Ryndam Anchor Drop Lands Man in Brig

[NH Cruisers]

So far the score is: Drunken passengers dropping the anchor on Holland American Line= ONE.

 

Drunken passengers dropping the anchor on Carnival Cruise Line= ZERO.

 

So evidently its on Carnival where you don't see this kind of behavior.:p

Or on Carnival they learned to lock the door to the sensitive area.

[billie5]

Oh, duh! :o I thought I must be reading something wrong. Thanks!

 

Actually, I thought his/her post was very funny. Glad you get it now.

 

Bill

 

PS: An act against any citizen of the U.S. on the high seas is punishable by U.S. federal courts under Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (giving Congress the power to "define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas"), and 18 USC 7, which empowers the U.S. to protect U.S. nationals outside the jurisdiction of any other nation.

[dan40]

Come now... On Carnival they are TOO drunk to engage an anchor drop; the drinkers just drop overboard themselves!!:D:D But they are the 'Fun Ships'!!:D:D

 

This issue is anchor dropping, not pax dropping!:D:D

[jtl513]

Or on Carnival they learned to lock the door to the sensitive area.

One reason that they don't lock the doors at stern of the A/Dolphin deck on the R & S class ships is that it is the designated bathroom area for service animals. :)

[Taxguy77]

I was onboard; reading the investigation report is interesting. It appears that shipboard security was running with it from the outset to determine the culprit. I was a bit surprised that the anchor engagement preceeded the ring toss by about half hour. How long did it take to determine that the anchor was enagaged? While Ehlert entered a restricted area, there are a number of passenger accessible system controls on this ship (that I noted with mild surprise).

 

Ehlert's name was announced at disembark (with others whom one simply presumed had credit card or other issues). I suspect the FBI had agents onboard at disembark and sandbagged him then with video and photo evidence (plus he likely had turned his luggage over to ship personnel who could check and potentially secure clothing worn) and thereby induced a confession. Hope that last drink went down well Rick, 'cause it is going to cost you big time!

 

I've represented individuals on criminal charges in the Federal District Court in Tampa (although that not my 'forte'). He faces a felony charge and generally Federal authorities are considerably less flexible than state prosecutors in foregoing formal conviction in lieu of 'with held adjudication' (and inevitable extensive probation terms) even with a heretofore pristine record. Plus there is a high profile corporate 'victim' and the charge involves transportation safety where slamming people has strong deterrent value. Even if a persuasive defense counsel gets the US Attorney to go light on Ehlert and avoid trial with a favorable plea deal, I think by the time Ehlert is done, he will likely be out $50,000 - $100,000 minimum in fines and legal expense (and possibly quite more). Of course, if the prosecutor insists on a record of conviction on the original felony, then Ehlert will loss myriad civil rights - and potentially a career if he is professionally licensed (possible jail time notwithstanding).

 

Thank you for a knowledgeable and interesting

answer.

As thanks, I promise not to tell or email any "lawyer jokes" for a month.

[Texaslandshark]

I found the answer to my own question, courtesy of USA TODAY:

The charges were first reported by

The Smoking Gun

, the Associated Press says. In an affidavit posted at

The Smoking Gun

, the FBI says that while the Holland America ship was undamaged in the incident the release of the anchor had the potential of causing "significant damage to the ship's rudder or propeller, which could disable the ship's ability to maneuver, or (of) puncturing of the ship, which could result in sinking or severe flooding."

Wow.

- Mike :-)

In other words...it could have left the ship adrift at sea...Hmmmm, seems familiar somehow

[Boatdrill]

So he released the anchor around 5:00a and the incident goes apparently unrecognized....... Then deploys a buoy (is that the "man overboard ring and light/locator?????) a half hour later???....... Did it come to the proper attention with the buoy/ lifering going overboard??? Could someone clarify please?

 

Careful - no one has said that the release of the anchor went undetected until the life ring was tossed overboard.

 

The bridge notified passengers of a potential problem because of the life ring overboard, and mustered everyone to their stations for roll call.

 

Before then, there was no reason to involve passengers regarding the anchor release.

[Agent555]

I love to go on HAL, so don't get me wrong......but part of me can't help but giggle since this story would make more sense if it were on Carnival. You don't see this kind of behavior with the HAL crowd. Thankfully no one got hurt.

 

 

I agree it makes me giggle how someone could be so ignorant and think that being drunk is an excuse for this behavior. Oh well at least he was smart enough to admit to it.

[Boatdrill]

So evidently its on Carnival where you don't see this kind of behavior.:p

 

On the other hand, it's only on Carnival where passengers riot when they miss a port due to an emergency medical evacuation.

[Topsham]

I'd imagine everyone in the after end of the ship heard that anchor and cable run out. It would have made a most unholy racket... just like when dropping a forward anchor at a tender port... but worse.

 

No way the anchor could cause damafe to rudders or propellers. Those important 'bits' are well forward of the extreme stern of the ship. If the rudders and props were liable to damage the ship would not be fitted with a stern anchor in the first place. Technically speaking it is not a 'stern' anchor. The correct term is 'stream' anchor.... used when anchoring in a fast flowing river where you can't turn the ship around to use the bow anchor.

 

Anchors are usually secured in such a manner that they cannot be accidentally lowered, but if someone knows exactly what to do.... then it is just a matter of a bit of effort.

 

Stephen

[taxmantoo]

And...how did he get 'that' drunk. In his cabin or a public space?

 

Jim

 

Is one place really better than the other? Who cares?

[Bill B]

Is one place really better than the other? Who cares?

