Star Princess investigation

[Shogun]

Hi All,

 

A question for those that would like to see the Captain removed from his post while there is an investigation, what did he do wrong, he may well be charge, but he does not write Princess policy, or operating methods,

 

as far as I am aware any report of man over board or ship in trouble is recorded in the ships log even if it turns out to be false, if the bridge gets that message,

 

what we may find that there needs to a new policy put in place on all cruise ships, that if a passenger reports an incident or a healf and safety matter,

 

that a bridge officer or some one like passenger services director is required to check it out, and a form filled in to record the details and signed off by all parties.

 

at muster we are told what to do with man over board may be time is right to add what to do if we see some thing else,

 

it might be as simple as dial 911 and wait at that location for a senior crew member to come to that location.

 

yours Shogun

[Ethel5]

Until such time as the investitgations are complete the Captian, no matter how nice a guy he maybe, must not return to a possition of authority, he is was responsible, he was in command of the ship, two folks died. Princess/Carnival has once again stumbled on the PR standpoint. To let this Captain return until all questions are answered is just unthinkable.......

 

We understand that you want the Captain to be hung from the yardarm-you've said it many times-but there is no need to write in bold to stress your point, however misguided it might be. We got it.

[voyageur9]

Bdjam, ....

Perhaps you do not find it tasteless to discuss Captains Perrin's cocktail party manner at the same time calling the dead teens "wayward" and the birders "bird lady" but I do. And I'm not pointing fingers in ANY direction. I'm just saying something happened, and I'm curious as to why others aren't.

 

Some of us are tough?? I would consider that, since this same thing could happen again tomorrow with the same result, it is those who still find it's the appropriate time to discuss a captain's social skills to be the tough ones. Very tough, and very cold.

 

Precisely. Two men are dead. A well-equipped ship passed close by a 'vessel in distress.' Somehow, somewhere in the Princess chain of command, information that deserved to be acted on wasn't. Instead of the response required by law and tradition (and the one Princess is justly proud of having made on numerous previous occasions resulting in many lives being saved) there was a failure.

 

Rendering aid to a vessel in distress isn't optional, nor is it predicated on the vessel being well-equipped, crewed by smart, sensible people who take proper precautions. This isn't about the Fifty Cent. This is about the failure on board the Star Princess; why it happened, who is accountable and what will be done to prevent recurrence.

 

My guess is that Capt Perrin, who by the accounts of those who know him, is an admirable mariner and an honourable officer, wants a full investigation too, not some half-baked public relations exercise.

[whitecap]

Precisely. Two men are dead. A well-equipped ship passed close by a 'vessel in distress.' Somehow, somewhere in the Princess chain of command, information that deserved to be acted on wasn't. Instead of the response required by law and tradition (and the one Princess is justly proud of having made on numerous previous occasions resulting in many lives being saved) there was a failure.

 

Rendering aid to a vessel in distress isn't optional, nor is it predicated on the vessel being well-equipped, crewed by smart, sensible people who take proper precautions. This isn't about the Fifty Cent. This is about the failure on board the Star Princess; why it happened, who is accountable and what will be done to prevent recurrence.

 

My guess is that Capt Perrin, who by the accounts of those who know him, is an admirable mariner and an honourable officer, wants a full investigation too, not some half-baked public relations exercise.

 

What I find interesting in your post is that you appear to have already determined that the ship "reportedly seen" by the lone survivor was In Fact a Princess ship and In Fact the Star Princess; you have already concluded that the Star Princess was "wrong in the action/non action taken", and that the small boat observed from miles away was In Fact the Fifty Cents. Here is an idea; how about we wait to see what the Bermudian government concludes by it's investigation. Let them determine by interviews, GPS tracking, radio and on board communications, what took place and who said what to whom. I understand your statement concerning "rendering aid" however, let's keep in mind that the "proper authority" (someone with the authority to change course and order a search) MAY NOT have been notified and if that is found to be the case, obviously something needs to change. Let's not overreact, wait for a factual determination and hope that any changes needed for the cruise industry and for those individuals who venture into the sea will be for the good of all.

