Senator Nelson calls for NTSB to investigate Anthems Feb 7 sailing.

[Aquahound]

Maybe Aquahound, as a USCG investigator, can help me out here, if he's not done with all this speculation. I believe, further, that when the USCG or NTSB are involved in "Substantially Interested State" investigations, they are allowed to see the evidence collected by the flag state agency, and allowed to see the statements given to the flag state agency, and base a report on this evidence, but are not allowed to gather evidence or statements on their own.

 

You are 100% correct. The flag state has jurisdiction. Of course, there are exceptions that are too long to list but in most cases, flag state rules supreme. U.S. involvement is on an assistance basis.

 

In a criminal case, a SMTJ (Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction) argument could be made since the U.S. ended up being next port of call, but that would be a stretch. There is still a lack of a casualty and no crime.

 

No matter how I look at it, we (U.S.) have no standing.

[boca7]

How could even the most enthusiastic cruiser be so dense? Whoever put the ship, crew, and passengers in harm's way should be investigated and held accountable for this potentially fatal decision. I'd like to know exactly who made the final decision to go, corporate or the captain. Was due diligence concerning rough weather done before sailing? Facts need to come out to protect the public against negligence. . A NTSB hearing is not just appropriate, but mandatory!

 

Finally someone quoted a very troubling question, be reminded of the Costa fiasco.

[margoula]

The NTSB will most certainly get involved as they should. We were on the Crown Princess years ago when it listed 11 miles out from Port Canaveral. The coast guard boarded the vessel .... we all had to get off in FL .... and the coast guard was on the ship all the way back to NY.

 

The NTSB then launched a thorough investigation.

 

We don't know if there is any damage to the Anthem and of the highest importance is the safety of the PAX and crew.

 

They have been through a horrific experience.

 

Interesting to see what RCCI Corp. has to say about this.

[Seaworthy01]

Aquahound, if in fact you are a USCG investigator, now that I know your status. My apologies for the misunderstanding earlier. (Long story). I was in the wrong.

[Aquahound]

Aquahound, if in fact you are a USCG investigator, now that I know your status. My apologies for the misunderstanding earlier. (Long story). I was in the wrong.

 

No worries. We're good. :) I understand how hard it is to lend credit with internet anonymity. I've been at 35,000 ft all day and now in a hotel room, so my patience wasn't where it should have been. :o

Edited February 9, 2016 by Aquahound

[Seaworthy01]

I understand that the ship has decreased their speed, I'm assuming it's weather related. If not what is the issue and why are they saying the ship may not doc until Thursday now?

[reallyitsmema]

I understand that the ship has decreased their speed, I'm assuming it's weather related. If not what is the issue and why are they saying the ship may not doc until Thursday now?

 

Two posters on board just posted the details on another thread. They are picking up pilot at 6pm tomorrow and hope to be docked by 9pm. Passengers can stay the night on board if they prefer.

[chengkp75]

Finally someone quoted a very troubling question, be reminded of the Costa fiasco.

 

Not sure how the two correlate. The Costa Concordia was investigated by the Italian Ministry of Transport, since Italy was the flag state. I didn't see any other nations getting involved, even though their citizens were involved. Second of all, the Concordia was a "marine casualty", with not only loss of life, but total constructive loss of the vessel. Was the Captain held responsible, perhaps not enough, but yes. This is by no definition a "marine casualty", as there was no loss of life or serious injury, nor damage to the ship or machinery. Therefore, again, the NTSB, even under the SIS standard has nothing to investigate.

[Seaworthy01]

If there were a need for an investigation, (Not saying that there is a need) but in other similar cases. Wouldn't it make sense for the country of registry to cooperate and give the US permission to do so?

Edited February 9, 2016 by Seaworthy01

[chengkp75]

If there were a need for an investigation, (Not saying that there is a need) but in other similar cases. Wouldn't it make sense for the country of registry to cooperate and give the US permission to do so?

 

As I thought, and Aquahound substantiated, any "investigation" by the USCG or NTSB would be in the way of "assistance" to the flag state agency investigation, not an independent investigation. Allowing another country's agencies to investigate your territory (the ship) without your control would set a precedent regarding sovereignty. Asking for assistance, like the Panamanians did with the Carnival Splendor, involves national pride, showing that "their" agencies are not up to the job. And, as I've said, the USCG and NTSB have stricter regulations than the flag states, which must only meet IMO standards or their own, if higher, so sometimes USCG recommendations on reports like these don't look good, because the USCG sometimes uses their own best practices, which are based on their regulations.