I'd imagine it would make a BIG difference to his defense if it came out that he was overserved by ship's crew.

[sapper1]

I'd imagine it would make a BIG difference to his defense if it came out that he was overserved by ship's crew.

It should make no difference. At some point we all have to be responsible for our actions. What you are suggesting is the same as blaming the victim. Nobody force fed this guy his booze. If a person knows he does stupid things when he drinks then he shouldn't drink. Considering his age I would guess that he has done other dumb things while drinking and is a slow learner.

[bepsf]

I'd imagine it would make a BIG difference to his defense if it came out that he was overserved by ship's crew.

 

Hardly.

 

Last I checked, it's the sole responsibility of the drinker when he drives into a tree - not the bartender.

[cruzngal]

So, is keel-hauling frowned upon these days???

[Mary Ellen]

Hardly.

 

Last I checked, it's the sole responsibility of the drinker when he drives into a tree - not the bartender.

Brian - that may depend upon the state/location. There are some places where the bar/bartender could have some responsibility for continuing to serve an obviously overly-intoxicated patron.

[Zambini]

I'd imagine everyone in the after end of the ship heard that anchor and cable run out. It would have made a most unholy racket... just like when dropping a forward anchor at a tender port... but worse.

 

No way the anchor could cause damafe to rudders or propellers. Those important 'bits' are well forward of the extreme stern of the ship. If the rudders and props were liable to damage the ship would not be fitted with a stern anchor in the first place. Technically speaking it is not a 'stern' anchor. The correct term is 'stream' anchor.... used when anchoring in a fast flowing river where you can't turn the ship around to use the bow anchor.

 

Anchors are usually secured in such a manner that they cannot be accidentally lowered, but if someone knows exactly what to do.... then it is just a matter of a bit of effort.

 

Stephen

 

LOL!

 

No way to damage them?

 

No stern anchor?

 

LOL!

 

How do you anchor bow & stern to stop the swing?

 

LOL!

[sapper1]

LOL!

 

No way to damage them?

 

No stern anchor?

 

LOL!

 

How do you anchor bow & stern to stop the swing?

 

LOL!

I believe Stephen is a former harbour master in Bermuda and when he imparts nautical information, people listen, as he knows whereof he speaks.

[Mary Ellen]

I believe Stephen is a former harbour master in Bermuda and when he imparts nautical information, people listen, as he knows whereof he speaks.

I strongly agree - and thank him for sharing his expertise!

[cherylroslyn]

Hardly.

 

Last I checked, it's the sole responsibility of the drinker when he drives into a tree - not the bartender.

Criminally yes....but Civilly the bartender can be held liable. Also, a number states have criminal statutes that allow for a bartender to be charged with a criminal offense if he overserves a guest.

[secretadvisor]

I believe Stephen is a former harbour master in Bermuda and when he imparts nautical information, people listen, as he knows whereof he speaks.

 

Regardless his information is inaccurate. The anchor is not a stream anchor. It is in fact a stern anchor, and could not solely hold this vessel on its own. It's generally used to stabilise the ship once the forward anchor has been deployed, keeping the vessel in a single direction preventing the vessel from swinging either due to limited searoom or to maintain a lee during tender operations.

 

Full deployment of this anchor would unlikely have had severe consequences (although no-one can be sure, as I've never known a situation of the stern anchor being deployed at full sea speed), and would most likely have resulted in the chain parting. With a full deployment it would have been almost impossible to recover onboard, and may have had to been released and buoyed off.

 

The situation was a lucky escape, in terms of not losing the anchor, and whilst reckless, probably isn't that dangerous alone. The mentality of someone deciding to do this without knowing that, is more worrying.

 

The anchor will have had 2 forms of lashings on it, before it could have been engaged, consisting of a stopper bar and wire lashings on turnbuckles. So it's not a completely simple and quick procedure to release it. The stern anchor has no bridge controls, and cannot be monitored from the bridge, unlike the forward anchors. The stern anchor is rarely used on these vessels, as it's got a few design flaws which make it difficult to recover.

 

Hope this helps clarify.

[DizzyDallasDi]

Idle observation.....he was identified by his formal attire as it matched the picture he had taken earlier in the evening. Bravo to this man for adhering to the dress code not only throughout the evening hours but well into the morning....nearing the break of day. :D

[dan40]

On the other hand, it's only on Carnival where passengers riot when they miss a port due to an emergency medical evacuation.

 

Princess, NCL, and RCL have experienced similar 'uprisings of the numb-skulls.'

The ME, ME, ME mentality of today sails on many lines.

[prescottbob]

...isolated act of stupidity.

 

And no, I believe he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for the endangerment to the crew, the passengers & the ship.

 

Methinks such access (security-wise) to such areas will be re-evaluated henceforth on all the cruise lines.

 

Someone mentioned the Titanic on a prior post just for fun. Good post.

 

However, If it wasn't for the Titanic sinking would 'we' have really have paid much attention while cruising / evolved learned from / learned from such an event into the safety regulations and procedures that currently exist today?

 

Maybe. Maybe not. The human condition remains.

 

Bon Voyage & Good Health!

Bob:)

[detsteve]

I love to go on HAL, so don't get me wrong......but part of me can't help but giggle since this story would make more sense if it were on Carnival. You don't see this kind of behavior with the HAL crowd. Thankfully no one got hurt.

 

Pretty egotistic statement about carnival passengers. I prefer carnival and have sailed them many times having never experienced something like this (from a HAL passenger no less) while onboard. Classless people come in all economic brackets and sail on all ship brands.