White Island survivor - 60 minutes

[aussielozzie18]

I know thar 60 minutes is no longer the quality show it once was but for those who might be interested, this weekend it is featuring a segment with Stephanie Browitt.  Stephanie is a young Australian girl in her twenties who was on the Ovation of the Sea's excursion to White Island NZ with her family when it erupted.  She has been dealing with her extensive injuries ever since the tragic event.  Her father and sister perished. 

 

I wonder if the shine lawyer will make an appearance. 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by aussielozzie18
Update

[ilikeanswers]

This year I have to give 60 minutes some credit, they have done some pretty good investigations🤔

[NSWP]

I hope the White Island Tour Operator gets nailed.

[Ondine]

Stephanie is one very brave young girl.  She has been given a bit of coverage in Melbourne on TV and in the papers since her release from hospital.  Her attitude is incredible.

[MMDown Under]

Thank you.  I still think sixty minutes has some good investigative reporting shows. 

[getting older slowly]

1 hour ago, Ondine said:

Stephanie is one very brave young girl. 

 

326 days later...... a very strong person.... I take my hat off to her......                Don

[NSWP]

Reminder folks, the Channel 9 - 60 minutes presentation re White Island is on tonight at 7.30pm. 

[ilikeanswers]

16 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Reminder folks, the Channel 9 - 60 minutes presentation re White Island is on tonight at 7.30pm. 

 

I have 8:36pm on my TV guide😕

[NSWP]

17 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I have 8:36pm on my TV guide😕

You were correct it was 8.36pm.  I just sent myself to the dunces corner.🤡

 

Anyway, a decent doco.  My adjudication, for what it is worth...Tour Operator - White Island Tours at fault re risk assessment, if they did one at all.  It is the tour operator responsibility to appraise the cruise line re risk assessment. In hindsight the tours should not have been conducted that day with a level 2 situation.

 

I thought the Dr from the St John Ambulance was strong, he stuck to his guns re flying/landing conditions. Tough decision to delay.   The two helicopter pilots who did land were heroes.

 

There is going to be massive payout over this disaster.

Edited November 2, 2020 by NSWP

[ilikeanswers]

34 minutes ago, NSWP said:

It is the tour operator responsibility to appraise the cruise line re risk assessment.

 

While I agree that the tour operator should alert to the change in status I do still think as a third party vendor the cruise company should also be monitering the situation. After all they are choosing to sell what is essentially a very dangerous tour. As that woman said on 60 minutes she had never heard of White Island till she was on the cruise so she was completely reliant on the cruise for information of the tour. She might not have even realised they were a third party seller. Personally I think if you choose to be reseller for things that are very dangerous you are as much responsible for making sure the tour you are selling is safe enough to proceed and not to be completely relying on the tour operator who lets face it has a major bias to pushing the tours to run.

[NSWP]

9 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

While I agree that the tour operator should alert to the change in status I do still think as a third party vendor the cruise company should also be monitering the situation. After all they are choosing to sell what is essentially a very dangerous tour. As that woman said on 60 minutes she had never heard of White Island till she was on the cruise so she was completely reliant on the cruise for information of the tour. She might not have even realised they were a third party seller. Personally I think if you choose to be reseller for things that are very dangerous you are as much responsible for making sure the tour you are selling is safe enough to proceed and not to be completely relying on the tour operator who lets face it has a major bias to pushing the tours to run.

I agree, RCI and Tour Operator at fault, plain to see. The ship's Shorex Manager and Senior Security Officer should have done their own risk assessment of the Island Shorex they were selling from tour operator White Island Tours in addition to an expectation of a full and proper risk assessment by the tour operator.

 

Not forgetting that RCI would be getting 10% to 15% commission on the shorex, as is the norm, some motivation there too. Just slack all round.

Edited November 2, 2020 by NSWP

[Aus Traveller]

30 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

While I agree that the tour operator should alert to the change in status I do still think as a third party vendor the cruise company should also be monitering the situation. After all they are choosing to sell what is essentially a very dangerous tour. As that woman said on 60 minutes she had never heard of White Island till she was on the cruise so she was completely reliant on the cruise for information of the tour. She might not have even realised they were a third party seller. Personally I think if you choose to be reseller for things that are very dangerous you are as much responsible for making sure the tour you are selling is safe enough to proceed and not to be completely relying on the tour operator who lets face it has a major bias to pushing the tours to run.

I feel there are a couple of points you are overlooking. With all cruise ship excursions, there is a third party who organises the tour. None are organised or run by the ship. They simple re-sell tours that they buy 'in bulk'.

 

Should RCI have checked that it was safe to land on the island? Maybe in this case they should have because it was a potentially hazardous activity. Maybe they treated this tour like they treat every other tour.

 

The young woman interviewed is suing the cruise company because that is the entity she had a contract with.

[Aus Traveller]

28 minutes ago, NSWP said:

I agree, RCI and Tour Operator at fault, plain to see. The ship's Shorex Manager and Senior Security Officer should have done their own risk assessment of the Island Shorex they were selling from tour operator White Island Tours in addition to an expectation of a full and proper risk assessment by the tour operator.

 

Not forgetting that RCI would be getting 10% to 15% commission on the shorex, as is the norm, some motivation there too. Just slack all round.

From my knowledge, the cruise company gets much more than 10% to 15% on excursions they sell.

 

Should the Shorex Manager have done a risk assessment on the day? Maybe yes, if they realised how hazardous the activity could be.

[ilikeanswers]

9 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I feel there are a couple of points you are overlooking. With all cruise ship excursions, there is a third party who organises the tour. None are organised or run by the ship. They simple re-sell tours that they buy 'in bulk'.

