Ship Wreck

[Plant]

The area is well charted, any changes to the area are added to charts in what are known as 'chart corrections' which are updated weekly to all ships that travel in areas. Anything that was newer (i.e. in the last day or so) would have been sent out (if known about) by Inmarsat EGC SafetyNet or Navtex, which are systems to allow the bridge to get the latest info. They are printed off automatically from bridge equipment and are set (by the bridge officers) to the are where they are sailing. Anything that happend in the preceediing hours may have been sent out as a verbal warning by other mariners in the areas using DSC system on marine radio.

 

There also should have been a pilot onboard. However some areas in the world will allow the captain to pilot his own vessel if he is qualified pilot himself in a particular area, and this may have been the case. It is possible however that the pilot was there, I have heard of collision with pilots onboard in the past.

 

I don't think they 'let' the ship sink. Tugs could not hold up the ship, a 22,000 GRT ship filled with water would pull down anything attached to it. As for patching, it would take a long time to achieve and putting people onboard a sinking ship is dangerous. What often happens in this case if possible is the ship can be beached to prevent further beaching and then be repaired and re-floated, however in this case it was not possible as that area is very deep with no beaches.

 

When there is an incident it is the responsibility of members of the crew to check the cabins to make sure passengers have evacuated, usually the cabin stewards. After they check a cabin they close the door and place something over the handle to show it's been checked and leave the area once all their cabins have been checked. It is possible the people who are unaccounted for returned to their cabin after it had been checked or were not in their cabin at all at the time of the collision (or that the cabin steward missed them).

 

All of the above are SOP in incidents onboard cruise ships and bridge info is the same on all ships based on international GMDSS system (Global Maritime Distress and Safety System) which I hold a licence for large vessels. Whether this all happened will be I would imagine what the investigation will try to establish.

 

Any insurance they receive will not make up for the lost credibility the company will suffer as a result of this incident.

 

Thank you for your answers. It's nice to hear from someone who "knows" what may or may not be going on! We've only been on six cruises, but always go to the Muster Drill! It could save your life. It's also nice to know that if you're not in your cabin there will still be enough life jackets to go around, however I figure if it gets to this point people will "forget" everything they learned at the Muster Drill :eek: .

 

On our last cruise many people were talking to each other or talking on their cell phones during the Drill. The crew tried to get their attention, but, apparently, their conversations were more important :eek: . I hate to think what would have happened if the "abandon ship" signal was given.

[cruisefrk]

In an interview this morning from guests that had been on the Sea Diamond during the accident said their lifeboat had been painted so much that it would not release! They dropped only 4 feet and it would not go any further. I sail a lot and have never once felt like I would not be safe- the crew seems so well trained. however, I witness the constant painting and re-painting of the ships - now I am a tad nervous!

 

Do you think it was just a fluke on that ship?

[dog]

Thanks for this information. I have certainly learned something from it. We won't go back to our cabin to get the lifejackets, except for the drill.

[causeyoutdoor]

In the Navy we used to call them "sea lawyers" seems to be plenty of them on CC as well! :rolleyes: So exactly which "maritime law" are you referring? :confused:

 

 

In the case Watanabe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, the court stated that "the duty of care of an owner of an excursion ship is a matter of federal maritime law... That duty is to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances."

 

The Watanabe case has been affirmed many times in susbsequent cruise lines cases including in Kalendareva v. Discovery Cruise Lines and Galentine v. Holland America.

 

As it is a question of fact whether reasonable care was exercised by the captain and crew on the Sea Diamond, I am of the opinion that when the ship was taking on water almost immediately (as there are many who will testify that they saw people coming up from the lower decks that were wet with sea water immediately after hitting the reef), and the captain had not sounded the alarm or called for assistance until some time later (30 to 90 minutes depending on which passenger is speaking), it will be up to a court to decide if the cruise line breached its duty to its passengers.

 

My apologies for not posting this response sooner. My kids have consumed my attention since their return from Greece.

 

And sir, I am no "sea lawyer." I am, in fact, an attorney admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in the State of California.

