Star Princess investigation

[2BeOnaBoat]

Yeah, the story on some of the sites is that the ships log shows communication with a vessel that thanked the ship for staying clear of their fishing nets. Assuming this is true, it clearly wasn't the same boat. Isn't it possible the bridge was talking to another boat in the area and thought that was the boat the passengers had seen? After all, it sounds like the boat in distress was too far away to make out clearly with the naked eye. Just thinking out loud here...

 

I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the Captain ever knew - just that those bird watchers notified a crew member in uniform.

 

I'm not sure if I would recognize a ship in distress but if I did I'm sure everyone would know. There wouldn't be a single deck chair left on board.

[FLACRUISER99]

wouldn't the ship have high powered binoculars like the birdwatchers?

 

Bill

No, they are not looking for birds only other ships. My guess the Bridge uses 8 X 50 and the birdwatchers are using much higher power image stabilized binoculars.

[ilovetexas]

Actually, one of the stories linked from the OP's linked story says that a rain storm a couple of days after the second person died allowed the last survivor to collect enough fresh water to survive.

 

This story STINKS, on several levels. Presumably healthy, young men deprived of water are all going to become incapacitated/go into shock/die around the same time. This last guy was still up and around and able to collect rainwater 9 days after the first guy died and 4 days after the second one died? Wrong!

 

Also, how strange that he didn't remember the cruise ship ignoring his pleas for help until the birdwatchers started calling the press. I would think that would have been the FIRST thing that came to mind after he was rescued. I've read several different stories and none of them mention that. He seems to remember it after being told that's what happened.

 

I think there is more to the story.

[wpflcruiser]

This morning NPR covered this. Additional 'facts' were brought out. I realize that facts are not facts until they can be independently verified.

 

The bird watchers said that they observed the boat and photographed it. They reported it to the ship's staff that then relayed it to the bridge. An 'officer' came out with a 'telescope' and observed the boat and then left. They knew nothing more until they returned and heard about the deaths. They attempted to contact Princess and Relations passed over the story of the fishing fleet and nets. I am very doubtful that these bird watchers are lying. No reason to do this. They may have mistaken the actions by the crew, but I believe they are accurately reflecting what they think they know.

 

The photo was shown to the lone survivor who confirmed that this was his boat in distress. The survivor also confirmed the name of a passing cruise ship as the one the bird watchers were on. Sounds like confirmation there.

 

While there are other passengers who said there were many fishing boats in the area, they could not have recollection of the very time when the boat was seen because they did not know that it was there. So they are talking in general, not at the specific time. This information is completely immaterial. The bird watchers said there were no other nearby boats. That is non-ambiguous.

 

None of this proves that the ship's crew was at fault. I am convinced based on what was written here that the captain would have acted if he had accurate information. I also believe that he would have erred on the side of safety. Did the information get to the captain? Did the issue play out as represented by Princess in the first response? Was there honest confusion? Were errors made?

 

Posters are right that we should not rush to judgment against the crew, however, you should also not rush to the complete judgment that the crew did not make one or more serious errors here. The truth will eventually come out.

[loubetti]

Investigations aside, I'm taking the captain's side until investigation proves otherwise.

 

The bird watchers were using a powerful spotting scope mounted on a tripod (according to the article I read). They do not have scopes that powerful on the bridge.

 

The boat was also 10' long, 10 FEET! First, it will not show up on radar, and if the distance of the boat from the ship was several miles, it might not be seen on the bridge binoculars.

 

As said above, the bridge might have also identified the wrong vessel. S--t happens.

 

Of course, my comments are coming from a self-proclaimed "Lordite". Google that word.

[kevloe]

I just saw a story about the captain of Star Princess failing to help a fishing boat adrift off Costa Rica in March. I just got off this ship on April 13th after a wonderful cruise from SF to Mexico, and this story just makes me sick. Anyone else seen the story?

[miraflores]

As someone who's worked on ships for years, the bridge crew broke maritime law by not assisting, and I hope they are charged with manslaughter for this tragedy. In any case, I hope communities like this give Princess hell for how they handled this.

