in an attempt to obscure any evidence suggesting a collision with Etoile". Of Etoile des Ondes: "None of the crew wore any form of buoyancy aid. Emergency lifejackets were provided, stowed above the wheelhouse, but the crew received insufficient warning to reach them before being thrown into the water." The fishing vessel had two EPIRBs (it was not required to have any) but it had no Automatic Identification System (it was not required to have one). The report stated "The master, by assuming Etoile des Ondes was still afloat, and deciding to continue, was in disregard of his responsibilities. However, once he had reason to believe that Etoile des Ondes and her crew were not safe, his action in ignoring the mayday relay and continuing on passage was illegal, immoral and against all the traditions of the sea." Of the Norman Voyager: "Exemplary seamanship was demonstrated by the actions of the officers and crew of Norman Voyager in immediately reporting the flares to Jobourg MRCC and then proceeding, without question, to the assistance of the vessel in distress. The conduct of the rescue was safe, efficient and in the best traditions of the merchant navy." The MAIB, RNLI and other bodies took several actions by way of warning vessel owners, masters and skippers of the accident, the dangers, the importance of keeping good watch and abiding by international law. The Chief Inspector wrote to the operators of the seven vessels that failed to try to give help asking them to explain the actions of their vessels and how they will get compliance with regulations in future. The MAIB made one official recommendation to the International Chamber of Shipping and other bodies that they should promulgate a "safety flyer". Aftermath There was an unusual repercussion quite soon after the accident. In the introduction to 2010 MAIB Safety Digest the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, wrote: Meyer made it clear that this was in breach of international SOLAS Convention Regulation 33 - Distress Situations: Obligations and Procedures. At this time MAIB had not named the ship but Lloyd's List did give the name, drawing criticism from MAIB that the newspaper had made "sensationalist claims" and had "significantly harmed" its role in investigating maritime safety. Although at the time of the accident MV Alam Pintar was owned and managed by British companies and evidence of serious wrongdoing had been found, no prosecution was