[QUOTE=QuabbinHiker;170814]I have seen nothing on this issue yet, and I have several browser windows open to official channels waiting to see the answer.[/QUOTE]
I am sure that you will be the first to be informed. . . .
[QUOTE=Reginald Strainworth III;170846]So true. Here is a good piece of journalism on the life of a merchant mariner.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/opinions/george-el-faro-ship-workers/[/QUOTE]
Actually, it is NOT a good piece of journalism about the life of a merchant mariner. . . .but those of us already here know about this one. . . .
I suppose before Uncle Fester wakes up out on the Left Coast and starts yelling, Iāll give reason a go.
here is the way it really works, in Real Life, not Forum Fantasy landā¦
-
We do not know what information the master of El Faro based his decisions on, nor what factors and events were considered during the decision making process and affected related operations. Simply put, we (and you) were not there. There are some industry norms and general theories that would assuredly be considered, and these have been discussed in great detail, even here.
-
A well defined official and objective regulatory investigation is in progress. It has a series of steps that will be undertaken, and a lot of information will be gathered, from relevant sources, not internet posts here. This investigation will conform to US law and in general, the recommendations of the IMO.
-
This investigation will define what is known fact along with what is probable. A series of factors that contributed to the incident will be identified. These factors will be explored in depth during the investigation. The results of that investigation will be publically available, and we mariners who put food on our tables by being seafarers, will read them.
-
This investigation will take time. There is a lot of information to be collected, perhaps even from 15,000 ft below the surface off Cat Island.
-
In parallel and subsequent to the regulatory investigations, it is likely that civil litigation will occur, related to loss of life and property. This will also involve considerable investigation, analysis and rendering of opinions about events, causes, damages, responsibility, etc. These opinions, to be considered by the courts, must have some basis in fact. Further, those rendering the opinions must demonstrate, in laymenās terms, a meaningful level of experience and expertise in the topic being discussed. To the satisfaction of the court, which aināt you. Internet forum posts and trolls typically have a hard time reaching this bar, no matter how sensible they may seem at the moment, or how pretty the graphics.
-
With respect to conspiracy, take it as a fact of life that the company and those directly involved or knowledgeable of the incident have exactly zero obligation to tell you anything, none, at any time, so get over it. They do have an obligation to discuss the matter, in excruciating detail, with the investigators and courts. This takes time, and the information discussed may or may not become part of a public record.
-
And finally, this incident involves a confirmed death, and the apparent loss of wonderful young men and women, known to many of the gCaptain readers in this small industry. It is a small town. We have a lot to think about, for the families affected, and within our own lives. Please excuse us if we choose to sit a while and think. We do not want to say here, in an internet chat room, āThis fellow did or didnāt do this or that, and therefore ā¦ā
Because although we may considered unwashed filthy merchant seamen scum by many, we are smart enough to know that we donāt know today. And weāre old and experienced enough to know that what we say matters to real people like us, and our families on shore. In our little villages, islands, and towns.
So today aināt your day for answers on your theories, and tomorrow aināt looking so good either.
[QUOTE=eidassan;170880]Matās latest graphic is of great interest and does suggest a number of new things in turn.
-
CJ Roroās detour for El Yunque appears to be in error.
-
At El Yunqueās departure from San Juan the day before Joaquin was a tropical storm situated about 200-250km to the east of the intended route and predicted to evolve in a WNW direction. No hurricane warnings or watches in sight.
-
24 hours later as the El Faro set out Joaquin had shifted to WSW with winds notched up a category (75-110). Off the Turks, El Yunque was about 6-8 hours from intersecting with the stormās path. Hurricane watches for the lower Bahamas had just been posted.
-
Towards dawn on Sept 30 El Yunque crossed Joaquinās WSW track as the storm was moving up to a cat 1-2 hurricane with watches becoming warnings in the lower Bahamas. It slipped through the āpassā between the islands and the storm with some 100-150 kms to spare on either side.
What a difference a day makes.
@ MariaW
Indeed, the 1-2-3 rule was not respected. I canāt help but put this episode into a paradigm closer to my own sphere of interest.
