Celebrity in Hot Water - Edge sailed too close to Kauai’s NaPali Coast

[markeb]

12 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

As reported on in the linked article above, the investigation seems conveniently limited, and the Captain's (in article) reported recollection of depth, but not distance is suspect.

The news source also quoted unnamed sources who reported the ship anchoring. I don’t have a lot of confidence in them. I’m not sure what’s suspect. 

[prmssk]

21 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

As reported on in the linked article above, the investigation seems conveniently limited, and the Captain's (in article) reported recollection of depth, but not distance is suspect.

In my experience, when an investigation results in no criminal or civil charges, very few details of the investigation can be/are released to the general public.  So I'm not sure the limited articles I have seen necessarily reflect the complete scope of the investigation.

[chengkp75]

25 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

As reported on in the linked article above, the investigation seems conveniently limited, and the Captain's (in article) reported recollection of depth, but not distance is suspect.

If the Captain was not aware of a restricted zone with an offshore limitation, distance off the coast is far and away less important than water depth.  And, what conspiracy do you see that limited the investigation?

[Tom and Ingrid]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 And, what conspiracy do you see that limited the investigation?

I wonder how much most folks know about how an investigation like this one should or would be carried out.  Certainly, a small local paper or internet news site, is limited in both their resources and their understanding of all the rules and regulations of many (most) things. A story on - let's say - securities fraud is just as likely to make folks wonder why a seemingly "simple" action was "ignored" or swept under the carpet, but in reality, there is just much more to the story than gets shared beyond a press release. A press release is sadly about all that many "news" stories are built around.

Assuming there is "more" to the story, there would or will be more to come out. Conspiracies are very hard to keep quiet, and there is almost always some or many folks willing to discuss what they witnessed or took part in.

Sadly, in the internet era, there is usually an "immediate reaction" which often does not end up matching the eventual understanding.  I do hope, if there was some mistake or active rule/law breaking, that corrections and barriers are put in place to prevent them from occurring again.

[Cap_D]

23 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

If the Captain was not aware of a restricted zone with an offshore limitation, distance off the coast is far and away less important than water depth.  And, what conspiracy do you see that limited the investigation?

The investigation by the authorities seemed to be just interviews or attempts to interview people.  No data collection at all.  A billion dollar cruise ship that is as computerized as Edge would have data, as would any number of other possible sources, which would provide facts.  But, I'm not suggesting conspiracy. 

Edited May 31 by Cap_D

[markeb]

2 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

No data collection at all.

That was reported. If the case was closed with no action (apparently) any formal report would likely not be released and could even be coded as law enforcement sensitive. On principle I doubt Celebrity or any other cruise line would give access to their proprietary data without a warrant anyway.  And I’m not sure that what’s been reported would even get probable cause for a warrant. 
 

So maybe they have data, maybe they don’t. And we’ll probably never know. 
 

Conspiracies are fun, but someone always leaks information. No evidence of that here either. 

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

The investigation by the authorities seemed to be just interviews or attempts to interview people.  No data collection at all.  A billion dollar cruise ship that is as computerized as Edge would have data, as would any number of other possible sources, which would provide facts.  But, I'm not suggesting conspiracy. 

And, since the agency quoted in the article, "Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement" does have law enforcement authority, why would they not request a warrant to obtain data from the ship, if it felt it was needed?

 

And, as far as the interviews with witnesses goes, there was no data to collect, since apparently no one had a range finder to factually declare the ship's distance offshore, as opposed to "it sure felt too close".

 

And, were you or the reporter on the ship when the interviews were made, and was any data requested of the ship?  We don't know.  Was data refused?  We don't know.  Was data collected that was indeterminate as to whether the distance was violated?  We don't know.  But, since this type of violation is this agencies sole mandate, why would they phone in an investigation, when a successful conviction could lead to more budget?

 

Please name the "any number of other possible sources"?  Do you know what the AIS or GPS reliability was at that place, on that date?

 

As I've said before here, the GPS transponder is at one end of a 1000 foot long ship, and so the ship's GPS could have stated that the ship never entered within 3000 feet of shore, when in fact the bridge (and the GPS antenna) were outside 3000 feet, while the stern was within almost 2000 feet of shore.

Edited May 31 by chengkp75

[Mark_K]

29 minutes ago, Cap_D said:

The investigation by the authorities seemed to be just interviews or attempts to interview people.  No data collection at all.  A billion dollar cruise ship that is as computerized as Edge would have data, as would any number of other possible sources, which would provide facts.  But, I'm not suggesting conspiracy. 

