Panama fisherman sues Cruise line that ignored him drifting at sea
Posted: 15 May 2012 08:06 AM   [ Ignore ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8164
Joined  2005-02-06

A Panama fisherman, sole survivor of a 3-man crew that spent 28 days drifting at sea in an open boat after engine failure, sues Princess Cruise Lines.

A ship of this Cruise Company passed the boat with the (at that time all three still living) castaways. Passengers onboard the Cruise Ship spotted the boat and fishermen signalling distress, and informed the Cruise Liner’s personel. But the cruise ship did not stop to pick them up.

Subsequently, 2 of the 3 castaways died and the sole survivor spent two more weeks on sea before being rescued by the Ecuadorian Navy.

More at the source

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2012 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5147
Joined  2005-01-27

If it is true that the crew of the cruise liner was been made aware of the plight of the three and the captain was informed, they all should be tried (rather quickly) and be hanged.
However, suing their pants of might actualy be more hurtful for them…

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2012 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6926
Joined  2005-10-21

Not far off, UBie.. If I recall correctly, the penalties for ‘ignoring a signal for distress’ is pretty severe.

Anyone get the impression that most cruise ship captains are just guys who look good in the uniform?

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2012 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

I actually suspect that what happened is that the information was never passed on to anybody in command.  Cruise ships such as this do have a history of diverting for search and rescue, and the penalties for ignoring a vessel in distress are unpleasant. . .plus the backlash against the company would be bad for business, while giving the passengers the thrill of experiencing a “daring rescue at sea” would probably be a plus.  It would make no sense for ignoring the boat in distress to be some official or unofficial company policy, or to be the policy of the captain.

Which doesn’t mean that the company isn’t at fault or that it shouldn’t be sued.  The fact that such an important bit of information wasn’t passed on to somebody in charge is a serious failing, whether of the company or of the command structure on the ship.  Would the same failure happen if one of the passengers fell overboard?  Or if the ship caught on fire?  Communication is rather important on a ship.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 May 2012 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5147
Joined  2005-01-27

My mother sailed on the “Johan Van Oldenbarnevelt” in the 50´s. Emigrants to Canada/Australia and repatriating Dutch from the East Indies.


The ship was sold to a Greek shipping company and was then used for cruises in the Med and to the Canary Islands.
However, one day fire broke out.

The investigation

The Greek Merchant Marine Ministry launched a two-year investigation into the Lakonia disaster. The board of inquiry maintained that the Lakonia never should have passed safety inspections before sailing. Lifeboat davits were rusted and lockers containing lifesaving equipment failed to open. The drain holes in many lifeboats were without stoppers, so that passengers had to constantly bail water.

While a lifeboat drill had been conducted by the crew a week before the fateful voyage, only five of the boats had been lowered in the drill. All of the boats should have been tested, the board argued.

The board of inquiry issued a number of other charges. The order to abandon ship was given too late. Operations on deck were not supervised by responsible officers. The crew, despite a few cases of self-sacrifice, failed to rescue sleeping passengers from their cabins below decks.

Eight of the Lakonia’s officers were charged with negligence. Captain Zarbis, his first officer and the ship’s security officer were charged with gross negligence. The other five men were charged with simple negligence.

Source


But to come to your question “Anyone get the impression that most cruise ship captains are just guys who look good in the uniform?”

Yes.

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile