It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cruise ship ignores distressed boat

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
They "crossed paths" 130 miles out, according to the article. I highly doubt that boat could have been able to go that far out & back. It was a 9-footer for chrissake, it's not a distance boat by any means. I don't care what anybody's maritime rule books say about "proper" distress procedures. When you see a tiny boat THAT far from land doing everything in their power to be spotted, you be humane & do the right damn thing--haul your behind over there and help them. The distance from land and size of the boat should have screamed "major emergency" to the cruise captain, there's no excuse to think otherwise.



Edit: I was off by a foot, according to this article from the AP from last month after the rescue. It was a 10-footer. Still a tiny boat on the open ocean.

Twenty-eight days later, Adrian Vasquez was found drifting alone in the 10-foot (three-meter) fishing boat.

Source
edit on 4/20/2012 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
II listened to this story on NPR this a.m. and am horrified.
without reading any posts in this thread, I'm stunned about how this was taken care of.
very sad moment of "human"...



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Headlines in ATS as as bad as normal media. No, a cruise ship did not ignore a distressed boat.

Firstly a ship is an inanimate thing and secondly it was the men not the boat who were distressed, but that aside....

The person who was spoken to did not inform the correct people who actually make decisions that can allow a ship to be taken off course. Do you expect someone other than the Captain to rush up and turn the boat around.

There was a loss of communication to the captain. It was not the ship, the ships company nor the captain at fault here.

The one at fault is the observer who should have pounded down the door until the ship was turned around if he really eblieved the people to be in distress. Fact was, he was unsure until the news story broke of their rescue. Isn't that correct?

ATS is more like mainstream media than people would care to admit.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Headlines in ATS as as bad as normal media. No, a cruise ship did not ignore a distressed boat.

Firstly a ship is an inanimate thing and secondly it was the men not the boat who were distressed, but that aside....

The person who was spoken to did not inform the correct people who actually make decisions that can allow a ship to be taken off course. Do you expect someone other than the Captain to rush up and turn the boat around.

There was a loss of communication to the captain. It was not the ship, the ships company nor the captain at fault here.

The one at fault is the observer who should have pounded down the door until the ship was turned around if he really eblieved the people to be in distress. Fact was, he was unsure until the news story broke of their rescue. Isn't that correct?

ATS is more like mainstream media than people would care to admit.


That makes no sense. The captain certainly is at fault here. He saw the little boat, and he made a statement to that effect. Any captain would know that a small boat that far out at sea would never have the fuel to get there let alone to get back.

Even at the very least, he could have geotagged the area and immediately called the nearest coast guard or air/sea rescue to have them investigate. I do not know the hiring criteria that Carnival uses for it's captains, the heads of the ship, but the last 3 incidents with this cruise line shows that the captains were at major fault, and I will never use them for any cruise that I would take, ever.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 


The one at fault is the observer who should have pounded down the door until the ship was turned around if he really believed the people to be in distress. Fact was, he was unsure until the news story broke of their rescue. Isn't that correct?

After reading a MSM article on just this topic I have to agree with you - to some extent.

If I saw something like this from the deck of a cruise boat? I'd freaking jump overboard before just sailing on by. You bet I'd be pounding down the door or the Captain's quarters/deck. And the hue and cry I'd put up to rally other passengers! There is NO excuse for witnessing something like this - and standing down. EVER.

On the other hand? Anyone who was informed has a direct responsibility to inform the Captain. Ultimately? The Captain is at fault - BUT - so is the 'observers' who STOOD DOWN.

There's a lesson here for everyone who doesn't know it already by heart. NEVER STAND DOWN - EVER unless you value your life over the lives of those in distress and need. Unless you want to be responsible for murder.

Rest In Peace to those who succumbed to death due to the lack of courage and will from their fellow man.

peace
edit on 20-4-2012 by silo13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pacifier2012
 

Added Note


The consequences could be dire if it is found that the captain, who claims that he believed the fisherman were waving at him as a thank you for avoiding their nets, was acting negligently in ignoring the fishermen's signals.