[voyageur9]

What I find interesting in your post is that you appear to have already determined that the ship "reportedly seen" by the lone survivor was In Fact a Princess ship and In Fact the Star Princess; you have already concluded that the Star Princess was "wrong in the action/non action taken", and that the small boat observed from miles away was In Fact the Fifty Cents.

 

Albeit not conclusive, the identification that Fifty Cent was within sighting distance of the Star Princess is actually predicated on both evidence (perhaps not incontrovertible) and eyewitnesses in both directions.

 

A widely-available photograph of a small boat, (picture was one of several taken by the birders) was described as "That's us" by the sole survivor. Meanwhile the birders have said -- I believe -- that the vessel they took photos of matches the one (again not incontrovertibly) from which the survivor was rescued by Ecuadorian sailors on Mar 28.

 

Suppose for a second that Fifty Cent was NOT the vessel in the photograph taken by the birders. It would seem to me that a reported instance of vessel in distress still was passed to a Star Princess crewmember. In which case, determining what was and wasn't done is still warranted. Which is why, there is a well-warranted investigation by the Bermuda maritime authorities with the assistance of the police. It may clear Princess and all of its employees of wrongdoing or failure to act.

[whitecap]

Albeit not conclusive, the identification that Fifty Cent was within sighting distance of the Star Princess is actually predicated on both evidence (perhaps not incontrovertible) and eyewitnesses in both directions.

 

A widely-available photograph of a small boat, (picture was one of several taken by the birders) was described as "That's us" by the sole survivor. Meanwhile the birders have said -- I believe -- that the vessel they took photos of matches the one (again not incontrovertibly) from which the survivor was rescued by Ecuadorian sailors on Mar 28.

 

Suppose for a second that Fifty Cent was NOT the vessel in the photograph taken by the birders. It would seem to me that a reported instance of vessel in distress still was passed to a Star Princess crewmember. In which case, determining what was and wasn't done is still warranted. Which is why, there is a well-warranted investigation by the Bermuda maritime authorities with the assistance of the police. It may clear Princess and all of its employees of wrongdoing or failure to act.

 

Thirty plus years of investigations has taught me that you never, ever, rely solely on "eyewitness testimony"; "that's us" from a young boy who certainly wasn't influenced by the reporter (one only needs to watch and listen to the reporter's very leading questions); I absolutely agree that in the case where an allegation such as this has been reported, the proper authority, not a reporter looking for fame or a family looking for money, or haters of a particular cruise line, should conduct the necessary inquiry.

[Pam in CA]

Precisely. Two men are dead. A well-equipped ship passed close by a 'vessel in distress.'

FYI, the Star was not "close by." The small boat was visibly only with very high power binoculars. Have you seen the equipment that the birders used? It's massive.

[gooch47]

I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread. We just keep going around and around with the same accusations and defences.

 

Maybe something bad did happen. Maybe someone dropped the ball and the kids paid the price.

 

We aren't going to solve it here.

[Cruiserkenn]

I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread. We just keep going around and around with the same accusations and defences.

 

Maybe something bad did happen. Maybe someone dropped the ball and the kids paid the price.

 

We aren't going to solve it here.

 

Yes, well said. I commend your wisdom and sense of decorum in this regard.

 

Thanks so much.

[PescadoAmarillo]

We aren't going to solve it here.

No, we aren't. But it's fascinating because of what we learn about our fellow CC posters. Some immediately accost the captain, others attack them for their premature assignation of guilt but then blast the stranded sailors, the birders and the press. Some seem to know quite a bit about the investigative process; others are extremely well written and interesting to follow for that point alone. There are those who claim with certainty that the captain did nothing wrong because he such a nice guy, which I find an interesting way to determine human character.

 

And the most fascinating of all: those who trust their personal safety to Princess who are so incurious about what went wrong.

[Charles4515]

No, we aren't. But it's fascinating because of what we learn about our fellow CC posters. Some immediately accost the captain, others attack them for their premature assignation of guilt but then blast the stranded sailors, the birders and the press. Some seem to know quite a bit about the investigative process; others are extremely well written and interesting to follow for that point alone. There are those who claim with certainty that the captain did nothing wrong because he such a nice guy, which I find an interesting way to determine human character.

