U.S.C.G. El Faro Hearings in Jacksonville

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;179521]The last guy asking the captain of the El Yunque questions is a complete bozo.

I found myself yelling at the computer.

There is also a Navtex that gives the weather that was on the bridge. The weather the 2Mate was talking about was the nice graphic one that comes via the email.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I have the same system more or less. I set up MS Outlook so it forwards the WX to the bridge automatically when it comes in.

That weather is the one everyone likes because it convenient.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;179523]Yes, I have the same system more or less. I set up MS Outlook so it forwards the WX to the bridge automatically when it comes in.

That weather is the one everyone likes because it convenient.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is nice when you have ship that isn’t 40 years old, automatically downloaded email and networked computers. You can do those things.

“The Coast Guard’s Marine Board of Investigation is looking for evidence of misconduct, inattention to duty, negligence or willful violation of the law by licensed or certified individuals.”

This is exactly why issues like this never get solved. They should not be looking who they should hang, but rather the root-cause so that it will not happen again. Since the CG (or ex-CG’ers rather) run the NTSB, that is the same thing. The big search for a scapegoat.

Marine Investigations in England and other civilized countries are done by experts in the field, not the military, and those who testify are exculpated from guilt (bar a clear and intentional breaking of the law) and the purpose is not to hang someone at fault for a mistake, because those people would never do it again and have learned a lesson the hard way, but rather to find out why and make recommendations that would preclude that from happening again.

Which leads me to the last item at question. Why is the USCG in “charge” of the Merchant Marine? Because they have ships, because they used to run the lighthouses for us? If it is because they have ships, then they should run the airline industry instead of the FAA because they have more planes than ships. Putting them in charge of maritime safety was a big mistake that should finally be rectified.

Nolan seems very nervous. just watching a bit now for the first time.

I just started watching this too. I’ll keep my eyes open for anything interesting.

why in the FUCK doesn’t one of the USCG pinheads simply ask…did you want the EL FARO to take the route it did with Joachim in its path? did you simply believe the ship could “squeak by” with the most minimal of margins? if you didn’t want Davidson to keep holding on, then why did you not order the master to immediately cease progressing closer and closer to a strong tropical cyclone? The only possible scenario that saves TOTE’s ASS is for them to produce documents showing a master who has gone rogue on the owners and disobeying their direction?

WAS TOTE ITSELF COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO THE POTENTIAL DANGER JOACHIM POSED TO THE SHIP?

[QUOTE=c.captain;179532]why in the FUCK doesn’t one of the USCG pinheads simply ask…did you want the EL FARO to take the route it did with Joachim in its path?

WAS TOTE ITSELF COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO THE POTENTIAL DANGER JOACHIM POSED TO THE SHIP?[/QUOTE]

You mean you don’t like the questions that ask “So you are a captain, what is it like being a captain?”?

Tote wants it to appear that way.

Today is better hear from real mariners. I’ve been able to download the hear with GetThemAll app.
Question I have is did the engine go out because of the list and oil not able to get pumped into the engine or did the engine go down first then all hell broke loose?

[QUOTE=c.captain;179532]why in the FUCK doesn’t one of the USCG pinheads simply ask…did you want the EL FARO to take the route it did with Joachim in its path? did you simply believe the ship could “squeak by” with the most minimal of margins? if you didn’t want Davidson to keep holding on, then why did you not order the master to immediately cease progressing closer and closer to a strong tropical cyclone? The only possible scenario that saves TOTE’s ASS is for them to produce documents showing a master who has gone rogue on the owners and disobeying their direction?

WAS TOTE ITSELF COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO THE POTENTIAL DANGER JOACHIM POSED TO THE SHIP?[/QUOTE]

I’m trying to think of times when the route was decided by someone at the company. I recall one time a new captain at a tug company making his first trip. I’ve heard fishing vessels being told to follow the leader to get to the fishing grounds but in all my deep-sea experience is the route is decided by the captain. The only exception is getting advice from professional routing services, but even that’s advisory.

I don’t know what the practice is at TOTE but if the company was directing the route of the El Faro in the middle of the night that would strike me as very unusual.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;179483]The El Yunque passed close as well, not as close but I’ve not see anyone criticizing the risk assessment in that case.[/QUOTE]

That’s because the El Yunque survived.

