Odyssey of the Seas. 70 refugees.

[Toddcan]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

To answer questions about the boat, while the local coast guards would be notified, since the boat is abandoned (no one left onboard), under international salvage laws, the first person to step onboard now owns it.

 Thanks for this  - very interesting. 

 

Curious though - someone on board would be the capt and or crew - I suppose having been "caught" , they would rather abandon the ship than claim responsibility?  Someone owns it, but perhaps it was stolen.  Interesting situation - this looks like a nice boat. 

[Cruise5life]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

To answer questions about the boat, while the local coast guards would be notified, since the boat is abandoned (no one left onboard), under international salvage laws, the first person to step onboard now owns it.

Wow.  It was a very nice sailboat.  We guess atleast a 250k boat.   Looked in great shape.  

[Another_Critic]

Why did they need rescued?  Engine trouble?  No fuel? 

[teddie]

18 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

Why did they need rescued?  Engine trouble?  No fuel? 

Oh, come on.  Refugees clearly, as also stated by the OP.  Why do you think 70+ people cram into a small vessel risking life and limb?

 

Teddie

Edited August 7 by teddie

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, teddie said:

Oh, come on.  Refugees clearly, as also stated by the OP.  Why do you think 70+ people cram into a small vessel risking life and limb?

 

Teddie

But the question is still valid.  Even if they are refugees, why did they need to be taken off the boat?  Were their lives in danger?  Unless their lives are in danger, the ship has no responsibility to "rescue" them, and I question whether a national agency would direct the ship to take them onboard.  Lots of refugees make a complete voyage and make landfall in their destination.

[ticketsunlimited]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

But the question is still valid.  Even if they are refugees, why did they need to be taken off the boat?  Were their lives in danger?  Unless their lives are in danger, the ship has no responsibility to "rescue" them, and I question whether a national agency would direct the ship to take them onboard.  Lots of refugees make a complete voyage and make landfall in their destination.

Agree.  Unfortunately they will probably be sent right back to where they started without a boat and the money they paid for transport.

[Another_Critic]

18 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

But the question is still valid.  Even if they are refugees, why did they need to be taken off the boat?  Were their lives in danger?  Unless their lives are in danger, the ship has no responsibility to "rescue" them, and I question whether a national agency would direct the ship to take them onboard.  Lots of refugees make a complete voyage and make landfall in their destination.

Thank you.  I was wondering why there would be a rescue of a sea worthy vessel, if in fact it was seaworthy.  Did they put out a distress call or signal? 

[alfaeric]

43 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

But the question is still valid.  Even if they are refugees, why did they need to be taken off the boat?  Were their lives in danger?  Unless their lives are in danger, the ship has no responsibility to "rescue" them, and I question whether a national agency would direct the ship to take them onboard.  Lots of refugees make a complete voyage and make landfall in their destination.

Officials would not tell a passenger ship to intercept just because they were refugees, would they?  Seems that ships and companies could refuse that order. So it would seem that there would have had to have been a distress call. 
 

 

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

Officials would not tell a passenger ship to intercept just because they were refugees, would they?  Seems that ships and companies could refuse that order. So it would seem that there would have had to have been a distress call. 
 

 

We used to be directed to the site of reported refugees from Cuba in the waters south of Florida by the USCG many times, but unless the Captain determined that their lives were in danger, we were directed to merely stay on station and await the arrival of a cutter.  So, the ship could have been directed to the boat to determine what condition they were in, but unless the refugees requested assistance for dangerous situation, the ship is not required to give assistance.  Remember, that while everyone knows that "since the Titanic, a ship must provide assistance to those at risk at sea", they don't know that the law says that the Captain of the ship is not required to offer assistance if doing so risks the ship, crew, cargo, passengers, or the environment in the Captain's SOLE opinion.

[alfaeric]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

We used to be directed to the site of reported refugees from Cuba in the waters south of Florida by the USCG many times, but unless the Captain determined that their lives were in danger, we were directed to merely stay on station and await the arrival of a cutter.  So, the ship could have been directed to the boat to determine what condition they were in, but unless the refugees requested assistance for dangerous situation, the ship is not required to give assistance.  Remember, that while everyone knows that "since the Titanic, a ship must provide assistance to those at risk at sea", they don't know that the law says that the Captain of the ship is not required to offer assistance if doing so risks the ship, crew, cargo, passengers, or the environment in the Captain's SOLE opinion.

So either there was a distress call or the Ships Master concluded that they required assistance and the impact on the passengers and crew was worth it. Right?

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

So either there was a distress call or the Ships Master concluded that they required assistance and the impact on the passengers and crew was worth it. Right?

Yes. Actually, both would have to have happened.  Just because someone issues a distress call, does not mean a ship's Captain has to render assistance.  A lot would depend on how close other assets (naval vessels, coast guard) were to the scene.

Edited August 7 by chengkp75

[dragontrainer]

It doesn't give significant details, but the story I saw that discussed this used the term "...in a sailboat in distress".

 

They also note the sailboat was initially spotted by a cargo ship and the (here unnamed) cruise ship was part of a coordinated effort by Greece.  According to this story, it was not the case that Odyssey happened upon them and took action but were routed to the location, and I assume Odyssey's captain then made a determination to carry out the rescue.

 

Cruise ship rescues 77 migrants in sailing boat found southwest of Greece - ABC News (go.com)

[Cruise5life]

11 hours ago, Another_Critic said:

Why did they need rescued?  Engine trouble?  No fuel? 

They didn’t know how to sail the sail boat. And we’re in a major shipping channel.     The coyotes that were on the boat were no longer on.  They had taken off in the night on a smaller dinghy.   Is what Ive heard.  
leaving them in danger of being hit.     

