I did my best to factor it out of the cases I looked at. Also, the histories of the officers before and after the incident could be considered.
Example #1: 25 years ago a mate on one of these vessels T-boned a rock in the BC Inside Passage. His lookout says the mate was on his feet, and referring to the radar. There was a navigational light on the rock. The lookout pointed out the light, dead-ahead, to the mate. Didn’t help. The boat hit the island not far from the light. A simple case of incompetence. Later it came out that he had been fired from a prior job because of incompetence.
You could also say that mate’s incompetence was only the proximate cause. The underlying cause was the company hiring an incompetent mate. (It was his first voyage.) The captain, not knowing the mate, could have taken a less challenging route. So that was an issue too. But the proximate cause was incompetence.
After the grounding the mate claimed there was a “big storm” in the area and that he couldn’t see anything. Despite the fact he was looking at the radar, and the lookout was pointing to the big blinking light, and the log recorded no unusual weather, nor did the weather service note any.
Example #2: A boat was navigating a very narrow channel on the BC IP, back in the 90s. The captain assumed the watch at about 1800. The relieving lookout came up, but the captain told him to go back below–take it easy, watch a video, I’ll call you in a few minutes. So, no lookout.
An hour later later the boat runs aground in the channel. That stretch of channel is straight for the most part, and deep to the edge. Easy to avoid grounding. Look at the radar to stay in the middle. Or look out the window. And why tell the lookout not to come up?
Later the captain claims the boat ran aground because he was looking at the chart. (Not the first time I had heard that particular excuse.) Back in the days of paper charts it was the best excuse. Most chart tables had you looking aft, away from everything else. Nobody could fault you for slacking off if you were looking at a chart. I questioned him carefully. Why spend so much time looking at the chart? Response: I was looking at the chart.
This captain’s subsequent history is illustrative. He left the company and went on to work at two other places, both cruise ship operations with three-watch systems. At one company he ran aground hard on a sandbar on a big western river. At the other company his ship struck a rock (he was not on watch). So there’s a trend there…
My favorite story about the difficulties of getting a straight story about the cause of an accident is the 2006 grounding and sinking of the Queen of the North ferry in BC. The 4th Officer got into an argument with the AB-lookout (who happened to be his ex-wife) and got so distracted he missed a turn, hit an island, sank the ship, and killed two people.
He lawyered up afterwards. In court, his lawyer claimed bad weather and faulty instruments. Court didn’t buy it. Sent the officer to jail. But as far as I know he never changed his story.