[QUOTE=damagedgoods;179525]“The Coast Guard’s Marine Board of Investigation is looking for evidence of misconduct, inattention to duty, negligence or willful violation of the law by licensed or certified individuals.”

This is exactly why issues like this never get solved. They should not be looking who they should hang, but rather the root-cause so that it will not happen again. Since the CG (or ex-CG’ers rather) run the NTSB, that is the same thing. The big search for a scapegoat.

Marine Investigations in England and other civilized countries are done by experts in the field, not the military, and those who testify are exculpated from guilt (bar a clear and intentional breaking of the law) and the purpose is not to hang someone at fault for a mistake, because those people would never do it again and have learned a lesson the hard way, but rather to find out why and make recommendations that would preclude that from happening again.

Which leads me to the last item at question. Why is the USCG in “charge” of the Merchant Marine? Because they have ships, because they used to run the lighthouses for us? If it is because they have ships, then they should run the airline industry instead of the FAA because they have more planes than ships. Putting them in charge of maritime safety was a big mistake that should finally be rectified.[/QUOTE

A statement which is perhaps getting off the thread but one I agree with. And I have grudging respect, in general, for how the USCG handles their administrative role. For me the question is constitutional and legal in nature. To paraphrase the OP, does the US Air Force regulate commercial aviation? Does the U.S. Army–or your local sheriff, or the FBI–regulate interstate trucking and the railroads? Would we stand for that? Then how does a law enforcement/military force come to regulate waterborne commerce? I will say again that I believe the USCG, on the whole, does a pretty good job of regulating the U.S. merchant marine, but their performance is not the issue. It seems to me having law enforcement or the military making the rules for, and ultimately judging civilians, fundamentally goes against U.S. traditions of governance. We live with the contradictions because 1) U.S. mariners make up a vanishingly small and usually invisible part of the American populace. More importantly 2)many mariners and companies have a vested interest in not rocking the boat. Major shipping companies love to hire ex-USCG and Navy personnel to “facilitate their interactions” with the USCG. These executives are not going to petition Congress to get the USCG out of commercial shipping. A merchant mariner with a naval reserve commission working for MSC is not liable to debate the constitutionality of a sometimes-military/sometimes-not organization running his professional life. We products of merchant marine academies are already indoctrinated into the notion that the merchant marine and the military are locked at the hip. The last big hurrahs of the U.S. merchant marine were, in order, WW2, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. With a couple of nostalgic moments during Gulf Wars 1 and 2. What were we hauling? Cargo for the military. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
So we are “institutionalized” now. We accept things the way we are. Investigations like this are the result. Not a terrible result. I have little doubt that the USCG will get to the bottom of things, to the degree that that is possible. But I also have little doubt that a board consisting of experienced mariners from all sectors of the commercial industry would ask better, more cogent questions. But I don’t see a civilian merchant marine administration on the horizon. Too many fingers in a profitable, if shrinking, pie.

now what the FUCK is this all about?

[B]El Faro captain sought command on new TOTE ships[/B]

By Kirk Moore

2/17/2016

Capt. Michael Davidson made his bid to get command of one of TOTE Maritime’s new 764’ Marlin-class liquefied natural gas containerships, weeks before he sailed with 32 others on the 40-year old El Faro into Hurricane Joaquin.

“He was brought in and given consideration…he was eminently qualified to be master of one of our LNG ships,” Philip Greene, the president of subsidiary TOTE Services and a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral, told a Coast Guard board of inquiry Wednesday on its second day of hearings into the Oct. 1 sinking.

Board members are probing Greene and other company officers about who had responsibility for voyage planning, course changes and other decision making, before the 790’ El Faro lost power in its steam plant and was overtaken by the hurricane with its 150-knot winds.

Company officials portrayed Davidson, a 1988 graduate of the Maine Maritime Academy and a TOTE captain since 2013, as exercising full responsibility for setting the ship’s course and weather routes. But board members challenged that Tuesday, based on an email Davidson had sent Sept. 30 that appeared to ask approval for a plan to return from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Jacksonville, Fla., via the more sheltered Old Bahama Channel.

