"Whatever was taking place on the bridge at the time of the sinking was equivalent to an abandonment of the responsibilities of navigation"
It's just one of those statements that puts many comments from watchkeepers I've heard into a more colloquial context. This is, of course, from the former Master (Captain?) of the Queen Of The North - the ferry which "sank" "near" Gil Island. Of course, she hit Gil Island at full steam.
Many have questioned exactly what happened that night. Of course, the REAL question is - "Does it matter?". I think the former Captains comments echo my feelings quite well. Whatever the situation was, from engineering problem to alleged sexual activity it simply DOES NOT MATTER. It wasn't only an abandonment of responsibility... it was a flagrant disregard for the safety of the people on that vessel.
The media seems willing to cover this, albeit filling the vast world with talk of "lack of training", as best they can given the dearth of information coming out. I will say this - look out the window. I have sailed past, around and near Gil Island many times... it's not, contrary to popular belief, invisible.
If the rumours hold true that the watchkeeper at the time simply turned off the electronic navigation display rather than dim the monitor (lack of training be damned, it's a computer monitor) then sure, thats reckless. The fact that after so doing he still ran the ship into a LARGE, very visible island (nav aids anyone?) is completely - IRRESPONSIBLE.
Original CBC Article
Many have questioned exactly what happened that night. Of course, the REAL question is - "Does it matter?". I think the former Captains comments echo my feelings quite well. Whatever the situation was, from engineering problem to alleged sexual activity it simply DOES NOT MATTER. It wasn't only an abandonment of responsibility... it was a flagrant disregard for the safety of the people on that vessel.
The media seems willing to cover this, albeit filling the vast world with talk of "lack of training", as best they can given the dearth of information coming out. I will say this - look out the window. I have sailed past, around and near Gil Island many times... it's not, contrary to popular belief, invisible.
If the rumours hold true that the watchkeeper at the time simply turned off the electronic navigation display rather than dim the monitor (lack of training be damned, it's a computer monitor) then sure, thats reckless. The fact that after so doing he still ran the ship into a LARGE, very visible island (nav aids anyone?) is completely - IRRESPONSIBLE.
Original CBC Article
posted by Lucas at 22:42
1 Comments:
How one hits an island the better size of victoria, with the dangers extending a mear couple hundred of yards in a channel that is 1.5 nautical miles wide is beyond belief. Especially funny is the point that they had just exitied grenville channel which at its widest is a mear couple of hundred yards wide, and they had little problem there (perhaps because the chaperon aka captain was on the bridge).
To me, as a person who does this exact job for the past 5 years, it escapes me what excuse short of dying they had. If it was sexual activities, well we all know that should end up in a fairly lengthy jail sentence as the rectless abandonment of the responsibilities of navigation. If it was lack of training well I have two things to say 1. The radar anyone ??? its not like they hit a 7 foot rubber boat, we are talkiing about a island the size of a city. 2) professional pride would suggest that you would read the manual of new equipment which is so vital to the safe operation of the vessel.
I recently took a ride on a BC ferry and asked the watch officer what his thoughts were on the accident. he laughed and said there is absolutely no plausable excuse for such an accident in that area other than mechanical failure, which apparently did not occur.
Good BLOG Lucas, and I love the others
Brian
Post a Comment
<< Home