next »

[Splinter]

Unbelievable in this day and age, with navigation systems being so advanced.
But to hit a reef in this fashion is simply unforgiveable. Some, of course are making comparisons to Titanic, even the passengers who survived.
Therein may lie the problem as I'm sure Vasco would agree, in that (as others have noted), nothing beats the human eyeball.
Maybe that was lacking. We don't know.
I hope to God they find the 70 or so souls who are still missing.

[digidix]

I was saying that on another forum. Its so unbelievable. Radar these days even know the depth of most coasts that I couldn't believe it that ran aground

[Wooster]

Did you see the size of the rock that's stuck in it's hull? 

[Splinter]

As many of you may know, I'm a sailor.
Even with GPS you can't take things for granted.
Fog, mist....call it what you like. It all requires eyeballs.
I remember very vividly navigating into La Coruña, at night and feeling very uncomfortable as I had lost accurate GPS fixes.
My friend and my right hand man said 'Fuck the gps, use your eyes'
He was right.

[Wooster]

Ahh, you know what some of these Captains are like.

He was probably pissed up and left a junior on the bridge on his todd.

[Splinter]

I remember returning from Buenos Aires in 1976 on the good ship MV Brasilia Star.
The Captain was permanenltley pissed and nearly fell overboard in the Biscay and had to be saved by the leccy.
Now, that was a voyage to be remembered.

[digidix]

Did you see the size of the rock that's stuck in it's hull? 

Totally shocking

[keasy]

They build all these ships that are 'unsinkable' so when is someone goiong to build an aircraft with the claim to be 'unlandable' ?   

[Wooster]

The Captain has just given a pretty decent account of himself.

He said that the rock was charted at 150m from the shore and the ship was 300m from the shore when it hit it (and that he was one of the last to get off, despite reports to the contrary).
Tbh it could have been a hell of a lot worse and at least he managed to give people the chance to swim to shore. 

[Wooster]

And now the company are blaming the Captain.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking that companies are usually quick to say that kind of thing when they've got something to hide.  
(How many plane crashes have been blamed on the crew, but it turns out (once an investigation has been conducted) to have been a fault with the plane itself?)  

[Patch]

An obstruction according to charts is 150m from the shore. The captain assures us he was a least 300m from the shore.
Looking at the photos puts him well within the 300m of the shore. Confirmed by airial photos.

I think the captain has his facts wrong. But it will all come out in the enquiry.

[Wooster]

Where the ship ended up isn't where the accident happened.  
The Captain deliberately took to the ship as close to shore as possible in order to give the passengers the best chance of survival.

It'll all come out in the wash, as you say.

[corroded]

And now the company are blaming the Captain.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking that companies are usually quick to say that kind of thing when they've got something to hide.  
(How many plane crashes have been blamed on the crew, but it turns out (once an investigation has been conducted) to have been a fault with the plane itself?)  

Though in the case of the Air France Flight 447, it really was the fault of crew

[Wooster]

And Aeroflot 953 when the pilot let his son have a go.



...turns out he wasn't very good at flying a plane.  

[Splinter]

In my opinion, the Captain is clearly at fault.
'The rock was not where it should have been', doesn't cut it, excuse the pun.
He says he was 300m from where he thought the rock should have been. 300m is a hair's breadth with vessels of that size, even in calm weather. The stopping time and turning circles alone are enormous.