Can a fireman force you to abandon your boat?

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The Fire Brigade chappies have a lot... a real lot.. of power in port areas if a ship catches fire as ship fires can turn very nasty real quick... think Texas City 1947.
Thats why they would always go down to the passo ships in the big ports each morning to get their stability data ...to avoid this sort of stuff ... Gladstone Dock.. Empress of Canada.. 1953

An off duty fireman and a boat on the beach? Somewhere south of zero.. imnsho

Yeah that makes sense ... and the Great Halifax explosion 1917 - 200 dead, 8000 injured, flattened the city.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Scotty Kiwi

Here in NZ, if there is no danger, you do not have to abandon. It's not a matter of the authority of the person telling you to do so, its a matter of whether, or not, there is danger to life or property. In the case discussed here, there was no danger, so I'd be telling that fool to either be constructive or %$#@ off.

I've known two NZ skippers, each of whom, in separate incidents, refused to abandon when ordered to do so by rescue services.

Bill fell asleep on autopilot and hit rocks on a calm night at 4 am, about 200 meters from shore. As the boat sunk over a period of hours he set about removing as many fittings as he could to have a diver pick them up more easily later. Rescue services attended, not called him. He repeatedly and unsuccessfully told them to bugger off and was was photographed still working with a wrench when the deck was inches under. He swam for shore as she slipped under.

Pete's converted trawler sunk in rough weather in Cook Straight over a day or so some caulking burst and the pumps got blocked by floating household brik-a-brac. He called for assistance, but despite requests refused to abandon ship again until the very last minute, fighting to save it.

Each was charged under NZ's Maritime Transport Act by the Maritime Safety Authority for, in refusing to abandon when told to do so, "acting in a manner causing unnecessary danger to any person" (i.e. themselves and rescuers).

The charges against Bill were withdrawn, as he successfully put it to them, via solicitors, that there was no further danger caused by him remaining on the vessel, and he was supported in this by arguing that other fools, not he, had called for assistance, and they refused his instruction to them to go away.

Pete was prosecuted under the Act, refused to pay the fine, and, errr was detained by her Majesty for a short time instead.

Here is the relevant passage of the NZ Act. I guess the US and other countries have something equivalent as all our laws tend to come from the same base.

65 Dangerous activity involving ships or maritime products
(1)
Every person commits an offence who—
(a)
operates, maintains, or services; or
(b)
does any other act in respect of—
any ship or maritime product in a manner which causes unnecessary danger or risk to any other person or to any property, irrespective of whether or not in fact any injury or damage occurs.

Entertaining reading. I doubt either case as as simple as you seem to put it. And the Sect 65 that you quote doesn't seem to fit either of the two scenario's. I don't suppose you could find the Written decisions on these?

Just for entertainment sake

[waterman46]

Back to the original question, it surely puzzles me how a anyone with any intelligence, fireman or not, would look at a boat aground in calm water, still on level keel, and think there was some kind of danger requiring immediate abandonment of vessel.

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by waterman46

Back to the original question, it surely puzzles me how a anyone with any intelligence, fireman or not, would look at a boat aground in calm water, still on level keel, and think there was some kind of danger requiring immediate abandonment of vessel.

Which raises the question as to motive. Sounds plausible the "fireman" was just an ordinary crook trying to scam someone.

[leftbrainstuff]

The captain of the vessel has responsibility for the crew and passengers. However there is no law stating specific actions of the captain in the abandonment of a vessel. As realised in the costa cruise ship fiasco.

A fireman or anyone else does not have the right to order you to leave the vessel. I guess law enforcement personnel or those with powers of arrest could board and forcibly arrest you but under what due cause.

A fireman has no authority to order you to abandon ship.

Sounds like you acted in a professional manner. You sought assistance, then evacuated the passengers, then self rescued. Good on you mate

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[reed1v]

[QUOTE=leftbrainstuff;2144760]The captain of the vessel has responsibility for the crew and passengers. However there is no law stating specific actions of the captain in the abandonment of a vessel. As realised in the costa cruise ship fiasco.

A fireman or anyone else does not have the right to order you to leave the vessel. I guess law enforcement personnel or those with powers of arrest could board and forcibly arrest you but under what due cause.

A fireman has no authority to order you to abandon ship.

Sounds like you acted in a professional manner. You sought assistance, then evacuated the passengers, then self rescued. Good on you mate

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app[/QU

After all, a captain is suppose to go down with his ship. Captain Smith did it in the grand tradition, at the helm as his ship slid beneath the waves.

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by Scotty Kiwi

65 Dangerous activity involving ships or maritime products
(1)
Every person commits an offence who—
(a)
operates, maintains, or services; or
(b)
does any other act in respect of—
any ship or maritime product in a manner which causes unnecessary danger or risk to any other person or to any property, irrespective of whether or not in fact any injury or damage occurs.

Well...
Telling someone to abandon a boat that just needs the engine restarted would be more dangerous to people and property than restarting the engine and motoring to the pier....

So technically that "firefighter" violated the law.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

Well...
Telling someone to abandon a boat that just needs the engine restarted would be more dangerous to people and property than restarting the engine and motoring to the pier....

So technically that "firefighter" violated the law.

'technically', the guy has not breached the law simply by yelling something out. He's not 'done' any of the following,

(1)
Every person commits an offence who—
(a)
operates, maintains, or services; or
(b)
does any other act in respect of—

[denverd0n]

Let's be realistic. Did he have a gun? Was he big enough to physically remove you from the boat? No? Well then he can't "force" you to do anything, can he?

You might end up in court later, defending your decisions and actions, but that's completely different from being forced to abandon your boat. The word "force" implies that he can make you do it, and you have no choice. In this case, you have a choice. As the one responsible for the boat and its crew, exercise your best judgment and make your choice.

[Cadence]

Maybe, as someone said it was a misunderstanding. The fireman may have been time constraints of his own, thus the ten minutes. At least he offered assistance.