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

In an interview this morning from guests that had been on the Sea Diamond during the accident said their lifeboat had been painted so much that it would not release! They dropped only 4 feet and it would not go any further. I sail a lot and have never once felt like I would not be safe- the crew seems so well trained. however, I witness the constant painting and re-painting of the ships - now I am a tad nervous!

 

Do you think it was just a fluke on that ship?

 

I have heard of this in the past but not for a long time. If that report is true, it would appear the boats were not lowered as often as they could be. On Princess they lower the boats every cruise and if the cruise is longer than a week, they lower them at least every two weeks. So you can rest assured that this scenario will not present itself on Princess.

 

As for painting, if this didn't happen the ship would rust very quickly.

[UK family]

In an interview this morning from guests that had been on the Sea Diamond during the accident said their lifeboat had been painted so much that it would not release! They dropped only 4 feet and it would not go any further. I sail a lot and have never once felt like I would not be safe- the crew seems so well trained. however, I witness the constant painting and re-painting of the ships - now I am a tad nervous!

 

 

 

Oh my goodness! if that's true, that terrible:eek:

[Captain Canuck]

to the people getting excited about the crew being blamed prior to all the facts being known..chill...this is a message board...nobody is getting a mob together with pitchforks to deal with the crew....this was an awful event and speculation and venting about it is healthy

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

In the case Watanabe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, the court stated that "the duty of care of an owner of an excursion ship is a matter of federal maritime law... That duty is to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances."

 

 

As it is a question of fact whether reasonable care was exercised by the captain and crew on the Sea Diamond, I am of the opinion that when the ship was taking on water almost immediately (as there are many who will testify that they saw people coming up from the lower decks that were wet with sea water immediately after hitting the reef), and the captain had not sounded the alarm or called for assistance until some time later (30 to 90 minutes depending on which passenger is speaking), it will be up to a court to decide if the cruise line breached its duty to its passengers.

 

Your question seems to be in relation to the time lapse between incident occurring and general alarm being sounded. As I said in previous post, there will always be a time lapse as the bridge need to send out assessment teams to discover the damage and relay that info back to the bridge. They are not going to sound the alarm immediately after running aground, that would be careless on their part as the ship might be still sea worthy.

 

As for re-floating, the Norwegian Crown cruise ship (one of my old ships) ran aground in Bermuda last year in a well chartered and used route between Hamilton and Kings Wharf. They tried to free themselves from the object struck and when that failed they called in tugs to help them free themselves. This also failed and in the end they waited until high tide when the ship freed itself. If they had called the general alert immediately after this incident they would have had people in life boats when it was not warranted and probably there would have been people on here saying the crew panicked.

 

In this case it may come to light there has been some breakdown in the normal SOP and the authorities must think they have enough to charge members of the crew, but we will see how things pan out. I would just say to those civilians on this board and even to people who may have been on the ship that judging events with an untrained eye can often lead to false theories and maybe bad conclusions. There was mention of 'Federal Maritime Law' this sounds like a US thing. The ship responsible was registered in Greece and will be held liable under International Maritime Law.

 

Rest assured that the investigation will have access to the VDR (Voyage Data Recorder) similar to those on planes (and no these ones are not black either). Information from engines, trim, radar, GPS, ECDIS and very importantly voice from the bridge will be accessible.

[spongerob]

Problem is people think that if there is an incident you should follow everything from the drill including that part of the drill. When in fact when the appropriate signal is given you should proceed directly to your muster station NOT to your cabin. Here are a couple of scenarios:

That is not the message communicated during the muster drill. The instructions specifically state that passengers should return to their cabins IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO, and get some sort of coat and head covering in addition to their life jackets. Obviously doing to would require some presence of mind. But, those ARE the instructions given.

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

That is not the message communicated during the muster drill. The instructions specifically state that passengers should return to their cabins IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO, and get some sort of coat and head covering in addition to their life jackets. Obviously doing to would require some presence of mind. But, those ARE the instructions given.