 

Anytime a ship comes across another ship in distress, they MUST give aid. This is disgusting.

[Mom33]

This morning NPR covered this. Additional 'facts' were brought out. I realize that facts are not facts until they can be independently verified.

 

The bird watchers said that they observed the boat and photographed it. They reported it to the ship's staff that then relayed it to the bridge. An 'officer' came out with a 'telescope' and observed the boat and then left. They knew nothing more until they returned and heard about the deaths. They attempted to contact Princess and Relations passed over the story of the fishing fleet and nets. I am very doubtful that these bird watchers are lying. No reason to do this. They may have mistaken the actions by the crew, but I believe they are accurately reflecting what they think they know.

 

The photo was shown to the lone survivor who confirmed that this was his boat in distress. The survivor also confirmed the name of a passing cruise ship as the one the bird watchers were on. Sounds like confirmation there.

While there are other passengers who said there were many fishing boats in the area, they could not have recollection of the very time when the boat was seen because they did not know that it was there. So they are talking in general, not at the specific time. This information is completely immaterial. The bird watchers said there were no other nearby boats. That is non-ambiguous.

 

None of this proves that the ship's crew was at fault. I am convinced based on what was written here that the captain would have acted if he had accurate information. I also believe that he would have erred on the side of safety. Did the information get to the captain? Did the issue play out as represented by Princess in the first response? Was there honest confusion? Were errors made?

 

Posters are right that we should not rush to judgment against the crew, however, you should also not rush to the complete judgment that the crew did not make one or more serious errors here. The truth will eventually come out.

 

If the bird watchers could only see the boat with binoculars, how did the surviving boater identify the Star without them?

[3DBeach]

Here is a more detailed report, very sad and the captain should have charges pressed against him, broke laws and now two people are dead because of it.

 

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

 

At least alert someone to get them help....the system failed including the us coast guard.

 

 

 

 

Out of curiousity how did the US Coast Guard fail???

[Mom33]

As someone who's worked on ships for years, the bridge crew broke maritime law by not assisting, and I hope they are charged with manslaughter for this tragedy. In any case, I hope communities like this give Princess hell for how they handled this.

 

Anytime a ship comes across another ship in distress, they MUST give aid. This is disgusting.

 

Hey, I must have missed the trial! When did you hear the results of the investigation were completed? :confused:

[Shogun]

Hi All

 

So the guy saved knew the name of the ship, you need to be very close to a ship to read its name,

 

the more the story goes on the stranger it gets.

 

yours shogun

[RickEk]

This morning NPR covered this. Additional 'facts' were brought out. I realize that facts are not facts until they can be independently verified.

 

The bird watchers said that they observed the boat and photographed it. They reported it to the ship's staff that then relayed it to the bridge. An 'officer' came out with a 'telescope' and observed the boat and then left. They knew nothing more until they returned and heard about the deaths. They attempted to contact Princess and Relations passed over the story of the fishing fleet and nets. I am very doubtful that these bird watchers are lying. No reason to do this. They may have mistaken the actions by the crew, but I believe they are accurately reflecting what they think they know.

 

The photo was shown to the lone survivor who confirmed that this was his boat in distress. The survivor also confirmed the name of a passing cruise ship as the one the bird watchers were on. Sounds like confirmation there.

 

While there are other passengers who said there were many fishing boats in the area, they could not have recollection of the very time when the boat was seen because they did not know that it was there. So they are talking in general, not at the specific time. This information is completely immaterial. The bird watchers said there were no other nearby boats. That is non-ambiguous.

 

None of this proves that the ship's crew was at fault. I am convinced based on what was written here that the captain would have acted if he had accurate information. I also believe that he would have erred on the side of safety. Did the information get to the captain? Did the issue play out as represented by Princess in the first response? Was there honest confusion? Were errors made?

 

Posters are right that we should not rush to judgment against the crew, however, you should also not rush to the complete judgment that the crew did not make one or more serious errors here. The truth will eventually come out.

 

Hmmmmm...if the ship was that far away, how could the survivor have seen the name of the ship? Just asking...

