El Faro NTSB Document Release 13 Dec, 2016

Professional Mariner Forum
41

I don’t know. I read the transcripts and have followed along as circumstances allow. Having spent thousands of days at sea, what I read was regular people going about their job. That is their legacy, and they acted just as decent men and women do.

It all seems, simply put, that circumstances got ahead of them. I saw a mention of cargo securing methods. Was it insufficient or rushed? Not sure …

As rshrew mentions, maybe the list was mistaken for wind induced heel. I just get the feeling that as the flooding and mechanical shutdowns progressed, each problem was one step ahead of any ability to counteract it, especially in a bad storm - albeit one with perhaps similar conditions often seen and weathered easily by the ship during her service life. The circumstances cascaded, perhaps faster than first recognized by those aboard, even as they became aware of the danger at hand. Once the list passed 15 degrees and was increasing, few minutes wasn’t much time to get off a big ship.

Not much news in any of that I suppose - and the result is clear. John, the holes in the Swiss cheese or the puzzle lined up for a lot of reasons. I could posit a dozen theories, as some of the biggest of blowhards have before, but anything I might add from here, would be at best, uninformed speculative bull. It seems some of the earliest and rankest speculation here in the Forum was sadly, just proven true in the transcript, so any criticism on my side, is well, tempered into a gentle silence.

I hope the truest of reasons are learned and publicized for the benefit of all mariners, and their families. The evidence is there to be examined, and it’s right that the NTSB, and then the USCG and then the Courts see every bit of it, and that they all ask the hardest of questions of those that deserve scrutiny.

For the families of the lost, you remain in our thoughts and prayers. Without judgements. Godspeed.

42

OMT, John is very good at getting information from insiders and feels strongly about protecting his sources.

I don’t know if he has inside info about these shipyards, but I’ve know him long enough to know he doesn’t normally post stuff like this shipyard stuff here unless its important because usually when he posts facts that sound a bit off it’s usually a hint pointing to something he can’t fully share.

Exempting those times he’s just spoutin bullshit :wink:

43

[QUOTE=Chief Seadog;193461]I have been through many shipyards and I consider it a fools errand to expect a repair yard such as Atlantic Marine, or any repair yard really, to be more aware of a ships condition than the ones who have done the pre-shipyard surveys, company port engineers assigned to the ship, and if they are worth their salt, the ship’s personnel. I watched a portion of John’s video but stopped when he talked about the Naval Architects at Atlantic Marine…During my shipyard time at Atlantic (now BAE) the only Naval Architects around were the ones my company hired for a specific project.[/QUOTE]

Part yes and part no Chief Seadog. I’ve seen some Petrobras port engineers who had no clue about the condition of their ships arriving for a Special Survey docking… And the Concordia guys that knew their ships far better than their own living rooms. By the way Tankship Tromedy is 100% spot on for that industry sector.

I do agree With the idea to dive into the supts files, because my company keeps a scanned copy of every scrap of repair planning and quote paper and inspection report as a matter of policy and cost tracking. Follow the money - it will show every repair ever made… If it ain’t in the supts office, head straight for the general ledger just like my workers comp auditors due every year.
For a guess alone, I’m thinking cargo securing was bigger factor, but sure would like to learn something about hold bilge alarms.

44

[QUOTE=+A465B;193479]
.

Not much news in any of that I suppose - and the result is clear. John, the holes in the Swiss cheese or the puzzle lined up for a lot of reasons. I could posit a dozen theories, as some of the biggest of blowhards have before, but anything I might add from here, would be at best, uninformed speculative bull.
I
For the families of the lost, you remain in our thoughts and prayers. Without judgements. Godspeed.[/QUOTE]

I like the sentiment… but don’t let it stop you from asking questions. The right questions are what’s needed most right now. Between all of us we have an abundance of expertise and access to information and solidly, [I][U]well thought out[/U][/I], pointed questions are what will keep us on track. Plus good questions are inherently non-judgemental.

45

[QUOTE=cmjeff;193481]OMT, John is very good at getting information from insiders and feels strongly about protecting his sources.

I don’t know if he has inside info about these shipyards, but I’ve know him long enough to know he doesn’t normally post stuff like this shipyard stuff here unless its important because usually when he posts facts that sound a bit off it’s usually a hint pointing to something he can’t fully share.

Exempting those times he’s just spoutin bullshit ;)[/QUOTE]

Now who’s spoutin BS :slight_smile:

46

A pro journalist would recognize the difference between reportage and editorializing. Stating that the yacht “crashes into” the ferry, is not reportage, it is editorializing.

