Tourists jump for their lives after boat explodes in Andaman sea

[F4UCorsair]

12 hours ago, catinthehat said:

You have got to be joking!!!  And no mention of compensation for the tourists. Hope they ALL share their stories far and wide. Sooner or later TAT will be able to count the anticipated tourist arrivals on both hands and feet.

I'll put a few beers on the Incident having zero effect on tourist numbers.

But we would never know, because according to those who know all (negative) about Thailand, the naysayers, TAT 'bolsters' the figures anyway.

[Ooladolla]

I complained on a long tail boat about a farang lighting up a cigarette in the boat ( there's a fuel container made of plastic and hose to the motor ) and the captain's reply was " this Thailand , happy happy " ??‍♂️

[SEEDGER]

Really they were filling oxygen tanks! Hm I think Not. Diving on pure O2 limits a diver to no more than 3 meters depth and a very short time under water. Pure Oxygen breathed underwater will kill you. Not to mention you have  to have specialized tanks and training to breath 02.

[JerseytoBKK]

13 hours ago, HarrySeaman said:

Dive tanks are filled with filtered, dehumidified, compressed air, unless it is mixed gases for technical diving.

 

Rare is the non-live aboard dive boat that has a compressor to fill tanks.  Tanks are filled on land because the gear needed just to fill tanks for compressed air diving is simply too big and complex for any small boat - and yes, a boat for 18 divers is still a small boat.

 

Mixed gas tank filling is simply too complex for anything less than land or a large ship so forget that. 

 

Dive gasses had nothing to do with the fire and tank filling on the boat is a fantasy.  It was as Geoff Snell said, some idiot that was addicted to tobacco couldn't do without a cigarette for more than 5 minutes and tossed the still lit butt carelessly into some flammable material that wouldn't have been there in any well run boat.

 

Split the blame between the dive boat and the addict with the cigarette.

It is a live abroad. And the dive shop offers nitrox certification. Pic of boat here: http://www.forradiving.com/marine-safari.html

 

7 years ago I was on a different live aboard to the Surin Islands and Richelieu Rock. I used  Nitrox and the tanks were filled between dives.

 

[AlQaholic]

Water Police?????

[metisdead]

Nonsense posts have been removed.

[KenKadz]

No one is responsible because it can not be determined that the passengers paid the boat captain directly.

What color are the license plates?

What? Oh ya, its not a passenger van!

[Shawn0000]

20 hours ago, amykat said:

I am just speaking in terms of general law not Thai law specifically. Generally these basic things hold true.

 

As a boat captain, you are an employee of the boat owner. Or of somebody.  You are thinking of responsibility of other things, re the captain of a boat. 

 

Criminal negligence is usually an offense that results in a death, such as in a motor vehicle, like drunk driving.

 

Or if I do something very stupid that I can be sure would result in death. For example, I tell you to go stand there and put a cherry on your head and that I will attempt to shoot it off with a gun. Then I do it and kill you.

 

What you stated above could be also, but it depends on the circumstances and the duty.

 

I'm not sure that some low level Thai employees had this duty, as we know even a boat captain is a low level, non trained person here.  So this is complicated.  As I said, I think it is just a way for the company to try to avoid liability in some way. There were no deaths also so why would they arrest them?  But I could be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

A ship captain would be responsible but I am not too sure about a boat captain, but if they are licensed then I think they too would be responsible under law for all aspects of the safety of the boat.  In the case of a ship, even if the owner of the boat does not provide enough for maintenance, it would be still the captains responsibility should he still go to sea in an unseaworthy vessel.  Just as they are responsible if they neglect procedure and crash a ship, they would also be responsible for neglecting a safety issue on board that burns it down.  Why would the owner be responsible for a negligent thing a captain overseas, is that not why they employ captains and not just seamen?

 

The arrest would be over losing the boat not people.

 

[zorro1]

Anyone that has seen a boat rusted from head to toe when boarding is under no illusions that it could be their last trip.
It's not rocket science. Don't board it
. Easy

[amykat]

44 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

A ship captain would be responsible but I am not too sure about a boat captain, but if they are licensed then I think they too would be responsible under law for all aspects of the safety of the boat.  In the case of a ship, even if the owner of the boat does not provide enough for maintenance, it would be still the captains responsibility should he still go to sea in an unseaworthy vessel.  Just as they are responsible if they neglect procedure and crash a ship, they would also be responsible for neglecting a safety issue on board that burns it down.  Why would the owner be responsible for a negligent thing a captain overseas, is that not why they employ captains and not just seamen?

 

The arrest would be over losing the boat not people.

 

Ship/boat/train/building/ it doesn't matter ....I believe you are conflating issues. Generally we have an interest in the people who have the money in them being responsible (liable) to pay money for damages when they are negligent in some way.  So what is negligent has to be defined and there are ways to do that.  The owners of the 'thing" have the money ..not the employee.  The owners of the "thing" decide how and what to spend to maintain the "thing" and what to pay the employees and how to train them. They will get the profit if they save all their money by not maintaining the "thing" or spending any money on safety so they should get the penalty for NOT doing that as well.  They need motivation.