 

Well I think some of this is common sense, if you are in the pool wearing only your swimming custom and it is safe to do so, then going and putting on some warm clothes is a good idea. What I am saying is that if they sound the alarm you don't have to return to your cabin, especially if your cabin is far from your position and you are nearer to the life boat stations.

 

Like in this recent incident in Greece, if your cabin was near the area that was flooding, sending hundreds of people back there to get their life jackets could have serious consequences.

[causeyoutdoor]

 

As for re-floating, the Norwegian Crown cruise ship (one of my old ships) ran aground in Bermuda last year in a well chartered and used route between Hamilton and Kings Wharf. They tried to free themselves from the object struck and when that failed they called in tugs to help them free themselves. This also failed and in the end they waited until high tide when the ship freed itself. If they had called the general alert immediately after this incident they would have had people in life boats when it was not warranted and probably there would have been people on here saying the crew panicked.

 

There was mention of 'Federal Maritime Law' this sounds like a US thing. The ship responsible was registered in Greece and will be held liable under International Maritime Law.

 

 

Hi Admiral Nelson -

 

How cool is it to have a boat captain on these boards?? I love it.

 

But, as I recall, when the Norwegian Crown ran aground, was not taking on water and listing at 12 degrees after the incident. As I am sure we all are aware, the facts of each accident are different. I even recall the Princess had a ship stuck in the Amazon River (maybe it was the Grand) last year for a few hours. But I think they did sound the general alarm for that incident (I am sure someone on here will correct me - LOL).

 

As for the lifeboat situation, my kids said that they did see lifeboats not be used because they had been painted in place "like a window." Also, they said that after the general alarm was sounded, the boat had "drifted" up against the cliffs that we have seen in all the news footage. I am not sure why the boat was drifting. However, the life boats on the port side were then not usable, as the boat had moved from where the initial accident occurred and was up by that point up against the cliffs. I also understand that the boat was moved by tug away from the cliffs at some point also.

 

As for the choice of law question regarding Federal Maritme Law vs. International Maritime Law, the real question of which law applies is being researched by Maritime Attorneys in Miami (where the US experts seem to be) and London (where some of the International Maritime experts seem to be). I will leave that analysis to those who practice regularly in this area of the law.

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

Hi Admiral Nelson -

 

How cool is it to have a boat captain on these boards?? I love it.

 

But, as I recall, when the Norwegian Crown ran aground, was not taking on water and listing at 12 degrees after the incident. As I am sure we all are aware, the facts of each accident are different. I even recall the Princess had a ship stuck in the Amazon River (maybe it was the Grand) last year for a few hours. But I think they did sound the general alarm for that incident (I am sure someone on here will correct me - LOL).

 

As for the lifeboat situation, my kids said that they did see lifeboats not be used because they had been painted in place "like a window." Also, they said that after the general alarm was sounded, the boat had "drifted" up against the cliffs that we have seen in all the news footage. I am not sure why the boat was drifting. However, the life boats on the port side were then not usable, as the boat had moved from where the initial accident occurred and was up by that point up against the cliffs. I also understand that the boat was moved by tug away from the cliffs at some point also.

 

As for the choice of law question regarding Federal Maritme Law vs. International Maritime Law, the real question of which law applies is being researched by Maritime Attorneys in Miami (where the US experts seem to be) and London (where some of the International Maritime experts seem to be). I will leave that analysis to those who practice regularly in this area of the law.

 

Yes you are right the Crown did not list like the Sea Diamond. I am also curious as to how the ship was drifting? It could be the weight of the water filling the ship dragged it free and as it's angle of list increased, not sure.

 

As for the port side lifeboats, there is a good reason why they couldn't be used. The ship listed to starboard at 12 degrees, at this angle the port boats would not be able to be lowered as they could not be winched down the ship. The lifeboat is suspended on cables and needs to be free from obstructions, at that angle the boats would be leaning on the hull. That is the same with all ships.