The El Faro debate is orbiting around a great deal of editorializing by many people, each with a great deal of knowledge about a very small part of the subject and strong feelings about why it happened and how a repeat might be prevented.

For many readers and contributors here, this is an emotional issue more than a technical one. Which brings us back to:

We will NEVER KNOW why the captain made such a completely iratiobal descision. NEVER and all the trying to find out is a waste.

Humans are not now nor will be ever be completely rational. Expecting anyone to be rational is irrational itself. How can anyone, even the master himself, ever know what really lead to his multiple decisions to maintain course. The roots of this disaster are not like a carrot with one large and juicy core, they are more like one of those fairy ring mushroom things, there are thousands of little roots spreading far wider than any of us can see as a single entity.

There is no smoking gun in this matter. I applaud your demand to shine a light on the shipyards, the ACS system, and the internal politics that may have been among the most significant of all the failed devices intended to prevent the disaster. I don’t see much chance of that happening though, like the fairy ring, the system (the process?) is configured so that it survives the damage caused by bright light to any single one of its parts.

47

[QUOTE=Steamer;193487]A pro journalist would recognize the difference between reportage and editorializing. Stating that the yacht “crashes into” the ferry, is not reportage, it is editorializing. [/QUOTE]

Really, that’s the example you want to bring up… the one article that I got on air and appologized for?? Ok

It’s editorializing to state the official WSF statement and let readers know the source? Because that’s what our article stated: Wasthington State Ferries confirmed the incident on Twitter on Sunday, writing: “Private boat hit ferry…"

I admit (and appologized on air!) that the story did move from a simple statement of fact towards editorializing and, in the process, got a bit out of hand for reasons stated in my appology… but that happened after we stated the facts.

I don’t want to start a debate about our journalistic integrity here (but feel free to start a new thread)… but I will say we have pro journalists audit our work from time to time.

Now the word about wording… WSF used the word “hit” and we used the word “crash”… but only IN THE TITLE… I will not appologize for writing dramatic titles because truthful titles are impossible to write. You simply can’t do them without some bias in play because they are too short. And nobody clicks on long boring titles… and if you don’t click then you never learn the real facts.

48

[QUOTE=john;193492]Now the word about wording… WSF used the word “hit” and we used the word “crash”… but only IN THE TITLE… I will not appologize for writing dramatic titles because truthful titles are impossible to write. You simply can’t do them without some bias in play because they are too short. And nobody clicks on long boring titles… and if you don’t click then you never learn the real facts.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on John…you could not simply write “Pleasure vessel in collision with WSF ferry”? totally truthful but with no implications of fault (or editorializing)

besides, there is very, very little impartial news anymore. it is almost invariably presented by a provider which has an agenda to support one side or another so why not gCaptain? I believe you should be clearly on the side of a strong and vibrant US flagged merchant marine and maritime industry, the Jones Act and the rights of the American professional mariner because we are your constituency who read your news stories. we don’t want “fair and balanced” or at least I don’t! I want to know and to read in your articles you are on my side in this war.

49

[QUOTE=john;193492]

It’s editorializing to state the official WSF statement and let readers know the source? [/quote]

When you change the wording and provide no attribution it is no longer a quote, it is sensatonalist editorializing. When you write a headline that states, as c.cap stated, something like “WSF ferry collides with yacht” it would be reportage. If you wrote in the article that WSF claimed in a social media post that the yacht “hit” the ferry then explained what a few of us have been trying to point out, that the yacht had “the right of way” (sorry COLREGS) and the ferry failed to give way as required by law it would have been responsible reportage.

It still irks me because it is not responsible reportage and the sensationalist headline remains long after the facts have been beaten to death.

I will not appologize for writing dramatic titles because truthful titles are impossible to write. You simply can’t do them without some bias in play because they are too short.

Compelling, factual, and short headlines are not difficult to write. If you can’t write one without biased editorializing then that task should not be attempted by a maritime school grad, it should be handed off to a J school grad.

If you really want to editorialize, then label your articles as opinion pieces/editorials and let them stand on their own merits.

50

[QUOTE=c.captain;193494]Oh come on John…you could not simply write “Pleasure vessel in collision with WSF ferry”? totally truthful but with no implications of fault (or editorializing)

besides, there is very, very little impartial news anymore. it is almost invariably presented by a provider which has an agenda to support one side or another so why not gCaptain? I believe you should be clearly on the side of a strong and vibrant US flagged merchant marine and maritime industry, the Jones Act and the rights of the American professional mariner because we are your constituency who read your news stories. we don’t want “fair and balanced” or at least I don’t! I want to know and to read in your articles you are on my side in this war.[/QUOTE]

I have hard drives filled with data to prove that no one would read an artilce titled “Pleasure vessel in collision with WSF ferry”. Nor did I have, at time of publishing, any proof that it was a pleasure craft. Plus you can’t put acronyms in a title because no one who lives further than 100 miles from your house knows WTF “WSF” means.