The government’s a business, more or less. How much effort would you expect them to put into a violation that accrues a maximum $1,000 fine? 

[prmssk]

12 minutes ago, Mark_K said:

The government’s a business, more or less. How much effort would you expect them to put into a violation that accrues a maximum $1,000 fine? 

The government is not focused on money in the same way a private business is.  There are many factors that go into the decision of how much time and resources they put into an investigation.

[Mark_K]

Just now, prmssk said:

The government is not focused on money in the same way a private business is.  There are many factors that go into the decision of how much time and resources they put into an investigation.

Still they put more effort into Grand Theft Auto than they do driving in a restricted zone. 

[NMTraveller]

7 hours ago, PTC DAWG said:

Not wanting to admit defeat here I see..no evidence of wrong doing was found, done and done.  Have a good one, I’m done here. 

Oh my lying eyes.  Just the drone video,  multiple ship videos, etc...

 

You would make a good politician...🤣

Edited May 31 by NMTraveller

[NMTraveller]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Did the drone have range finding equipment on it, or on the video?  As others have mentioned before on this thread, perspective can give false impressions of size/distance.  So, I can't say the drone footage "clearly" showed the ship closer than 3000 ft.

1.  Range finding equipment is not required.  Just the latitude, longitude, and altitude over time of the drone.  You can compute the distance from the drone to the shore.  As long as the ship shows up between the drone and the shore and the drone is less than 3000 feet out you have proved the point.

2.  I am assuming that you still think that the ship was within the 3000 foot boundary as previously stated and we are just arguing the semantics of enforcement of the 3000 foot zone.

3.  I suppose that since Celebrity brings money in to the islands,  the officials are willing to look the other way if Celebrity agrees to behave.

4.  If Celebrity was really outside of the 3000 foot zone they could have supplied their TSPI logs to prove the point and get rid of most doubt.  The location of the GPS antenna on the ship would be required.

5.  I suppose that there are very few locals who would want to give up a week's pay to spend a week in court proceedings getting grilled by a #$% lawyer,  even if they did have the proof.

6.  There are multiple videos ...  Not just one...

Edited May 31 by NMTraveller

[Texed]

On 5/30/2024 at 1:39 PM, pete_coach said:

DLNR officials say they “failed to find evidence” that the celebrity cruise line ship actually violated a state rule requiring it remain at least 3,000 feet from shore."

 

[NMTraveller]

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Did the drone have range finding equipment on it, or on the video?  As others have mentioned before on this thread, perspective can give false impressions of size/distance.  So, I can't say the drone footage "clearly" showed the ship closer than 3000 ft.

7.  Take the Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude from the picture metdadata.  For pictures that show the ship and the shore.  Calculate the distance from the picture to the shore.  If within 3000 feet and the picture shows the ship then you have your proof.

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

7.  Take the Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude from the picture metdadata.  For pictures that show the ship and the shore.  Calculate the distance from the picture to the shore.  If within 3000 feet and the picture shows the ship then you have your proof.

So, did the drone show it was within 3000 feet of shore?

[NMTraveller]

On 5/6/2024 at 1:26 PM, chengkp75 said:

I don't think anyone disputes that the ship should not have been where it was, it would be interesting to see if the Sailing Directions and the Port Entry Guide for Kauaii have the information regarding the exclusion zone.  

Still feel this way?  I will answer your question after you answer this one,

Are we talking about Hawaii's ability to enforce their 3000 foot zone?

 

Even you do not think that it was outside of the zone.  So why should I spend a weekend proving it was?

 

Edited June 1 by NMTraveller

[NMTraveller]

13 hours ago, pete_coach said:

Your statement was debunked by the report. "

It's all over and done with.

"The state will not pursue criminal charges against a cruise ship after it was reportedly “too close” to Kauai’s Na Pali Coast earlier this month.

DLNR officials say they “failed to find evidence” that the celebrity cruise line ship actually violated a state rule requiring it remain at least 3,000 feet from shore.""

 

You seem like the type of person that asks questions after the meeting is adjourned LOL

After looking at the report.  They punted and #FAILED.

 

The social media posts provided metadata that provided the position of the ship from multiple posters  and the position of the drones and the position of other ships that provided pictures.

 

The data provided on social media should have exonerated Celebrity or provided guilt.  I am OK with either one.  Just provide real science and engineering. It is not my ship and I do not live in Hawaii.  