 

And the most fascinating of all: those who trust their personal safety to Princess who are so incurious about what went wrong.

 

You are not learning about CC posters, you are learning about people in general.

 

What I have learned is how some people can be swept by the crowd and media, to lynch someone and not think critically. Or to make a cynical explanation.

 

Nothing can be claimed with certainty about what happened or did not happen. There is no complete explanation as of yet.

[gooch47]

And the most fascinating of all: those who trust their personal safety to Princess who are so incurious about what went wrong.

 

I'm not incurious, I just don't think we have enough facts to know IF anything went wrong or not.

[PescadoAmarillo]

I'm not incurious, I just don't think we have enough facts to know IF anything went wrong or not.

Sorry, I was quoting your post as a springboard and did not mean to imply that you personally had displayed ANY of the behavior I wrote about in my post.

 

I think we DO know that something went wrong. We know a passenger conveyed information to someone on the ship about a possible emergency situation on the water. We know the captain and the OOW did not receive that information. These facts are contained in the Princess statement, which I'm certain was carefully crafted by their attorneys.

 

Even if the fishing boat the birders saw turns out not to be the one in distress, I would consider Princess very lucky and for there to have still been an issue. So, on one hand, this is very much about two lives lost at sea. But on the other, this is about a breakdown in the conveyance of vital communication on a Princess ship. We know they both happened; we are awaiting the results of an investigation that may link the two incidents.

[voyageur9]

I'm not incurious, I just don't think we have enough facts to know IF anything went wrong or not.

 

Fortunately, the maritime authorities in Bermuda and Princess seem to have a lower threshold. Both evidently have concluded that there is a sufficient -- and sufficiently worrying -- set of circumstances to launch investigations.

 

What would tip you into the 'something-went-wrong' bin?

 

There seems no question that two people died aboard a small Panamanian boat. No one doubts that several birders on board the Star Princess say they saw people waving. There's a prima facie case that those 'passenger' concerns were passed on in a timely fashion and with a deliberate sense of urgency by the birders to least one employee of Princess.

 

Admittedly we don't know what happened next.

 

International law is clear on the requirement to render assistance.

 

Do you really have doubts that 'something' went wrong and that determining the sequence is deserving of an inquiry?

 

To its credit, even Princess, in its latest public statement on the matter;

http://www.princess.com/news/article.jsp?newsArticleId=na1230

leaves no doubt that it wants to determine what happened and is still investigating.

[bdjam]

Bdjam, I am mobile, so I am not going to go quote by quote. But you are wrong on several counts.

 

The FC consultant IS a two stripe officer, higher than the Captains Circle host or the front line people at the PSD. His attire has nothing to do with it. His was the first phone the one of the birders (I would expect better from you than what I'm sure you meant to be a derogatory use of the term bird lady) encountered when they re-entered the ship on Deck 7. It makes no difference. We have all been led to expect swift and immediate action if we notify a deck hand in the event of an emergency.

I don't doubt that the Future Cruise Consultant is a two stripe officer - and if I gave that impression I mis-typed. My point was he or she are not wearing stripes and so those passengers less enlightened than you or I wouldn't know the difference.

It was, however, the FC consultant, a two stripe officer, who was notified. It has been stated and corroborated that he phoned the bridge. He is also the person who accompanied the birder to the Promenade Deck and used their binoculars to view the fishing boat. Read the NPR interview transcript; I'm not making this up.

I don't really want to read the whole transcript - who corroborated that the FCC phoned the bridge? Did the bridge indicate they had received a phone call from him or her?

The FC desk on the Star is on Deck 7, not Deck 5. In fact, if one re-entered the ship on Deck 7 just aft of the Princess Theater, it IS the first phone one might encounter. I doubt much time passed at all before the time the birder entered the ship and the time she got the attention of the FC consultant. We're not talking about two flights of stairs. And I've seen the photos of the birders. Old and feeble, of body or mind, they do not appear to be.