 

Not overlooked, rather that was my point. With a dangerous activity I feel the standards should be different and the reseller has a responsibility to make sure what they are offering isn't too dangerous. 

[lyndarra]

13 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Should RCI have checked that it was safe to land on the island? Maybe in this case they should have because it was a potentially hazardous activity. Maybe they treated this tour like they treat every other tour.

 

 

The cruise tour staff can do no more than rely on the operator's advice - unless one of them is a qualified vulcanologist.

Edited November 2, 2020 by lyndarra

[ilikeanswers]

1 minute ago, lyndarra said:

The cruise tour staff can do no more than rely on the operator's advice - unless one of them is a qualified vulcanologist.

 

The volcano activity ratings are available online plus I would expect the reseller to have some familiarity on the danger ratings of a volcano especially if they are trying to encourage people to purchase said activities. 

[Aus Traveller]

1 minute ago, lyndarra said:

The cruise tour staff can do no more than rely on the operator's advice - unless one of them is a qualified vulcanologist.

I agree with your comment. One could argue that the Shorex Manager should have check what the "level" was for the island, but he/she would have been relying on the tour company. The Shorex Manager may not have been aware that there were threat levels pertaining to White Island.

 

I feel the responsibility lies with the tour company who should have been aware that the level had been raised from 1 to 2 and that the advice from vulcanologists was that there was an increased chance of an eruption.

[NSWP]

54 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

From my knowledge, the cruise company gets much more than 10% to 15% on excursions they sell.

 

Should the Shorex Manager have done a risk assessment on the day? Maybe yes, if they realised how hazardous the activity could be.

Blind Freddy would have known the island landing was hazardous.

[Aus Traveller]

1 hour ago, NSWP said:

Blind Freddy would have known the island landing was hazardous.

I would not blame the passengers who went on the excursion. Unless they researched the volcanic activity on White Is prior to the trip, they would not have realised there was any danger. They probably thought that because the excursion was offered, then it must be safe.

[getting older slowly]

1 hour ago, Aus Traveller said:

I would not blame the passengers who went on the excursion. Unless they researched the volcanic activity on White Is prior to the trip, they would not have realised there was any danger. They probably thought that because the excursion was offered, then it must be safe.

 

Agreed

the passengers, would not have been aware it had gone to level 2 on the 18th november

along with an aviation code yellow  meaning ( Volcano is experiencing signs of elevated unrest above known background levels. )

 

or that on the 24th  November, there was magnitude 5.9 earthquake lasting approximately one minute with an epicentre 10 kilometres northeast of White Island.

 

Don

Edited November 2, 2020 by getting older slowly

[Bowm54]

New Zealand has a no fault accident compensation scheme.

There is no suing for personal injury due to accidents. 
Criminal prosecution is a separate issue.

 

Royal Caribbean as the seller may not be covered by this scheme and could be sued.

Did they use skill and care regarding safety?

Did the Tour operator provide Royal Caribbean with the current daily Risk Assessment?

Did the Tour operator go ahead with the tour despite the increased level of volcanic activity “because it’s always gone okay before? 
 

Many lawyers will be very interested!

And many families are devastated.

 

 

[MicCanberra]

Sad for everyone involved whether they be the victims' families, the survivors, the tour operators, the Royal staff the first responders, etc. The lawyers will be the only ones happy at the end of the proceedings because the money won't help any of the others.

[ilikeanswers]

3 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

The lawyers will be the only ones happy at the end of the proceedings because the money won't help any of the others.

 

Not necessarily. If you can't get back to work the money can come in handy and the cost of physiotherapy and PTSD therapy can really add up. 

[The_Big_M]

13 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

I feel there are a couple of points you are overlooking. With all cruise ship excursions, there is a third party who organises the tour. None are organised or run by the ship. They simple re-sell tours that they buy 'in bulk'.

 

Should RCI have checked that it was safe to land on the island? Maybe in this case they should have because it was a potentially hazardous activity. Maybe they treated this tour like they treat every other tour.

 

The young woman interviewed is suing the cruise company because that is the entity she had a contract with.

 

He did cover that in his comment where he referred to both the tour operator, and the cruise line vendor. 

 

However, the cruise lines do not just "re-sell." They contract out exclusive deals, typically with their staff also along, and in many cases have customised tours arranged with at least small differences such as meal inclusions. The only difference is they do not operate it (which you'd expect otherwise the crew would have to be expert in all ports, plus have vehicles and so forth on hand) but it is a "ship tour" not a third party tour. All dealings are with the cruise line, not as an agent.

 

RCI should not have specifically checked of their own. However, their contract with the operator would typically require the operator to inform them of risks, hazards and any other updates. If they didn't cover that fully (which I doubt) then they are at fault. However, given the way liability works and their experience in these matters it is almost certain they have a claim with the operator.

[The_Big_M]

8 hours ago, Bowm54 said:

New Zealand has a no fault accident compensation scheme.

There is no suing for personal injury due to accidents. 
Criminal prosecution is a separate issue.

 

Royal Caribbean as the seller may not be covered by this scheme and could be sued.

Did they use skill and care regarding safety?

Did the Tour operator provide Royal Caribbean with the current daily Risk Assessment?

Did the Tour operator go ahead with the tour despite the increased level of volcanic activity “because it’s always gone okay before? 
 

Many lawyers will be very interested!

And many families are devastated.

 

 

 

Agreed. That doesn't really matter to the passengers. Their claim is with RCL, who sold them the ticket, and promoted the tour.

 

If RCL have a claim against the tour operator they can take that up, but it doesn't impact the passenger's claims who booked with the cruise line.