Imagine on a warm morning in March following a freak late winter storm with heavy snowfall a pair of intrepid new pupils of the ski patrol decide to do an hors-piste descent from high up on the alpine slopes. Avalanche flags are up. The traverse means slicing between the steepest snows below the peak to the left and a 200 foot cliff that drops off to the right. The first skier, an early bird, negotiates the descent without incident. The snow held fast. The other fellow, however, had slept in and is up on the slopes shortly before noon. Just as he starts off on the very same run, the avalanche breaks up ahead and to the left. Heās got two options. He can stop, turn back and take the long meandering route safely back to the village. But he realizes that heās already late for brunch with that Sue Anne chick he met in the disco the night before, so he decides on a direct downhill descent. He picks up speed as he angles closer and closer to that cliff wall. Yet the fringe of the avalanche catches him just as he runs the gullet and he loses a ski. He falls and itās all over.
Down in the chalet they all start asking questions: āCould it have been those rental skis from last season?āā¦āHis bindings probably werenāt fastened enoughā,ā¦ or āThose cheap goggles will fog up in a flash, no wonder he couldnāt see where he was goingā. When of course the essential question was: why were either of those men up on the mountain in the first place? And to come full circle, when you finally try and get an answer from the colleagues over at the ski patrol, no one will even tell you about how the flag warning system works. Itās called corporate solidarity, and it seems to be at work here on this forum as well.
As regards the Faro and Yunque, one canāt help but wonder what the two captains said to one another. They must have spoken. There could have been no better authority of the sea conditions in the area than that lone sister ship that had just gone through the maelstrom a matter of hours before. With respect to management pressure, since neither captain finally opted for a dramatic detour, itās back to square A. It seems incredulous however that with the dearth of evidence in communications between El Faro and the outside world, that the most blatant candidate for input, the El Yunque captain, has not uttered a peep. When you consider that with any major airline crash the public within hours can count on reports from other pilots in the vicinity, the silence here does boggle the mind. Had that ship belonged to another company Iād bet weād have known as early as this past weekend as to what was said or not said. Perhaps Mr. Cās conspiracist theory merits a place back on the discussion table.[/QUOTE]
I think you are making too many assumptions based on your miss-reading of the track. I canāt claim I have any definitive answers but: I plotted the EL Faroās last given position and both position and course match very closely one of the track-lines I use to transit through Crooked Island Passage. Post #762 gives the course as 152 degrees, that course would have cleared Rum Cay then a slight course chage abeam Rum Cay shapes up for Crooked Passage. The speed of 19 kts indicates that the ship was not in heavy weather. I believe that the El Yunque speed was as low as 9 kts at one point IIRC.
You seem to be assuming that the El Faro arrived at itās postion near the eye on itās own power however that may not be true. As a rule of thumb I assume on my ship that when drifing it will drift at about 10% of wind speed, (10kts wind = 1 kt drift 40 kts = 4 kts etc) the El Faro may be a bit slower.
I think a more likely explanation for forum member not speaking up to address your posts is that you are engaging with this subject in a very superficial way. The only member taking your post seriously here has little or no maritime experience.
Well stated, sir. . . Uncle Fester. . . .perfect. . . should we send an icon to him? Nah, wait for later. . . . like you state, nothing or real investigative value will be produced here. . . I think those of us that do this kind of thing have our own theories, but I know it is WAAAAAAY too early to even discuss. . . so often times what we think in the early stages ends up being VERY different once more facts are known. . . .on a side note and based on my experience with this kind of thing, I truly think that the VDR will be recovered. I know the capabilities of deep ocean ROVs and have some experience with them. . .as opposed to surfing information from the Web. . .
As mentioned in another post, Iāve been involved in an ROV based underwater investigative recovery in the same geographic area. I think we were at 13,000 ft depth, with very flat bottom terrain, no problems. I do not recall current being an issue, but it was a long time ago. Iād bet side scan survey can be done in a couple of weeks once the boat is sourced and in position. We had one where the individual links of the ships anchor chains could be seen on the side scan alone.
Once the side scan survey is done, and transponder field set, it will be a piece of cake to get there. The ultra deep ROV tend to be booked up, but Iām sure one will be sourced.
