pressure on their employees to not stop and help or to not upset the schedule. Corporations are run by people, all these decisions are human decisions, made by a real, or group of real, living breathing human beings. As in our individual lives, those living breathing human beings need to be held accountable for their decisions, whether at the top corprate level or not. If you are in the commercial shipping business including the cruise business, and you are handing a several hundred million $$ asset off to a licensed captain, you had better know exactly what his legal responsibilities are in all circumstances and you should not only expect him to carry out each and every legal responsibility, you should demand that he do so. It is morally right, maritime law and custom that the captain is responsible for all that happens on his ship, and he should bear the responsibility and the consequences of command or give up ship-driving. But the corporate people that put him there bear just as much responsibility, and if they have policies, written, unwritten, spoken or unspoken, that contravene a cptains' responsiblities under maritime law and custom, they have no business being in the business. Licensing and ship's registration agenicies should remove them from the business.

I think you will find that the owners of big shipping companies can also be held responsible,
if the Masters of their vessels, stuff up or do some thing that endangers theirs or others vessels,

I was also under the impression that all vessels must instantly respond to any
vessel Sinking or in Distress at sea,

And I think Maritime Law overrides any companys direction to do other wise.

[Ram]

Originally Posted by bobconnie

I guess Im looking at this from a little different point of view. Im Old, and been at sea in some way since I was 9 yrs old Im now 73. I have seen, been a part of, been helped, and helped others in bad situations many times over the years of my life at sea ! Ive always been taught to aid a fellow boater in need to the best of my and my vessels ability! I feel as strongly about this grave admission of Sea Going Rules, but I feel we should wait for the hearing reports before we convict anyone. I also feel theres some bad stuff going on with the different reports being shown around ! But I don't really know anymore then anyone who was not on the Bridge at the time of the reported phone call or we have not seen a log report !! Come on lets let this drop till the proper folks get a chance to make their Report and judgment. Just my 2 cents

the voice of reason/wisdom..in the wilderness!

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by SabreKai

How many jobs are there currently for Master Mariners? Not many, I'll wager. The company tells you to keep going, meet the schedule, meet the fuel consumption numbers etc or your job is history. Certainly the law says a ship must come to the aid of those in distress. But I'll bet money that if the Captain did so, figuring he was covered under that law, his job would still be history. Corporations don't give a tinkers' damn about people. Its all about the money.

Actually, there are quite a few vacancies for experienced Masters, in fact the industry is now facing a bit of a crisis in this repsect.
But back to the point, in my experience, I have never had any problem from my employer when diverting to offer/provide assistance to another vessel.
Quite a frequent occurance in the North Sea with its fleet of aging trawlers

[nigel1]

There's at least one Captain under the Carnival Corporation who is not too bothered about stopping to check a small vessel

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post937877

[Watermann]

Plenty of cruise ships have stopped or diverted to perform rescues at sea.

I'm still not convinced that word was ever passed to the bridge, but we will see when the facts come out.

Reminds me of the time when a passenger fell off one of our state ferries. Passengers who witnessed it went to the galley (even though the WH was a few steps away) to tell a cashier (who is really just an employee of the food vendor and not an actual vessel crewmember) and was unsure of how to notify the bridge crew. By the time word was passed, with the boat stopped and headed back, it was much too late. I don't believe that the body was ever found.

[avb3]

Some new information in this NPR article

It has been 6 weeks since the incidence. Can anyone think the company has much credibility left saying it still needs to "investigate the situation"?

What's so complicated? Other then the lawyers figuring out how to minimize liability I suppose. And that just plain angers me.

[Blue Stocking]

Originally Posted by avb3

Some new information in this NPR article

It has been 6 weeks since the incidence. Can anyone think the company has much credibility left saying it still needs to "investigate the situation"?

What's so complicated? Other then the lawyers figuring out how to minimize liability I suppose. And that just plain angers me.

--what are you angry at?

Any 1 of your 3 suppositions in particular?

The incident is under investigation.

We haven't yet heard the verdict on Costa Concordia--either, with what?-30 lives lost.