Could Just as Easily Have Been a Sailboat

born2sail

Super Anarchist

Attachments

  • distress signal ignored.gif
    distress signal ignored.gif
    55.7 KB · Views: 2

johnnysaint

Super Anarchist
8,514
0
Remarkable that they were able to watch the fishing boat for an hour. A cruise ship probably cruises at over 20 knots. Pretty good binoculars that can see a little boat 20 miles away and over the horizon.

 

valis

Super Anarchist
3,782
610
Friday Harbor, WA
Remarkable that they were able to watch the fishing boat for an hour. A cruise ship probably cruises at over 20 knots. Pretty good binoculars that can see a little boat 20 miles away and over the horizon.
Hardly remarkable. On the top deck the passengers may been at 30 meters elevation. That gives them a visual horizon of 11 nautical miles. At 20 kts they may very well have had the vessel in sight for an hour. Say the ship was traveling slightly slower, and this report seems quite plausible.

Besides, does it really matter if they were within sight for one hour, or for one minute? What exactly is your point, other than apparently trying to annoy people?

 

tawgley

New member
31
0
florida
Link to another SA thread on this topic HERE ... appears the cruise operators were notified by three different passengers who saw the distress signals using binoculars ... no explanation from Carnival/Princess yet ........ reflects pretty poorly on an industry that has taken some big hits recently.

 

johnnysaint

Super Anarchist
8,514
0
Remarkable that they were able to watch the fishing boat for an hour. A cruise ship probably cruises at over 20 knots. Pretty good binoculars that can see a little boat 20 miles away and over the horizon.
Hardly remarkable. On the top deck the passengers may been at 30 meters elevation. That gives them a visual horizon of 11 nautical miles. At 20 kts they may very well have had the vessel in sight for an hour. Say the ship was traveling slightly slower, and this report seems quite plausible.

Besides, does it really matter if they were within sight for one hour, or for one minute? What exactly is your point, other than apparently trying to annoy people?
The bullshit in the media that you obviousl religously believe. It was on the internet. It MUST be true. Do you not see that this is purely a media beat-up on a slow news day?

Should every ship stop and launch a life boat every time someone on board sees someone waving at them from a small boat?

No flares, no smoke, no radio, no water, a fishing boat crew that cannot catch fish to survive? Darwin awards due here?

I have been a guest on the bridge of a large Bass Strait ferry (200 mile crossing on a ship as big as many cruise ships) and NOBODY will see a boat the size of that in the pic at even 10 miles, and it will NOT show on radar at any distance.

Funny how only 3 people on a cruise ship that may have had over 500 passengers & crew on board saw the boat, and funny how only those 3 knew the boat was in distress. Yet you place the opinion of 3 people who probably have never been to sea before above the officers who have been at sea for years & years.

Would you prefer that they arrest the captain and crew and charge them with manslaughter and lock them up?

 

narecet

Super Anarchist
1,055
0
For some reason JS likes to on the one hand go on about the stewards on cruise ships and the other hand to always defend the actions of the officers. He also likes criticizing others for using as information the same sources that he does.

Now it's even to the point of coming to the Cruising Forum where ordinarily he never participates. I'd recommend just ignoring, as you have already thought of.

And if he is not quoted in attribution, then those of us that take advantage of the Ignore function are spared his material.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

johnnysaint

Super Anarchist
8,514
0
I should have known better than to respond to Johnny. My apologies to CF, and it won't happen again.
You won't address my points? Does that mean you agree with me? Or does it mean that you haven't a fucking clue what you are talking about and are just trolling to annoy people?

 

johnnysaint

Super Anarchist
8,514
0
For some reason JS likes to on the one hand go on about the stewards on cruise ships and the other hand always defend the actions of the officers. He also likes criticizing others for using as information the same sources that he does.

Now it's even to the point of coming to the Cruising Forum where ordinarily he never participates. I'd recommend just ignoring, as you have already thought of.
So it's the officers fault two guys died on another boat is it? It says that in the media so it must be true.

 

belandm

Super Anarchist
1,504
0
Everett, WA
Wow. Three posts to the Ignored Users list. That might be a record.

Hard to say what happened or didn't happen, but I should think that if the account of the passenger's actions are accurate - reported it to a ship's officer who agreed with his assessment and reported it to the bridge - then there should be an entry in the log, even if the entry is essentially "officer X reported possible vessel in distress; bridge crew determined no action necessary" or the equivalent. The log entry quoted doesn't make sense for that situation, even if it's an entirely accurate reflection of what happened, because it makes no mention of the report.

I get not wanting to deal with the hassle of every false claim and sighting, but I would think the ship's officers are the filter for that - if they're relaying the report to the bridge, it's time to note it in the log and investigate the sighting, even if you dismiss it a minute later.

 

johnnysaint

Super Anarchist
8,514
0
Wow. Three posts to the Ignored Users list. That might be a record.

Hard to say what happened or didn't happen, but I should think that if the account of the passenger's actions are accurate - reported it to a ship's officer who agreed with his assessment and reported it to the bridge - then there should be an entry in the log, even if the entry is essentially "officer X reported possible vessel in distress; bridge crew determined no action necessary" or the equivalent. The log entry quoted doesn't make sense for that situation, even if it's an entirely accurate reflection of what happened, because it makes no mention of the report.

I get not wanting to deal with the hassle of every false claim and sighting, but I would think the ship's officers are the filter for that - if they're relaying the report to the bridge, it's time to note it in the log and investigate the sighting, even if you dismiss it a minute later.
How often have you passed another boat and somebody has waved at/to you? And did you go and investigate every time somebody did wave at/to you?

How do you tell the difference between somebody waving at you, or just waving to you, as people so often do.

Are you aware that a cruise ship will probably take about 4 or 5 miles to stop?

There is no mention of any of the recognized distress signals in any of the stories.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

johnnysaint

Super Anarchist
8,514
0
No need to launch a skiff, how about just a small deviation to get a closer look????
90 or 180 degrees? A cruise ship does not do a U turn like a 20 ft boat does.

edit.... Just what sort of boats do you think a cruise ship carries? A skiff? (and I know you don't mean a sailing skiff)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bljones

Super Anarchist
1,431
0
CA
JS, pump your brakes, old man. You ain't winning arguments or friends, but in the CA assholympics, you have relegated me to bronze. You now own the podium.

 

born2sail

Super Anarchist

born2sail

Super Anarchist
Back to the topic on hand...a few facts perhaps missed by some who may not have comprehended what they read in the article.

The spotters were experienced bird watchers. Besides well-trained eyes, they had specialized optical and photo equipment (notice the scope in one pic and the other pic of the guy waving in the boat?). With that kind of visual contact, it is obvious that a boat of that size and kind was way beyond its point of no return as far as making landfall is concerned. To ignore what is quite possibly and most likely a vessel in distress is a violation of a basic maritime law, not to mention civilized human behavior in general.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts




Top