 

There have been modifications to some ships that I have seen with braces on the sides of lifeboats to allow it to be winched at steeper angles than normal, however I don't know if the ship had that or whether those braces would work at that angle. I doubt if they were fitted, the lifeboats looked a little old. You don't see many open type (uncovered) lifeboats these days, I saw some on a couple of old Carnival ships I worked on a few years ago but I'm not sure if they are still going?

 

I'm no lawyer (solicitor where I am from) but how would US law apply to an incident off Greece?

[gazetteer]

Based on the pictures I have seen and accounts I have read below is a link to a simple map I created of Sea Diamonds grounding and final sinking. Nothing I read mentioned the ship being moved after the passengers were evacuated. However, the picture record clearly shows her final sinking in the area indicated. I assume she was towed there to prevent her sinking directly off the main dock for the town of Thira.

 

http://www.computersdan.com/SeaDiamondSinks.gif

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

Based on the pictures I have seen and accounts I have read below is a link to a simple map I created of Sea Diamonds grounding and final sinking. Nothing I read mentioned the ship being moved after the passengers were evacuated. However, the picture record clearly shows her final sinking in the area indicated. I assume she was towed there to prevent her sinking directly off the main dock for the town of Thira.

 

http://www.computersdan.com/SeaDiamondSinks.gif

 

The ship actually drifted to her final position, it's so deep there it wouldn't really matter where she went down, it's at least 160 metres and goes up to 3,000 metres!

 

Also reference to an earlier post, the lifeboats where launched from the port side, I saw pictures of the ship with davits in launch position with no boats.

[cruisefrk]

Excuse me if this is a stupid question - but will they let her remain there? Or will they attempt to dismantle the ship?

From what I have read it could very deep where she landed. The fuel and such could be so devastating for that area.

[Captain Canuck]

Us lawyers try to apply us law everywhere...better damages...no downside to vacuous claims.....we had some ambulence chasers come to Canada after an accident only to quickly leave when they found out the max claim for death was $3000

[causeyoutdoor]

 

I'm no lawyer (solicitor where I am from) but how would US law apply to an incident off Greece?

 

A foreign company will be subject to US law if they are deemed to be "doing business" in the United States. What is considered "doing business" is a technical area of the law. Louis Cruise Lines is a subsidiary of Louis PLC, which owns some hotels in Europe, but the corporate operation seems to be based in Cyprus.

 

The place of the accident does not control the choice of law. If that ship was a Carnival Cruise in Greece, access to remedies in the US courts would not be at issue but a given.

 

I am hopeful that we will not have to get into a long court thing anyway. A responsible company will step up and do the right thing.

 

The tour company that organized the trip just called to tell me that they were sending $500 per kid to get us started on the replacing of the items lost when the ship went down. They were very clear that this was not a full payout, but just something to get us started. As I probably spent about $1000 over the last few days in jeans, shorts, swimsuits, shirts, socks, shoes and underwear, I am appreciative. We have not even begun to think about lost iPods, SonicCare toothbrushes, retainers, several hundred dollars worth of souvenirs, and dress clothes (they were dressing a little better for dinners on the ship), so I really appreciate the gesture so early in the process. Some others in our group lost jewelry, laptops, cameras, and significantly more. My kids were telling me that they saw some people bringing on very expensive Turkish rugs that had been purchased in their one stop in Turkey. It was their recollection that the rugs had cost several thousands of dollars.

 

But it really is not about what was lost. It had become about what was gained. They had had a great time, until they hit the reef. They have a truly unique experience, that hopefully as time passed they will get some perspective on. They have overcome a great challenge and will hopefully gain confidence from it. And they all agree, that where ever they decide to go next year, they will NOT be taking a cruise. LOL.

 

The word I am hearing from them right now, is that next spring break might be in Argentina or Brazil. And, of course, the family is leaving in 31 days on the Island Princess for a weekend getaway. Wish me luck. I am going to need it.

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

 

The place of the accident does not control the choice of law. If that ship was a Carnival Cruise in Greece, access to remedies in the US courts would not be at issue but a given.

 

 

I understand this and if it was a Carnival ship then I wouldn't have asked but this ship is registered in Greece, to a company that from what I can see has no ties to the US other than the fact that it had some people from the US onboard.