You know I thought about that after I posted it and haven't had a chance to get back to correct my own post - you're right, post-refit the Future Cruise office is located on deck 7. If it had been me, I would have gone to the purser's desk...but again that's me. As for the amount of time passing, I posted what I think - neither of us knows, especially since I don't think there's been an indication of where the passengers were on Promenade Deck. And my 88 year old mother, in photos, looks quite spry, but she has a hard time getting around - I'm just sayin'

Perhaps you do not find it tasteless to discuss Captains Perrin's cocktail party manner at the same time calling the dead teens "wayward" and the birders "bird lady" but I do. And I'm not pointing fingers in ANY direction. I'm just saying something happened, and I'm curious as to why others aren't.

I don't think I discussed Captain Perrin's cocktail party manners in any of my posts. My use of the word wayward was as in "lost" but we don't really know what they were up to out in the middle of the ocean. And what's wrong with bird lady?

Some of us are tough?? I would consider that, since this same thing could happen again tomorrow with the same result, it is those who still find it's the appropriate time to discuss a captain's social skills to be the tough ones. Very tough, and very cold.

Oh boy. I don't think anyone here is resting on the fact that Captain Perrin mingles well to support the opinion that he didn't purposefully leave a vessel in distress. That may have been the only time they interacted with him but his past history doesn't point to that kind of behavior.

 

You're right - something happened, whether it be a break in the communication conduit or a vessel in distress that couldn't be confirmed. Either way, the blame that has been attributed to the Captain is not warranted until there are facts which prove his personal errors. People are quick to point fingers and for some reason it's easiest to point at large entities with highly paid employees. And maybe on incident of this kind is too many - but you have to admit that Princess and Captain Perrin have a pretty remarkable positive performance record.

 

Whatever.

[bdjam]

We understand that you want the Captain to be hung from the yardarm-you've said it many times-but there is no need to write in bold to stress your point, however misguided it might be. We got it.

:D

 

Precisely. Two men are dead. A well-equipped ship passed close by a 'vessel in distress.' Somehow, somewhere in the Princess chain of command, information that deserved to be acted on wasn't. Instead of the response required by law and tradition (and the one Princess is justly proud of having made on numerous previous occasions resulting in many lives being saved) there was a failure.

Is it possible the information was acted on but by the time it was acted on it could not be confirmed? If it is possible, then would you want the Captain to turn the ship around to check it out anyway? I can imagine the circles cruise ships would be doing across the ocean if they had to double back on every unconfirmed report they got from passengers - especially after they've had a couple of Bloody Marys.

[Princess Patches]

Well, it will be very interesting to see what the investigation reveals. It seems strange there was any miscommunication here.

 

I may have my facts wrong, but it is my understanding the bird watchers saw persons in distress through their binoculars, then notified the cruise consultant. He notified the bridge and two officers came down to investigate. The officers looked through the binoculars and saw the same thing as the bird watchers and went back to the bridge to notify the captain and officer of the watch. The captain and the officer of the watch claim they were not notified.

 

Did the officers just forget to notify anyone when they got back to the bridge? Did they tell someone lower in rank than the captain and that individual made a decision not to pursue it on his/her own without notifying the captain? Why would the officers not make sure the captain knew when they returned to the bridge? It all seems very odd to me. We are missing some major pieces of information here.

[PescadoAmarillo]

As for the amount of time passing, I posted what I think - neither of us knows, especially since I don't think there's been an indication of where the passengers were on Promenade Deck.

From this link that was posted on Page 1 of this thread:

 

"They had gotten up at dawn and positioned themselves as far forward on the bow as they possibly could on the Star Princess, in order to get the best observing position. Armed with high power binoculars, expensive spotting scopes, and cameras fitted with telephoto lenses, they were perfectly equipped to scan the ocean at long range and to spot anything unusual they might have encountered. It's important to note that Judy and her friends are accomplished and trained observers, accustomed to peering through their glasses and spotting little things that might be hard for others to see or distinguish.

 

A couple of hours after the sun came up, the three bird watchers were eventually forced by the ocean winds to move back to a more comfortable and less exposed position on the starboard side of the ship"

 

This implies that there had been on Deck 8 forward, but moved back to the Promenade on Deck 7.