Regulation 33 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Chapter V states:

"The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so. If the ship receiving the distress alert is unable or, in the special circumstances of the case, considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to proceed to their assistance, the master must enter in the log-book the reason for failing to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress, taking into account the recommendation of the Organization, to inform the appropriate search and rescue service accordingly." (OP link)

peace



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 

lmao, well dude, if i ever happen to find myself floating ontop of the pond in whatever is left of a boat that has just been broadsided by a freak wave, i sure as hell hope your not the co-pilot on the search team helo' with that check list and see me down there. you'd probably wave back and say hello if i had nothing left to signal with to match your criteria



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Surprised nobody has brought up the Titanic's distress flares being taken for fireworks by a passing boat, that could have given assistance and saved 100's.

Man has an inbuilt ability to misconstrue events it wants to.

As a previous poster said, never stand down.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Regardless of who is legally responsible for these horrible deaths, the individuals involved all know their part of it and will have to live with that knowledge. If their intents were pure they can rest, if not, and they let another human being die a horrible death, they will not rest. If they are the type of person who can live peacefully with this knowledge, then punishment will come in other forms. You can take that to the bank!

Justice really will be served either way!

Rest in peace, Oropeces Betancourt and Fernando Osario.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I saw this, pretty messed up how the response the photographer got was that they made contact and all was ok.. That is wrong on so many levels. At least one survived, very lucky guy.

Gs



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GermanShep
 


At least one survived, very lucky guy.

What makes me think this poor man will 'mysteriously disappear' before the cruise line is taken to court or has to pay up?

Any takers on that bet?

Yeah, I'm grim about this whole thing.

peace



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
its hard to hear about this, but in from what i read...

'they waved a T-Shirt to the cruiser'

NOPE

there is an international distress signal waving your arms in a very special way.
I'm afraid this does not include a t-shirt

trying to embed an image here (1st attempt ever)

waving both arms symmetrically up and down with moderate speed, while facing the other vessel.

now anyone who is about to move his and his company out into sea should be aware of that as the absolute minimum knowledge on how to make a proper distress signal.

this form of waving is UNUSUAL if you see it. therefore catches attention and thus will be interpreted as a boat-in-distress-signal.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Glassbender777
 




Maritime law requires the closest vessel to aid in an SOS, or a rescue if they see one, not just pick and choose who you save, hell even during WW2 US vessels would come to the aid of sinking ships that had just been attacked even if they were the enemy.


Where did it say they in any way gave out an SOS?



That is not what I was saying, I know it never said they gave an SOS, Im refering to If a boat, being any boat, gives an SOS, then the next closest boat must aid.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TMJ1972
its hard to hear about this, but in from what i read...

'they waved a T-Shirt to the cruiser'

NOPE

there is an international distress signal waving your arms in a very special way.
I'm afraid this does not include a t-shirt

trying to embed an image here (1st attempt ever)

waving both arms symmetrically up and down with moderate speed, while facing the other vessel.

now anyone who is about to move his and his company out into sea should be aware of that as the absolute minimum knowledge on how to make a proper distress signal.

this form of waving is UNUSUAL if you see it. therefore catches attention and thus will be interpreted as a boat-in-distress-signal.



the guys who died were doing that. They did it and someone knew they needed help. That person reported it to crew, they reported it to the captain, and he ignored it. Saying that the speed in which the victims waved was the reason they did not get rescued is wrong.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Glassbender777

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Glassbender777
 




Maritime law requires the closest vessel to aid in an SOS, or a rescue if they see one, not just pick and choose who you save, hell even during WW2 US vessels would come to the aid of sinking ships that had just been attacked even if they were the enemy.


Where did it say they in any way gave out an SOS?



That is not what I was saying, I know it never said they gave an SOS, Im refering to If a boat, being any boat, gives an SOS, then the next closest boat must aid.


And if a ship never receives any type of distress signal whatsoever are they still required to assume every ship is in distress?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join