This is from the NTSB report:
It seems that what mariners object to is the way Hazelwood was treated in the media and public perception of the case. But leaving out the “because of impairment from alcohol” part that still leaves “the failure of the master to provide a proper navigation watch”
That’s what I’d expect, navigating tankers in restricted waters is low risk / high consequence A captain doesn’t even need to explicitly understand it that way, Just follow past practice.
If the third mate is going to be left alone in the wheel house a track-line needs to be provided. Before leaving the wheel house better to lay down the track and then wait while the 3/m labels the courses, lays out the DRs times to turn etc.
This “began returning the vessel to the traffic lanes” is too vague and leaves too much room for interpretation.
Even if a track-line had been laid down how many times has the third mate made a turn using more than 5 or 10 degrees rudder? Likely never.
There are other ambiguities as well. The captain told the VTS he intended to slow down to go through the ice but instead he put the engine on load-up. Did he intend to pass thought the ice or have the third mate navigate / maneuver the tanker between the 0.9 mile gap between the reef and the ice?