[Cruise5life]

21 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes. Actually, both would have to have happened.  Just because someone issues a distress call, does not mean a ship's Captain has to render assistance.  A lot would depend on how close other assets (naval vessels, coast guard) were to the scene.

Interesting information.    👍

[Ocean Boy]

On 8/6/2024 at 8:53 AM, SB9 said:

 Crew here on Odyssey is amazing. 

I think Odessey is a great ship.

[Another_Critic]

3 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

I think Odessey is a great ship.

 

Are you going to sail her from Cape Liberty after I bring her over from Civitavecchia?

[pcur]

On 8/7/2024 at 9:07 AM, chengkp75 said:

But the question is still valid.  Even if they are refugees, why did they need to be taken off the boat?  Were their lives in danger?  Unless their lives are in danger, the ship has no responsibility to "rescue" them, and I question whether a national agency would direct the ship to take them onboard.  Lots of refugees make a complete voyage and make landfall in their destination.

I think if we all take a good look at the photo, we can see the sailboat was very overcrowded. So sanitary conditions must have been pretty bad, and food/water supplies very iffy. I think they were in danger.  

 

RCCL has traditionally not based their decision on the fact that "lots of refugees" make a complete voyage. They see an overcrowded sailboat not moving, and they help. 

[The Scurvy Pirate]

On 8/7/2024 at 5:30 AM, chengkp75 said:

To answer questions about the boat, while the local coast guards would be notified, since the boat is abandoned (no one left onboard), under international salvage laws, the first person to step onboard now owns it.

Where be the cooridinates again?

Edited August 9 by The Scurvy Pirate

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, pcur said:

I think if we all take a good look at the photo, we can see the sailboat was very overcrowded. So sanitary conditions must have been pretty bad, and food/water supplies very iffy. I think they were in danger.

Were they in danger?  Maybe.  Were their lives in danger?  Probably not.  Overcrowding is subjective, as this doesn't look any more crowded than a lifeboat.  Sanitary conditions are not life threatening, there is always the "blue toilet" (over the side into the ocean).  How long have they been without food/water, if at all?  I don't recall how far the boat was from land, so I can't say whether they could have survived until landfall.

 

3 hours ago, pcur said:

RCCL has traditionally not based their decision on the fact that "lots of refugees" make a complete voyage. They see an overcrowded sailboat not moving, and they help. 

And you know how they base their decisions, how?  They will not necessarily stop and help just because they see a problem, as this can cause economic problems for them.  They may call the coast guard to report it, but they won't "rescue" people without being instructed by a government agency.

[pcur]

53 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Were they in danger?  Maybe.  Were their lives in danger?  Probably not.  Overcrowding is subjective, as this doesn't look any more crowded than a lifeboat.  Sanitary conditions are not life threatening, there is always the "blue toilet" (over the side into the ocean).  How long have they been without food/water, if at all?  I don't recall how far the boat was from land, so I can't say whether they could have survived until landfall.

 

And you know how they base their decisions, how?  They will not necessarily stop and help just because they see a problem, as this can cause economic problems for them.  They may call the coast guard to report it, but they won't "rescue" people without being instructed by a government agency.

I'm basing my posts on 51 years of sailing with RCCL, and seeing on and off ships how they handle various situations where people in areas where they sail need help. Whether it's a joint agreement with a government agency or not, RCCL is known for stepping up in my half century of doing business with them.

[Ocean Boy]

13 hours ago, Another_Critic said:

 

Are you going to sail her from Cape Liberty after I bring her over from Civitavecchia?

I need to see what itineraries she will be doing. Sailing out of NJ is not high on my bucket list.

[Cruise5life]

5 hours ago, pcur said:

I'm basing my posts on 51 years of sailing with RCCL, and seeing on and off ships how they handle various situations where people in areas where they sail need help. Whether it's a joint agreement with a government agency or not, RCCL is known for stepping up in my half century of doing business with them.

 

5 hours ago, pcur said:

I'm basing my posts on 51 years of sailing with RCCL, and seeing on and off ships how they handle various situations where people in areas where they sail need help. Whether it's a joint agreement with a government agency or not, RCCL is known for stepping up in my half century of doing business with them.

 

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Were they in danger?  Maybe.  Were their lives in danger?  Probably not.  Overcrowding is subjective, as this doesn't look any more crowded than a lifeboat.  Sanitary conditions are not life threatening, there is always the "blue toilet" (over the side into the ocean).  How long have they been without food/water, if at all?  I don't recall how far the boat was from land, so I can't say whether they could have survived until landfall.

 

And you know how they base their decisions, how?  They will not necessarily stop and help just because they see a problem, as this can cause economic problems for them.  They may call the coast guard to report it, but they won't "rescue" people without being instructed by a government agency.

 

the 77 people were in great shape.  Clothes looked good. Some had cell phones.  They had a video of the entire proses and they didn’t look bad at all. 
there were women. Kids and all the men looked well kept.   
the captain talked about the entire proses in the captains corner.  And they showed video.  

[Cruise5life]

Oh. And they were from 

Syria  Iran and Egypt. 

[SB9]

7 hours ago, Cruise5life said:

Oh. And they were from 

Syria  Iran and Egypt. 

Thanks for the correction on my earlier post. 

I am looking forward to doing this itinerary again in the future. Amazing cruise! 

[Ken at the beach]

11 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

I need to see what itineraries she will be doing. Sailing out of NJ is not high on my bucket list.

Good chance she will be moving from NJ in March 2026