[Globaliser]

I understand this and if it was a Carnival ship then I wouldn't have asked but this ship is registered in Greece, to a company that from what I can see has no ties to the US other than the fact that it had some people from the US onboard.

Never underestimate the extent to which the USA likes to exert extra-territorial jurisdiction.

 

And unless things have changed recently, the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the US courts (together with their lottery-style winnings system) is often only available on a discriminatory basis.

 

For example, imagine two passengers sitting next to each other on a coach are hurt in a crash in England. One is German, the other is American.

 

If the US courts have a hook on which to hang extra-territorial jurisdiction (maybe the company has one office in the US), the American passenger gets access to the mega-bucks doled out by US juries.

 

The German passenger, on the other hand, is deprived of that chance. His avenue for claiming compensation follows the route recognised by most legal systems, namely via the English courts.

[happyscot]

Never underestimate the extent to which the USA likes to exert extra-territorial jurisdiction.

 

And unless things have changed recently, the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the US courts (together with their lottery-style winnings system) is often only available on a discriminatory basis.

 

For example, imagine two passengers sitting next to each other on a coach are hurt in a crash in England. One is German, the other is American.

 

If the US courts have a hook on which to hang extra-territorial jurisdiction (maybe the company has one office in the US), the American passenger gets access to the mega-bucks doled out by US juries.

 

The German passenger, on the other hand, is deprived of that chance. His avenue for claiming compensation follows the route recognised by most legal systems, namely via the English courts.

 

 

 

Is that for the crash, or for being made to sit next to the German?

 

Sorry.

 

:D

[Globaliser]

:D We can always rely on you for a smile, happyscot!

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

Excuse me if this is a stupid question - but will they let her remain there? Or will they attempt to dismantle the ship?

From what I have read it could very deep where she landed. The fuel and such could be so devastating for that area.

 

This is a very good question. There is a possible environmental impact from this ship, and it's true it is very deep where she sank. They could not dismantle her from the sea bed, they can I believe remove oil and fuel from her depending on the depth she is at at but I'm a little out of my league now as I have no expertise in this area.

[seahorse]

Just saw on the news that the Cruise Line has said that it was human error that caused the accident.

[causeyoutdoor]

I also saw the news that Louis Cruises is saying that the accident is human error. So some extent, I think they have to say that, because to say otherwise would imply that the port of Santorini would be unsafe. Santorini looks from all accounts to be a terrific place and a great destination. And from what I have read, ships have been entering that harbor for centuries. I can imagine that the political pressure on the cruise line must be intense. And now with the oil leaking from the ship, there is a whole new round of environmental problems to be concerned about.

 

When we told the kids this morning that the cruise line said it was human error that caused the accident, my oldest said that they were quicker to admit fault than they were to evacuate the ship. He can be a little sarcastic. He still has some anger about all of this, which is to be expected. They had looked forward to this trip for a year.

[chienfou]

When we told the kids this morning that the cruise line said it was human error that caused the accident, my oldest said that they were quicker to admit fault than they were to evacuate the ship. He can be a little sarcastic. He still has some anger about all of this, which is to be expected. They had looked forward to this trip for a year.

 

At the risk of seeming unsympathetic, it's a shame that this event has competely overshadowed his trip. If I am not mistaken, this should have been the LAST stop on the cruise, and the cruise was not the first part of the trip. I would hope that he has at least a few positive memories from the rest of the trip.

While I understand his frustration with having lost his 'stuff', I still believe that the overall response and the fact that only 2 lives were lost was in and of itself an accomplishment. The outcome could have been MUCH worse. I am far from a veteren Greek traveller, having been there only twice before, but each time my groups have really liked Greece, and we have felt warmly received and loved. Does he feel that the response of the people of Santorini was inadequate or inappropriate? How does he view his treatment AFTER he got off the boat? If he has not already done so, I would suggest that your son will need lots of continuing encouragement (and possible stress de-briefing/PTSD treatment) to help him process and potentially overcome his current feelings surrounding this event.