 

http://www.panama-guide.com/article.php/20120413184536993

 

And maybe on incident of this kind is too many - but you have to admit that Princess and Captain Perrin have a pretty remarkable positive performance record.

Absolutely they have a remarkably positive record. I'm not detracting from that at all. I'm not pointing fingers. The fishing boat and the Star may have never come in contact at all. STILL...communication about an emergency on the water was conveyed to a crew member but didn't make it to the captain or the OOW. Perhaps this was a one-time thing, or perhaps Princess has just been lucky over the years. Either way, I would like to know with certainty, if you report seeing something like this on a future Princess cruise, that it would be acted on.

[cherylandtk]

This implies that there had been on Deck 8 forward, but moved back to the Promenade on Deck 7.

I don't recall where I saw the photo now, but a picture taken by the birdwatchers of themselves and reported to be 'where they spotted the small boat from' showed the spotting scope and the three of them. In the background is the identifiable deck and balconies of cabins E201-E207. I cannot find the photo on the Panama Guide site, but I do recall seeing multiple photos posted online when this story first broke.

[voyageur9]

:D

Is it possible the information was acted on but by the time it was acted on it could not be confirmed? If it is possible, then would you want the Captain to turn the ship around to check it out anyway?

 

The captain doesn't have an option. If a report of a 'vessel in distress' is received (and I understand that is a matter of some confusion, uncertainty, and debate) the master of a ship has an obligation to 'turn the ship around' or 'change course' or whatever to render assistance. The law doesn't say 'render assistance' only if it's rock-solid information and the vessel needing assistance is conveniently on our planned course.

[BillB48]

I don't recall where I saw the photo now, but a picture taken by the birdwatchers of themselves and reported to be 'where they spotted the small boat from' showed the spotting scope and the three of them. In the background is the identifiable deck and balconies of cabins E201-E207. I cannot find the photo on the Panama Guide site, but I do recall seeing multiple photos posted online when this story first broke.

 

Is this the one you are thinking about?

 

 

I took it from Don Winner's Panama Guide....

http://www.panama-guide.com/article.php/20120413184536993

[Mom33]

Is this the one you are thinking about?

 

 

I took it from Don Winner's Panama Guide....

http://www.panama-guide.com/article.php/20120413184536993

 

What can be used to identify the boat?

[freetocruise]

I'm confused. Who exactly did the birders claim that they told? I've read that they talked to the Future Cruise Consultant who is never referred to by name (who I believe was named Sylvane or something similar) and I've also read that they talked to Ricardo but he was the Captain's Circle Host. While the two of them sat in the same general area, Ricardo's seat was out in the open and Sylvane's was in an office and not readily seen. Also, in the entire cruise (from Rio-SF), I never once saw either in a white uniform with shoulder boards.

[BillB48]

What can be used to identify the boat?

 

This is supposedly where the picture was taken, at the intersection of the two paths.

 

 

Again from Don Winner's Panama Guide

[PescadoAmarillo]

I'm confused. Who exactly did the birders claim that they told? I've read that they talked to the Future Cruise Consultant who is never referred to by name (who I believe was named Sylvane or something similar) and I've also read that they talked to Ricardo but he was the Captain's Circle Host. While the two of them sat in the same general area, Ricardo's seat was out in the open and Sylvane's was in an office and not readily seen. Also, in the entire cruise (from Rio-SF), I never once saw either in a white uniform with shoulder boards.

 

It isn't entirely clear. In the NPR interview, the birder says she told someone from the ship's sales team. I took that to mean the FC consultant, which would make sense because his/her desk would have been easily accessed from the Promenade Deck.

 

But, I just went back and found this post from this thread:

My wife and I were sitting waiting to see the future cruise consultant were our chairs were adjacent the Captain Circle desk. We heard the lady rundown and tell the captain circle guy, Ricardo, about the boat waving a white flag of sorts. Ricardo called someone and than two of the ships officers came to the desk and spoke to the lady. Ricardo has the facts and the coast guard should get the straight facts from him.

This implies that the Captains Circle host (Ricardo) was the one told.

 

BTW, bbq says the lady ran down.