[ilovetexas]

 

The photo was shown to the lone survivor who confirmed that this was his boat in distress. The survivor also confirmed the name of a passing cruise ship as the one the bird watchers were on. Sounds like confirmation there.

 

 

The cruise ship was so far away that the bridge officers couldn't see a small craft in distress but the severely dehydrated man on board the small craft could READ the name of the cruise ship? Are you kidding me????

[wpflcruiser]

If the bird watchers could only see the boat with binoculars, how did the surviving boater identify the Star without them?

 

The boat in distress was 10 feet in length. The Star is 950.2 ft. Even the Princess logo and the ship's name are bigger than the boat in distress. I will leave it to you to figure it out.

[WeBeGone]

As someone who's worked on ships for years, the bridge crew broke maritime law by not assisting, and I hope they are charged with manslaughter for this tragedy. In any case, I hope communities like this give Princess hell for how they handled this.

 

Anytime a ship comes across another ship in distress, they MUST give aid. This is disgusting.

 

NO, what is disgusting is that you presume to know all the facts and have passed your flawed judgement.

 

Capt Perrin is above reproach. He would NEVER not give aid. There's more to this story than anyone knows but it will come out eventually. In the meantime, you and others need to keep your disgusting comments to yourselves.

[H82seaUgo]

If the bird watchers could only see the boat with binoculars, how did the surviving boater identify the Star without them?

 

are you actually trying to rationalize that both "vessels" are the same size?

[Mom33]

The boat in distress was 10 feet in length. The Star is 950.2 ft. Even the Princess logo and the ship's name are bigger than the boat in distress. I will leave it to you to figure it out.

 

The boater may have seen a ship, but he would never be able to read the logo from the distance he had to be away from the ship. Remember, the birders were using high powered equipment.

[gdisney]

Hmmmmm...if the ship was that far away, how could the survivor have seen the name of the ship? Just asking...

 

Hmm...I hadn't actually read that the survivor saw the name of the Star, only that he saw a big white boat. I have no doubt he could easily find out the name after the fact. Where was this reported? Did I miss that somewhere?

[SwissDave]

Hey, I must have missed the trial! When did you hear the results of the investigation were completed? :confused:

 

It seems we have all missed the trial. This poster (miraflores ) obviously knows exactly what went on in the bridge that day. Perhaps they should get in contact with the relevant authorities to tell them all the facts of what really happened.

[Mom33]

are you actually trying to rationalize that both "vessels" are the same size?

 

No. You misunderstood my post.

[H82seaUgo]

The boater may have seen a ship, but he would never be able to read the logo from the distance he had to be away from the ship. Remember, the birders were using high powered equipment.

 

 

you can't id a princess ship from it's features, and then figure out which one was in those waters after recue?

[Shogun]

Hi All

 

So it has been reported that the guy saved knew the ships name, no chance, big whit ship I would accept

 

photo below is from about 100m to 200m away

 

 

distance over water hard to guess, you can spot dots that are folks but can you read the name.

 

yours Shogun

[timetravler]

This really ticks me off the way so many have the Captain convicted already. There seems to be a lot of holes in this story, just like the Travyon/Zimmerman case. Why do so many assume what they read in a article give them all the facts. Yes you can have opinions, but gossip can and does hurt a lot of people. All of you should not be the judges until we all know the facts, period.:mad::mad::mad:

[lddam]

this really ticks me off the way so many have the captain convicted already. There seems to be a lot of holes in this story, just like the travyon/zimmerman case. Why do so many assume what they read in a article give them all the facts. Yes you can have opinions, but gossip can and does hurt a lot of people. All of you should not be the judges until we all know the facts, period.:mad::mad::mad:

 

hear...hear!

[icyfrost]

NO, what is disgusting is that you presume to know all the facts and have passed your flawed judgement.

 

Capt Perrin is above reproach. He would NEVER not give aid. There's more to this story than anyone knows but it will come out eventually. In the meantime, you and others need to keep your disgusting comments to yourselves.

 

why do you assume that the captain never not give aid? there is more to this story until facts are proven we all have opinions. some of us w/o poms poms