 

The state #Failed.

 

Just looking at the god's eye view or overhead picture if looks like they were 1000 feet from shore.  Say it was 1800 ft.  Maybe.  Over 2000 feet BS.

 

Yet again IFF Celebrity was in the right they would have provided their navigational TSPI for proof.

Edited June 1 by NMTraveller

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

Still feel this way?  I will answer your question after you answer this one,

I feel that my "impression" is that the ship was too close, but I have no data to back this up.  The state apparently did not find any data to back this up, either.

 

3 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

Are we talking about Hawaii's ability to enforce their 3000 foot zone?

Not sure what you are asking here?  Hawaii has the ability to enforce the zone, by law, but are you saying they didn't want to enforce it?

 

3 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

Even you do not think that it was outside of the zone.  So why should I spend a weekend proving it was?

Well, if you are so outraged over the investigation, I would think that means you have data to prove your point, and would be able to share it easily.  I will always go with facts over conjecture.

[soccermommy]

I love a conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but I do not think Celebrity or the parent RCI has enough clout to disrupt an embarrassing incident without someone sniffing it out with proof. All this for a small fine and bad publicity. 
We all know that in legal matters it’s not what you “know”, it’s what you can prove. Apparently, the state doesn’t think there is enough evidence to go forward because they cannot prove the allegations. Drones, visual sightings and internet postings may or may not be proof enough to satisfy the state, who said nothing about what they might think happened,  because that doesn’t matter.  

So, did Celebrity violate the shore limit? I don’t know, but I have a guess…  for all that’s worth.  I do think that going forward, Celebrity will make very sure it doesn’t happen again. 

[pete_coach]

6 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

After looking at the report.  They punted and #FAILED.

 

The social media posts provided metadata that provided the position of the ship from multiple posters  and the position of the drones and the position of other ships that provided pictures.

 

The data provided on social media should have exonerated Celebrity or provided guilt.  I am OK with either one.  Just provide real science and engineering. It is not my ship and I do not live in Hawaii.  

 

The state #Failed.

 

Just looking at the god's eye view or overhead picture if looks like they were 1000 feet from shore.  Say it was 1800 ft.  Maybe.  Over 2000 feet BS.

 

Yet again IFF Celebrity was in the right they would have provided their navigational TSPI for proof.

Yup, the perfect correct source of all news.....social media. LOL

Therein lies the problem with our society today...hearsay is the truth, not official investigations.

[jwlane]

15 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

 

6.  There are multiple videos ...  Not just one...

And there are those that think a reflection is a sand bar.  👓

[NMTraveller]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I feel that my "impression" is that the ship was too close, but I have no data to back this up.  The state apparently did not find any data to back this up, either.

 

When I take a picture on my smartphone it is tagged with the latitude, longitude, and altitude of the picture as metadata.  If I take a picture of the White House,  I can later go back and query the picture,  and because it has the position embedded within the picture my smart phone will tell me that it is the White House when queried.  Smart phones have provided this capability for some time now.  So they have pictures and positions taken from the cruise ship,  from the drone,  and from other boats in the area.

 

The data/answer is out there.  Whether Hawaii decides to use it is on them.  Whether they care is on them.  I am not a Hawaii taxpayer.  

Edited June 1 by NMTraveller

[NutsAboutGolf]

3 hours ago, pete_coach said:

Yup, the perfect correct source of all news.....social media. LOL

Therein lies the problem with our society today...hearsay is the truth, not official investigations.

 

Social Media is one of the best sources of video evidence and often it's obtained far quicker (sometimes live-streamed) than the major news outlets.  However, you are correct that someone posted "I heard from my friend's sister..." it should be taken with a huge grain of salt

[NutsAboutGolf]

Another way to ask this question is, what evidence is needed for a ship to SUCCESSFULLY VIOLATE this restricted space rule?  Hawaii has radar and you'd imagine access to the ship's navigational data, this doesn't seem to count as evidence.  Does Hawaii need to send a person with range-finding equipment and why didn't this seem to happen when the Edge was present?

[pete_coach]

16 minutes ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

Social Media is one of the best sources of video evidence and often it's obtained far quicker (sometimes live-streamed) than the major news outlets.  However, you are correct that someone posted "I heard from my friend's sister..." it should be taken with a huge grain of salt

OMG.... edited and/or clipped to make the point of the user.

We are in such a mess because of social media misinformation and disinformation and people believe it to be the truth LOL