There are bayous worth of DP2 ad DP3 capable boats that can handle the ROV support - its not that complex, as most ultra deep capable are scientific deployed across avariety of boats, and so come with their own containerized control rooms, workshops and even power supplies. Load 'n go. Nowadays they may not even need the transponder field. Not sure, but it is a long distance down ā¦
I was involved with a bottom search in 8,500 feet of water with that muddy GOM bottom. . . . found an object the size of a card table with no problem at all, deep in the mud. Recovered it and it proved to be pivotal in the investigation. . . have worked with them in real time offshore, too. . . . like you state, LOTS of vessels suitably equipped laying around right now. . . not sure if the Navy has anything similar, but I thought that I read somewhere that a Navy vessels is being dispatched for the Salvage (misuse of the word salvage, but typical for the source of the story). . .and like you state, donāt really need an entire vessel, lots of packages can easily be airlifted and fitted as needed. . .
CG released crew List:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/2015/10/07/coast-guard-releases-crew-manifest-after-calling-off-search/73545584/
On the literal other side of the planet someone just made the exact same mistake with the same outcome:
[QUOTE=eidassan;170880]As regards the Faro and Yunque, one canāt help but wonder what the two captains said to one another. They must have spoken. There could have been no better authority of the sea conditions in the area than that lone sister ship that had just gone through the maelstrom a matter of hours before. With respect to management pressure, since neither captain finally opted for a dramatic detour, itās back to square A. It seems incredulous however that with the dearth of evidence in communications between El Faro and the outside world, that the most blatant candidate for input, the El Yunque captain, has not uttered a peep. When you consider that with any major airline crash the public within hours can count on reports from other pilots in the vicinity, the silence here does boggle the mind. Had that ship belonged to another company Iād bet weād have known as early as this past weekend as to what was said or not said. Perhaps Mr. Cās conspiracist theory merits a place back on the discussion table.[/QUOTE]
thank you sirā¦I am certainly most grateful that another can see that the owners of the EL FARO and the USCG are holding onto pieces to this tragic puzzle. I believe that they are scared to death of those pieces becoming public. However, those pieces cannot be hidden by these parties forever, at some point they need to divulge their content but these parties will certainly hold them hidden for as long as they possibly can. The mere fact that they do this is itself indicative they both play a role in what occurred. At least the investigation will be led by the NTSB and not the USCG since I believe the latter is implicated in this tragedy.
.
[QUOTE=rag_hauler;170900]On the literal other side of the planet someone just made the exact same mistake with the same outcome:
http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/robin-wyatt-and-sailing-yacht-europa-missing-on-delivery-to-subic-bay[/QUOTE]
Great. Another un-informed Rockit Scientist poster ā¦
[I]So Mr. RagHauler, based on your education, training, extensive experience in the field, and intimate knowledge of both incidents, please explain to the court what you mean by, āā¦the exact same mistakeā
What facts have you presented to the court in support your statement ?
Was there any evidence to the contrary that you considered, and if so, please explain how you confirmed it was of lesser weight than the information you have produced ?
Let us refer to your deposition, here on page 106ā¦
With respect to your opinion, please explain to us what portion, if any, of the detailed information developed by the NTSB and others, that you utilized when forming your opinion?[/I]
Thought so. Next witness.
And I aināt even a lawyer.
[QUOTE=+A465B;170902]Great. Another un-informed Rockit Scientist poster ā¦
[I]So Mr. RagHauler, based on your education, training, extensive experience in the field, and intimate knowledge of both incidents, please explain to the court what you mean by, āā¦the exact same mistakeā
What facts have you presented to the court in support your statement ?
Was there any evidence to the contrary that you considered, and if so, please explain how you confirmed it was of lesser weight than the information you have produced ?
Let us refer to your deposition, here on page 106ā¦
With respect to your opinion, please explain to us what portion, if any, of the detailed information developed by the NTSB and others, that you utilized when forming your opinion?[/I]
Thought so. Next witness.
And I aināt even a lawyer.[/QUOTE]
If we ever meet I hope youāre sitting on my side of the table.
