El Faro article, 1 year on

A timely reminder 1 year on, as Hurricane Matthew barrels north towards the same waters that Joaquin impacted, to play it safe and plan conservatively. Stay in port. Take the long way round. Heave-to. Do not pit man-made machinery against a hurricane.

https://newengland.com/yankee-magazine/living/profiles/el-faro/

[QUOTE=Mat;191088]A timely reminder 1 year on, as Hurricane Matthew barrels north towards the same waters that Joaquin impacted, to play it safe and plan conservatively. Stay in port. Take the long way round. Heave-to. Do not pit man-made machinery against a hurricane.

https://newengland.com/yankee-magazine/living/profiles/el-faro/[/QUOTE]
This from Splash 24/7 today: http://splash247.com/tote-ignores-warnings-hurricane-mathew-one-year-el-faro-sinking/

I can understand not wanting to have large ships in port due to potential damage from storm surge or parting lines but it sure sounds like business as usual.

[QUOTE=salt’n steel;191107]I can understand not wanting to have large ships in port due to potential damage from storm surge or parting lines but it sure sounds like business as usual.[/QUOTE]

The statement TOTE issued looks to me to have been written by a lawyer. The question was dodged, not answered.

Basically they seem to be saying that the policy of having the captains doing tropical cyclone avoidance without any guidance that was in effect before the [I]El Faro[/I] disaster was correct and is still in effect. Seems like the company is being run by weasel-assed lawyers and not by operations.

Having said that the headline and article are misleading. The question is similar to asking “why didn’t the El Faro stay in Jacksonville” when the better question would have been why didn’t the El Faro use the Old Bahamas Channel.

I read this as saying the ships will take avoidance action if required but no plans to shut down the whole operation.