[Seaworthy01]

As I thought, and Aquahound substantiated, any "investigation" by the USCG or NTSB would be in the way of "assistance" to the flag state agency investigation, not an independent investigation. Allowing another country's agencies to investigate your territory (the ship) without your control would set a precedent regarding sovereignty. Asking for assistance, like the Panamanians did with the Carnival Splendor, involves national pride, showing that "their" agencies are not up to the job. And, as I've said, the USCG and NTSB have stricter regulations than the flag states, which must only meet IMO standards or their own, if higher, so sometimes USCG recommendations on reports like these don't look good, because the USCG sometimes uses their own best practices, which are based on their regulations.

 

 

Seems complicated, as it should with GOV agencies. Thank you.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Seaworthy01

[foxgoodrich]

If there were a need for an investigation, (Not saying that there is a need) but in other similar cases. Wouldn't it make sense for the country of registry to cooperate and give the US permission to do so?

 

Disclaimer: Most of what I know I've learned over the past few years from Paul (Aquahound, our resident Coast Guard investigator) or Chengkp75 (our resident Chief Engineer) so I'm not any kind of an expert, just one of their 'students.':o

 

It would be my guess that most flag countries would give that permission, at least to observe, if they knew the US was interested. That would simply be diplomacy. But really it would be the Coast Guard (not the NTSB) invited to observe (or maybe to assist/participate in??) an investigation. I assume the CG could involve the NTSB at their discretion.

 

In the words of the NTSB themselves: (report to Congress in Oct 2013):

Large foreign flagged passenger vessels have been increasingly in the spotlight since the grounding and capsizing of the Costa Concordia in January 2011. Since then there have been several accidents, including fires on board vessels resulting in the loss of power or significant damage to the vessel. Many of these accidents happened in close proximity to the US coast and affected thousands of US citizens sailing onboard. While some assume that the NTSB is investigating these incidents, under current regulations, investigations of these events involving foreign flagged vessels, occurring in international waters, although close to the US, are not led by the NTSB, but are conducted by the USCG, which is also the oversight agency for these operations.

 

If you want to read it for yourself, the full text of the report is here:https://app.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/rosekind/rosekind131029.html

 

Judy

Edited February 10, 2016 by foxgoodrich

[Seaworthy01]

Got it, consider me educated for at least 5 more minutes, at that point I will have forgotten what I have read. :)

[2CatsInFlorida]

Of course an investigation is necessary despite the RCI cheerleaders. Amazon had the problem with phony reviews and took action. CC needs to do the same with the obviously biased reviews toward any complaints against a cruise line. Some of these are obviously paid reviews to suppress and negative comments, thus making CC an arm of the cruise industry, instead of a reliable source of information.

[Ldyandrea]

Just some grandstanding by another bloviating politician looking for publicity.

 

Actually, Bill Nelson is from Florida, and the cruise industry is a huge part of our state economy. Issues related to pretty much anything regarding the cruise industry are things he is generally going to involve himself in, like the Triumph fire a few years back, for example. He's also been very instrumental in getting legislation passed to protect the rights and safety of cruise ship passengers.

 

So, in this instance, this is an area he's always taken a leadership role in, and frankly, he's got 2 years left before he has to run for reelection anyhow. I don't consider that to be bloviating....I consider that to be him doing his job.

[loubetti]

That one's actually not true. The USCG sent a team of inspectors/investigators down to the Bahamas to assist. It was at the request of the Bahamas. Same thing happened with the Star Princess fire. We do it all the time because we have the manpower and technology to assist.

 

That was the nature of my post that Lou Betti can't seem to understand. The proper authority can request US assistance....of which NTSB, USCG, etc, are almost always willing to lend a hand. It's not a statement of authority. It's investigative assistance.

 

But I feel this has all gotten waaaay out of context due to one person who didn't understand what was being said. My stance is still that no governmental investigation is warranted.

 

Sorry, aquahound, no doubt I misunderstood, what with all the posts I am reading here today.

 

Friends? :)

 

Also, why can't you or cheng at least offer a first name here. Even a phony one. :rolleyes:

[Aquahound]

Sorry, aquahound, no doubt I misunderstood, what with all the posts I am reading here today.

 

Friends? :)

 

Also, why can't you or cheng at least offer a first name here. Even a phony one. :rolleyes:

 

No problem. I've always agreed with and respected your posts, so I was really thrown for a loop today. :( Of course we're friends. :)

 

And please, call me Paul. My name is in my sig, but I had it turned off today.

[A&L_Ont]

Sorry, aquahound, no doubt I misunderstood, what with all the posts I am reading here today.

 

No problem. I've always agreed with and respected your posts, so I was really thrown for a loop today.