 

In this case, maybe nothing was wrong with the boat, and maybe nothing much was wrong with their staff according to Thai standards and this was just typical stupidity and an accident, and they have insurance and that is what it is for.  There was no criminal negligence and their insurance should pay and that is the end of the story.

 

Each time there is an accident in the world, it does not mean that someone was negligent. 

 

 

 

[Shawn0000]

9 minutes ago, amykat said:

Ship/boat/train/building/ it doesn't matter ....I believe you are conflating issues. Generally we have an interest in the people who have the money in them being responsible (liable) to pay money for damages when they are negligent in some way.  So what is negligent has to be defined and there are ways to do that.  The owners of the 'thing" have the money ..not the employee.  The owners of the "thing" decide how and what to spend to maintain the "thing" and what to pay the employees and how to train them. They will get the profit if they save all their money by not maintaining the "thing" or spending any money on safety so they should get the penalty for NOT doing that as well.  They need motivation.

 

In this case, maybe nothing was wrong with the boat, and maybe nothing much was wrong with their staff according to Thai standards and this was just typical stupidity and an accident, and they have insurance and that is what it is for.  There was no criminal negligence and their insurance should pay and that is the end of the story.

 

Each time there is an accident in the world, it does not mean that someone was negligent. 

 

 

 

A captain of a ship is responsible by law under the International Maritime Organizations ISPS code for all aspects of safety of the vessel, it is also their responsibility to maintain the ships certification, even if the owner of the ship does not provide enough for maintenance it is their duty not to go to sea if they believe their ship is not seaworthy.  I am fairly sure it is the same for a skipper, they are responsible for the safety of the vessel, not the owner.  You are also wrong about owners deciding how to train their staff, for ships, boats and trains, there are standards set nationally and internationally, an owner of one of these things cannot just choose how to train their staff, at least not the training of those ultimately in control of the things.

 

Maybe nothing was wrong with the boat but maybe the staff have already confessed to how the fire started and that was against company protocol and thus negligent and as the skipper is qualified and failed to uphold the boats safety protocol resulting in the loss of the vessel it is criminal negligence, that is my thinking.  It could well be that smoking is banned on the boat due to them filling nitrox on board, and if the skipper allowed the crew to smoke that could be enough for a prosecution.

[amykat]

22 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

A captain of a ship is responsible by law under the International Maritime Organizations ISPS code for all aspects of safety of the vessel, it is also their responsibility to maintain the ships certification, even if the owner of the ship does not provide enough for maintenance it is their duty not to go to sea if they believe their ship is not seaworthy.  I am fairly sure it is the same for a skipper, they are responsible for the safety of the vessel, not the owner.  You are also wrong about owners deciding how to train their staff, for ships, boats and trains, there are standards set nationally and internationally, an owner of one of these things cannot just choose how to train their staff, at least not the training of those ultimately in control of the things.

 

Maybe nothing was wrong with the boat but maybe the staff have already confessed to how the fire started and that was against company protocol and thus negligent and as the skipper is qualified and failed to uphold the boats safety protocol resulting in the loss of the vessel it is criminal negligence, that is my thinking.  It could well be that smoking is banned on the boat due to them filling nitrox on board, and if the skipper allowed the crew to smoke that could be enough for a prosecution.

Yes, well as I said, there are ways to decide what is negligent, and I understand all of these regulations and standards about Maritime law exist. I just don't know what they all are and the facts in this case.  I don't know that his boat was in International waters?  We know almost nothing about the accident.  There are safety regulations for every industry in the world and I did not mention those ..for cars, for food, for medication, for workers in an office, etc ...that doesn't mean I am unaware of them. 

 

I gave you MY opinion and a guess.  That this was a move to AVOID responsibility in some way, by the owner, the insurance company.  Things are never clear in Thailand.  The boat captains are not well trained or highly skilled employees and he is probably some totally poor person overall, so I don't see why they would bother with him otherwise.  This was a short news article and I gave you some general information.  Usually criminal negligence is reserved for cases of death but not for property damage. That seems like it should and would stay civil.  I don't know what Thai law says about this.  Maybe you are correct and it makes no difference to the owner or the insurance company and the government thinks it has an interest to punish somebody for this ??   I mean, who did it?  If the boat captain was doing his job and someone else started a fire ..who did it? How much control does he have?

 

This doesn't sound typical for Thailand. Have you been here long?

 

Whatever the requirements of a captain/skipper ..under the law re their job ..I am not debating that they have responsibilities. I don't think we are even talking about this though. We are just talking about local Thai laws are we not? This wasn't a cruise ship in International waters. However if it was and it sank, and I wanted to get compensation for my Father who was on the ship ... I would seek that from the corporation who owned the ship. I would not be seeking it from the captain ..no matter what he had done or failed to do.

 

 

[Rhys]

yikes...glad all are safe

 

[lvr181]

On 1/24/2017 at 7:46 PM, weegee said:

Under International Maritime Organization rules , The company who the vessel is owned by, and registered too, is RESPONSIBLE for any Compliances, with regard to Safety, Certified Crew, and Insurances. 

You CANNOT sue the crew....They are dealt with under Maritime Law, which is a different matter altogether.

 

 

Do you believe that Thailand recognizes International Maritime Organization Rules? I don't think Maritime Law translates to Thai language in government circles. 

 

But maybe you jest?