Thank for the second paragraph… I agree with most of it and, I assure you I am on your side in this war, but you are wrong about one thing. Jones Act supporters are a minority of our readership and the opposition party is very vocal and well funded. Over 600,000 unique individuals read our articles every month and nearly 60% of our then come from outside of the USA (the large majority of which HATE the jones act for reasons I believe are inexplicable). Of the remaining quarter million Americans 10-20% have a finacial interest in destroying the act. That leaves less than 200,000 pro-jones act readers… and 60% of them don’t care enough about the act to click on Jones Act articles. And 90% of those Americans who do read Jones Act articles don’t care enough to click any share buttons.

I am pro jones act and I am part of the very small minority of people that cares enough to vocalize my opinion… but too much flag waving only serves to harden the opposition, an opposition that’s larger, more vocal and much better funded than us.

And, here’s one more thing to note… I can’t think of anyone else on the planet right now who has the ability to do more for the Jones Act than YOU (c.captain). Because, I’ve heard all the Anti-Jones act arguments and 99% are full of factual holes. It is suprisingly easy to beat an anti-jones act individual in a polite and factual debate. But there is only one place I can think of have a debate that will reach enough people to make a difference… this forum. But very few foreigners visit this forum because they get beaten over the gead by then American flag then insulted with words like “IDIOT” and “F’n MORON” from a certain person who’s name begins with the letter C.

You want to support the Jones Act? Then go find out who’s against it, extend them a personal invitation to this forum, treat them with dignity and respect and debate them in a polite manner. If you do that then we will win because the facts are on our side.

51

fair enough…WA State Ferry then

Thank for the second paragraph… I agree with most of it and, I assure you I am on your side in this war, but you are wrong about one thing. Jones Act supporters are a minority of our readership and the opposition party is very vocal and well funded. Over 600,000 unique individuals read our articles every month and nearly 60% of our then come from outside of the USA (the large majority of which HATE the jones act for reasons I believe are inexplicable).

foreign nationals and corporations hate the Jones Act because it bars them from entering a very large and profitable market. not just coastwise cargo vessels and tankers but also all the towing, dredging, passenger, etc… activities taking place all over the country. they want in but can’t except for in the GoM where all the loopholes written into the OCS Lands Act gave them easy entry and we all know how many jobs for American mariners are lost as a result

Of the remaining quarter million Americans 10-20% have a finacial interest in destroying the act. That leaves less than 200,000 pro-jones act readers… and 60% of them don’t care enough about the act to click on Jones Act articles. And 90% of those Americans who do read Jones Act articles don’t care enough to click any share buttons.

still doesn’t mean the news should be put out there for the small number who do want to read it

I am pro jones act and I am part of the very small minority of people that cares enough to vocalize my opinion… but too much flag waving only serves to harden the opposition, an opposition that’s larger, more vocal and much better funded than us.

then that is quaking in fear that Goliath will beat you when you need to remember David’s greatest attribute. he was on the side that was right and just and that God himself had David’s back. if we are right and just trust to providence to protect us in our crusade

And, here’s one more thing to note… I can’t think of anyone else on the planet right now who has the ability to do more for the Jones Act than YOU (c.captain). Because, I’ve heard all the Anti-Jones act arguments and 99% are full of factual holes. It is suprisingly easy to beat an anti-jones act individual in a polite and factual debate. But there is only one place I can think of have a debate that will reach enough people to make a difference… this forum. But very few foreigners visit this forum because they get beaten over the gead by then American flag then insulted with words like “IDIOT” and “F’n MORON” from a certain person who’s name begins with the letter C.

I always fight my foes here with logic and believe I prevail consistently. yes, sometimes I get a bit heated and possibly go too far in the words I use but always try to win on merits of my arguments. besides I write EFFING, not F’n when I label some pinhead a moron

You want to support the Jones Act? Then go find out who’s against it, extend them a personal invitation to this forum, treat them with dignity and respect and debate them in a polite manner. If you do that then we will win because the facts are on our side.

fine by me, who is the most vocal anti Jones Act member here…point me to him and I will gladly engage them in reasoned repartee.