 

I was hoping that this was the case. To Aquahound, Loubetti, and Cheng; the three of you all give great information and in 2 days of armchair QBs giving advice it is great to rely on real information from credible sources such as the 3 of you. Thanks for giving some real information in a sea of threads that contained much misinformation.

[AWOL]

Every time there is a significant transportation incident, there should be an investigation of some sort. I don't think this one warrants any special investigative commission or anything like that, but it would be absurd not to investigate this incident and learn from it.

 

(Not sure NTSB has any jurisdiction on this, though.)

 

So every time a ship sails in this type of weather the company should be investigated. This would be very expensive and kind of silly as this happens all the time.

I know that when I was working in the North Sea it happened to the vessel I was working on four or five times a winter and it was a lot bigger than the fishing boats riding the seas around us.

A marine worker would think your statement kind of strange

[Shaco]

As I thought, and Aquahound substantiated, any "investigation" by the USCG or NTSB would be in the way of "assistance" to the flag state agency investigation, not an independent investigation. Allowing another country's agencies to investigate your territory (the ship) without your control would set a precedent regarding sovereignty. Asking for assistance, like the Panamanians did with the Carnival Splendor, involves national pride, showing that "their" agencies are not up to the job. And, as I've said, the USCG and NTSB have stricter regulations than the flag states, which must only meet IMO standards or their own, if higher, so sometimes USCG recommendations on reports like these don't look good, because the USCG sometimes uses their own best practices, which are based on their regulations.

 

Respectfully, do you understand the issue is not about the jurisdiction of a government agency? The true, unmuddled issue is the need for a transparent investigation of how this cruise ship placed lives in danger. The public deserves to have uncompromising facts.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Shaco

[chengkp75]

Respectfully, do you understand the issue is not about the jurisdiction of a government agency? The true, unmuddled issue is the need for a transparent investigation of how this cruise ship placed lives in danger. The public deserves to have uncompromising facts.

 

But, do you realize that international jurisdiction is just the point? Again, this is what I really find amazing about the US cruising public. You don't think a thing about stepping on a foreign flag cruise ship, and just blindly assume that US laws follow you everywhere in the world. If you want an investigation, petition the Bahamian government, because they are the jurisdiction involved. It's their ship, so their territory. If you don't understand this, read up on international law. The public, who went on a Bahamian ship, deserves to get the facts the Bahamians decide to present. We in the US do not rule the world. As I've said repeatedly over the years, if you want 100% protection of US law, you will have to cruise on a US flag ship.

[Shaco]

So every time a ship sails in this type of weather the company should be investigated. This would be very expensive and kind of silly as this happens all the time.

I know that when I was working in the North Sea it happened to the vessel I was working on four or five times a winter and it was a lot bigger than the fishing boats riding the seas around us.

A marine worker would think your statement kind of strange

 

You think this kind of thing happens all the time? That cruise ships carrying thousands of passengers and crew routinely sail into this kind of mayhem? Really? I do not believe so many would choose to cruise again and again if when they boarded their cruise ship, they expected to be tossed around to the point where they needed to be confined in their cabins. Calling what happened aboard the Anthem of the Seas "silly" is a real head-scratcher for those concerned with the safety of the public.

[Goofyisme]

Respectfully, do you understand the issue is not about the jurisdiction of a government agency? The true, unmuddled issue is the need for a transparent investigation of how this cruise ship placed lives in danger. The public deserves to have uncompromising facts.

 

Respectfully, it is all about jurisdiction.

[chengkp75]

You think this kind of thing happens all the time? That cruise ships carrying thousands of passengers and crew routinely sail into this kind of mayhem? Really? I do not believe so many would choose to cruise again and again if when they boarded their cruise ship, they expected to be tossed around to the point where they needed to be confined in their cabins. Calling what happened aboard the Anthem of the Seas "silly" is a real head-scratcher for those concerned with the safety of the public.

 

And if you were really concerned about the safety of the public, you would cruise on US flag ships, rather than paying less for a ship that meets significantly lower safety standards that the USCG mandate for US flag ships.

[markeb]

And if you were really concerned about the safety of the public, you would cruise on US flag ships, rather than paying less for a ship that meets significantly lower safety standards that the USCG mandate for US flag ships.

 

What? You're trying to apply facts and logic? Shocking! :)

 

I would launch into the realities of post-Westphalian sovereignty, a concept near and dear to international law, and long honored by the United States, but...

 

As stated repeatedly and eloquently in this thread, the United States Government has absolutely no claim of primacy under international law and long held maritime law. The public of the Bahamas may have a right to know, but since the ship is not registered or flagged in the United States, and the incident occurred in international waters, perceived "rightness" of a swift and public investigation is in fact irrelevant.

 

I'm just waiting for the thread to be locked.