Apparently attempting to get past the hurricane’s path enroute to San Juan, the ship lost its main power and sank in 15,000’ of water northwest of Crooked Island off the Bahamas.

Board members asked why TOTE manager John Fiskar-Anderson replied “authorized” to Davidson’s email, if the captain did not need permission from the company to set a different course. Philip Morrell, vice president of marine operations for TOTE Services, characterized the email exchange as simple courtesy.

On Wednesday the board continued to ask questions about Davidson’s competence and relations with TOTE management, as well as the company’s safety procedures. There was discussion over what board members saw as more communication between El Faro and TOTE shoreside offices in the days leading up to Tropical Storm Erika, a weaker system a month before Joaquin threatened.

At some point top TOTE management made a decision to recruit for four captain’s slots for the new ships, Isla Bella and Perla del Caribe, from outside the company.

That move was part of TOTE’s overall trends of “new leadership…new energy, new perspectives,” Greene said. “We were moving forward with new ships, new technology.” Davidson, like all the candidates, was "eminently qualified” as an unlimited tonnage master, he said.

Looking for captains from outside the company? Master asking permission and then authorized to use the Old Bahamas Channel but he didn’t? WTF is going on here with these people?

[QUOTE=c.captain;179547]now what the FUCK is this all about?

Looking for captains from outside the company? Master asking permission and then authorized to use the Old Bahamas Channel but he didn’t? WTF is going on here with these people?[/QUOTE]

He didn’t get the chance, the “permission” was for the prospective return voyage that never happened. Read the article again.

Slow return transit with empty containers allow the riding gang more time to work, can’t work in port, unless legally authorized to work in US.

This guys Twitter feed had been pretty good. He sits in the hearings all day and live tweets he is KP '77 I believe.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rsullivanrod

https://www.linkedin.com/in/professorrodsullivan

[QUOTE=c.captain;179547]now what the FUCK is this all about?

Looking for captains from outside the company? Master asking permission and then authorized to use the Old Bahamas Channel but he didn’t? WTF is going on here with these people?[/QUOTE]

They want new people because the old ones know where all the skeletons are. The company will then wonder why no one shows any loyalty to the company. Well, the company hasn’t shown any loyalty to the people doing the work on their ships to turn a profit. The big change in attitude came when Tote Services moved from New Jersey to Florida. Only a handful of the office people made the move. The company is now thick with Navy ring knockers.

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;179550]He didn’t get the chance, the “permission” was for the prospective return voyage that never happened. Read the article again. [/QUOTE]

ok, missed that

This lady also live tweets from the hearings.

This fella as well…

Interesting to follow them as they live tweet as they give insight into things we couldn’t tell from plain transcripts. They tell you if someone’s is getting defensive or if they get animated. They let you know when the people sigh or you can tell they are getting fed up with the Iran/Contra style “i don’t know” or “I don’t recall routine”. The one thing that sticks out to me is how no one is concerned. From the top level of management to the ops people no one was aware, concerned or tracking this storm. They are doing a beautiful job of putting the levels of plausible deniability between themselves and the incident.

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;179524]Yes, it is nice when you have ship that isn’t 40 years old, automatically downloaded email and networked computers. You can do those things.[/QUOTE]

You can have a ship that’s going on 50, with all of those things. Ask me how.

[QUOTE=catherder;179560]You can have a ship that’s going on 50, with all of those things. Ask me how.[/QUOTE]
Yes you can but it also requires that a company sees it as being worth the money. A cat 5 cable isn’t that hard to run but getting them to spend the money on a new sat system can be hard. Especially when the ship is due to be replaced. Hell, getting them to spend money on a $500 computer be difficult.

What works for one ship doesn’t work for all.

[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;179563]Yes you can but it also requires that a company sees it as being worth the money. A cat 5 cable isn’t that hard to run but getting them to spend the money on a new sat system can be hard. Especially when the ship is due to be replaced. Hell, getting them to spend money on a $500 computer be difficult.

What works for one ship doesn’t work for all.[/QUOTE]

I understand that- I work for the government. You aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know. But here’s the real question- does anyone here really think that a top of the line computer system would have saved this ship from the mistakes that sent her to the bottom? Data is only as useful as the end user deems.