52

[QUOTE=Steamer;193496]When you change the wording and provide no attribution it is no longer a quote, it is sensatonalist editorializing. When you write a headline that states, as c.cap stated, something like “WSF ferry collides with yacht” it would be reportage. If you wrote in the article that WSF claimed in a social media post that the yacht “hit” the ferry then explained what a few of us have been trying to point out, that the yacht had “the right of way” (sorry COLREGS) and the ferry failed to give way as required by law it would have been responsible reportage.

It still irks me because it is not responsible reportage and the sensationalist headline remains long after the facts have been beaten to death.

Compelling, factual, and short headlines are not difficult to write. If you can’t write one without biased editorializing then that task should not be attempted by a maritime school grad, it should be handed off to a J school grad.

If you really want to editorialize, then label your articles as opinion pieces/editorials and let them stand on their own merits.[/QUOTE]

Whoa, whoa! Are we even talking about the same article??? Because we did change the wording in the title BUT DID NOT in the article. And WE DID fully attribute the statement to WSF?

Compelling, factual, and short headlines are THE most difficult part of an article to write… and there are entire J school course that focus just on headline writing… and if you still disagree with me then act like a journalist yourself and find and cite the proof.

“should not be attempted by a maritime school grad, it should be handed off to a J school grad.” Ok, sure, I like that idea. In fact I LOVE it! Just one question… are you going to write gCaptain a check for $100k every year so I can hire a headline editor??

“If you wrote in the article that WSF claimed in a social media post that the yacht “hit” the ferry” - WTF, that’s exactly what we wrote.

“then explained what a few of us have been trying to point out, that the yacht had “the right of way” (sorry COLREGS) and the ferry failed to give way as required by law it would have been responsible reportage”

YOU where in the minority when the article was posted. The majority of PROFESSIONAL MARINERS beleived the camera was located on the stbd rail and that it was an overtaking situation.

And I’m done debating this here… so here are your three options:

  1. open up a new thread and blast away at me.
  2. continue posting stuff not relevant to the el faro on this thread and watch me deltete them
    OR
  3. we can switch roles a day. You and c.captain post all the factual articles you want to post to the homepage for one day… and Mikey and I will play the part of curmudgeons.
53

[QUOTE=c.captain;193498]
fine by me, who is the most vocal anti Jones Act member here…point me to him and I will gladly engage them in reasoned repartee.[/QUOTE]

That’s my whole point! They are no longer here on this forum! They were but THEY HAVE ALL LEFT.

54

[QUOTE=john;193500]That’s my whole point! They are no longer here on this forum! They were but THEY HAVE ALL LEFT.[/QUOTE]

but why do we want them here in the first place? do you honestly believe we are going to convert any heathens to our sacred religion?

55

[QUOTE=c.captain;193504]but why do we want them here in the first place? do you honestly believe we are going to convert any heathens to our sacred religion?[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, if you don’t know already it may be hard to explain. Take a step back and take a look at this website (gCaptain) as a whole and what the folks here are have tried to set up, not just the forum section.

56

The Pathos of El Faro’s Final Hours - The Atlantic Wire

Across 500 pages of transcript drawn from the sunken freighter’s bridge, crew members question the decision to sail into Hurricane Joaquin and gradually grasp their perilous situation

From the text of the article

I hear what you’re saying, captain. I’m in line for the chopping block,” Shultz says. “I’m waiting to get screwed.”

“Same here,” Davidson answers.

Still, Davidson and Shultz don’t evince any anxiety about the storm, at least in their words. It’s the lower-ranking members of the crew, and particularly Randolph, who sense the danger facing them. But in the hierarchical, almost military environment of a ship, the captain holds authority, and there’s little questioning him.

57

On the subject of wildly inaccurate reporting (The Atlantic):

“As the drama opens, it’s 6:35 a.m. on September 30, and Davidson and Chief Mate Steven Shultz are discussing what course to pursue as they head north, toward the hurricane.”

“Despite the reservations of the second and third mates ( Randolph and Riehm, respectively), it eventually becomes clear that El Faro is going to keep heading through the storm, though Davidson decided to take the Old Bahama Channel, a slightly different path.”

58

[QUOTE=john;193499]“should not be attempted by a maritime school grad, it should be handed off to a J school grad.” Ok, sure, I like that idea. In fact I LOVE it! Just one question… are you going to write gCaptain a check for $100k every year so I can hire a headline editor??[/QUOTE]

I’ll do it for 50k.

59

[QUOTE=Lee Shore;193523]I’ll do it for 50k.[/QUOTE]

I’ll do it for a bottle of Ripple and a stout cardboard box

60

[QUOTE=c.captain;193532]I’ll do it for a bottle of Ripple and a stout cardboard box[/QUOTE]

You drive a hard bargain.