[QUOTE=+A465B;170887]I suppose before Uncle Fester wakes up out on the Left Coast and starts yelling, Iāll give reason a go.
here is the way it really works, in Real Life, not Forum Fantasy landā¦[/QUOTE]
so you want to speak only of realities eh?
a reality which should stand paramount here is that a ship is lost and 33 souls have perished in what likely was a time of terror
a reality is that a ship sailed towards a named storm in its path. that storm intensified while that ship continued to steam in its direction. that storm did not have a well defined or reliable track. a reality is that the master had access to forecast data from numerous sources including professional ship weather routing services. the administrator of this forum has confirmation that the master did not follow the advice of those services
a reality is that one ship went to a track to take it on the north of the circulation which gave it fair winds and provided searoom to maneuver if necessary. the other ship went to the south of the circulation which also gave it fair winds aft but did not provide any maneuvering room.
a reality is that there were five persons on that ship aboard to perform work on machinery. we do not now what machinery that was because the reality is that the owners and the USCG do not feel fit to tell us
now where is anything we are discussing not in keeping with these known knowns and realities?
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;170903]If we ever meet I hope youāre sitting on my side of the table.[/QUOTE]
Someone told me once, "The Truth needs no Defense"
When people, even ex-spurts, try to bend the truth to fit their āfactsā, they are destroyed in the process by people a lot smarter and quicker than me.
As for Uncle Fester, Dude, like a few days ago we had a tragedy. Tote and the USCG owe you and me no information right now, none, and themās that are entitled to get it, are getting it and will continue to get it, giving it up to their liking or not with a timeline to your liking or not. So give it a rest.
I gotta give this a rest myself. See ya.
[QUOTE=cmakin;170885]Actually, it is NOT a good piece of journalism about the life of a merchant mariner. . . .but those of us already here know about this one. . . .[/QUOTE]
Notwithstanding the fact that parts of the article may be more germain to the life of a Filipino Merchant Seaman, what parts of the CNN article do you guys take issue with?
[QUOTE=cmakin;170891]I think those of us that do this kind of thing have our own theories, but I know it is WAAAAAAY too early to even discuss. . . .[/QUOTE]
why is it WAAAAAAY too early to discuss? lives were lost, a ship was lost. we sail those ships as professionals to do this for the benefit of the owners of them. we place our lives at risk so that those owners can earn profits.
every professional mariner here has a vested and direct interest in what transpired to the EL FARO. Any one of us might find ourselves put in peril at the whim of persons we are subordinate to.
It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this.
.
[QUOTE=c.captain;170904] the administrator of this forum has confirmation that the master did not follow the advice of those services
[/QUOTE]
ā¦ might want to double check that āopinionā
Just sayin
The last AIS we have on the thread gives the position and the course as 152 degrees. The bearing to the postion given by the NHC to the system at that point is 105 degrees at a little over 100 miles.
Is there anyone else on this fourm that can plot two positons and determine the distance and bearing between them?
and those same few days ago I saw this tragedy and knew in my gut it was a lost ship and crew while others decried my words as being too early and unfounded. I am not young, I feel I have enough years of doing this to see a big picture with clarity even when others donāt. From exactly the same position I was in five days ago, I see a picture of this story now which some refuse to open their eyes to try to see. At least one other is beginning to see that picture unfold. I know there will be others opening their eyes soon as well.
Just know that I believe that the āTruthā most be paramount to all other considerations and I speak to what I know to be the āTruthāā¦always have and always will and will never, ever be afraid to do just that
[QUOTE=+A465B;170908]ā¦ might want to double check that āopinionā
Just sayin[/QUOTE]
so what are you calling John Kanrad here now?
[QUOTE=john;170774]I have learned (from 2 sources) that the ship had a subscription to a reputable weather service and that Davidson received advanced weather data from them but did not utilize their weather routing services.
[/QUOTE]
Rage on, it is a useful function in society.
But rage at something that can be proven, not just alleged because it doesnāt suit your agenda, be it good, bad or indifferent.
Just because you donāt like this or that, or this time line or that, doesnāt mean squat, nor does it mean that others are blind. In reality.
Iāve had some interesting conversations about the matter today, and have my own āopinionā, but you know, Iāve got exactly zero in hand to support it, and the topic will be covered by the investigators. So why waste time on it.