Jump to content

Tourists jump for their lives after boat explodes in Andaman sea


webfact

Recommended Posts

Thailand where you get more bang for your buck,on or off shore. They will laugh about this in years to come, remember when we had to jump in the sea and all our money got lost, the camera's and iphones were ruined and we had to try and get new passports, looking back it was so funny, next year we are staying in Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply
59 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

But this is Thailand.:sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deli said:

The story about that the tamp filling is bull, as you don't handle with pure oxygen, unless you blend manually EANx. And I doubt that they did this on a boat like that.

Gimme another story more credible... but who cares in the end ?

 

 


http://miningquiz.com/pdf/Hazardous_Materials/DON'T_MIX_OXYGEN_AND_OIL.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a boat once and ran it out of Ranong and later Chalong. When I used to see the punters drinking at the back of the boat it was nice to see them having a good time. Then naturally one would have to light up a cigarette and possibly my boat. I guess what can you say. It's just the way of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

They do that now and multiply it by 500k. TAT is so successful that they are extending the visa free program despite the millions of bookings that they have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most scuba divers use tanks filled with simple air, filtered & dehumidified.

This is the safe & standard medium within normal recreational diving limits.
Breathing other gases or exceeding depth/time limits requires the use of specialised gas mixtures, primarily Nitrox,Trimix & Oxygen.

However "oxygen" even at a few metres over a prolonged period is toxic & fatal!!
Unless they were specialised divers with a lot of experience then I would guess the fire was triggered by a fuel or gas leak of some description!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Deli said:

The story about that the tamp filling is bull, as you don't handle with pure oxygen, unless you blend manually EANx. And I doubt that they did this on a boat like that.

Gimme another story more credible... but who cares in the end ?

 

 

Even when you hold a flame at an opened oxygen bottle, nothing happens at all. Done that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The crew burned their boat down through negligence, why would the owner not be able to press charges?  And what compensation for the "victims" who are actually all OK.

 

Because it is not CRIMINAL to be NEGLIGENT. It is a tort  ..unless of course we are talking about criminal negligence but we are not.

 

This would handled in civil law. The owner of the boat is responsible for the negligence of his employees. It isn't clear to me if that tour company is the owner of the boat? If they are, they may be trying to avoid responsibility by saying it was a criminal act rather than a negligent act?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, amykat said:

 

Because it is not CRIMINAL to be NEGLIGENT. It is a tort  ..unless of course we are talking about criminal negligence but we are not.

 

This would handled in civil law. The owner of the boat is responsible for the negligence of his employees. It isn't clear to me if that tour company is the owner of the boat? If they are, they may be trying to avoid responsibility by saying it was a criminal act rather than a negligent act?

 

I thought captains of boats had full responsibility of the vessel not the owner, I could be wrong though.

 

And I am not sure of the Thai law on this, are you?

 

Here is a definition of criminal negligence:

 

Criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance', where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I thought captains of boats had full responsibility of the vessel not the owner, I could be wrong though.

 

And I am not sure of the Thai law on this, are you?

 

Here is a definition of criminal negligence:

 

Criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance', where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...