Just reading real fast, most likely it was someone that reads this forum.
I am sorry but I hope to say the number of separate treads related to the EL FARO tragedy make it very difficult to focus the discussion.
Regarding apps or other ways for the master to get weather data in real time, I have no doubt that he had a great many available to him and it does not require technology to plot a safe course. Masters have routed their ships around terrible weather using their own knowledge and abilities for centuries. The advent of technologies to transmit weather data to a master has only made that duty of his easier provided he will apply the tenants to prudent seamanship and heed the warnings he received. EL FARO’s master had more than enough weather information on Joachim to know he was taking unacceptable risks to forge ahead at full speed for those last 12hours. I believe he had a very clear picture to show him that the storm was moving to block the ship’s path on the evening of the 30th but did nothing but continue to hold course and speed. Lack of data did not play a role here.
C.captain, what do yo want me to do?
Erase it and include it in the El Faro thread?
[QUOTE=0rion;171671]C.captain, what do yo want me to do?
Erase it and include it in the El Faro thread?[/QUOTE]
no, I just don’t think we need lots and lots of separate threads on the EL FARO all running simultaneously so just trying to get others to consolidate the number of them here
It would be nice if you could erase the article. These people keep getting their “facts” wrong or out right omitting some information.
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;171676]It would be nice if you could erase the article. These people keep getting their “facts” wrong or out right omitting some information.[/QUOTE]
I think now that there are replies to the original thread post it can’t be deleted by the person who posted it but Mike can do it if he is asked…you can tell him I am down with that
Have then lump them all Into a subforun
I find it very confusing. They spend a lot of time defending the captain and the company, describing how well maintained the ship is, etc. Then blame the Jones Act for the sinking? But if it was so well maintained, why does the age matter? Brand new ships lose their main engines all the time.
Also, for some reason I don’t think American ships cost more because of this:
“due to the fact that American shipbuilders have more orders than they can fill, the cost of building a ship in the United States is often three times the cost of having the ship built overseas in Korea or Japan.”
(Also, this line reduces the credibility: “professional Master Captain”.)
While it’s highly likely that El Faro’s master did, in fact, have access to all the weather information needed to plan and execute a safe voyage, you’re argument that we don’t need any “technology” at our disposal for this crucial activity is, quite frankly, absurd.
“For centuries” boats and ships have gone to the bottom or up on a reef, with terrible loss of life, because they didn’t know what was coming and had no way of finding out until it was too late to do anything about it. Not because they had enough or more than enough information and simply failed to use it properly.
That’s a slippery slope to start down.
I meant the original uninformed opinion blog article. Problem is some lame stream media outlet could pick this up and link to it. Then it could be taken seriously by the uninformed general public.
Why delete it? It’s on the internet elsewhere. It would be better to leave it and point out where it is wrong.
I have to say that I am amazed that this tragedy is suddenly being used by so many know nothings to attack the Jones Act, which they also appear to know nothing about.
It’s surprising that they are unaware that TOTE is building two new state of the art ships here in the US to replace its older ships in the Puerto Rico trade. And that the first of these new ships will go into service around the end of this year, and the other new ship next year. Of course they are unaware that Crowley is also building new Jones Act ships. Nor do they mention that US shipyards are busy building Jones Act ATBs.
They are blissfully unaware that there would be no private US shipyards without the Jones Act.
It looks like the National Review article used this as a source for some of their information.
This paragraph looks about identical between the two articles:
“There are only a handful of ship building ports in the United States that can build a ship the size of the El Faro and those shipyards have a multi year waiting list on new ships, mostly with contracts from the U.S. Navy.”
[QUOTE=captjacksparrow;171682]While it’s highly likely that El Faro’s master did, in fact, have access to all the weather information needed to plan and execute a safe voyage, you’re argument that we don’t need any “technology” at our disposal for this crucial activity is, quite frankly, absurd.
“For centuries” boats and ships have gone to the bottom or up on a reef, with terrible loss of life, because they didn’t know what was coming and had no way of finding out until it was too late to do anything about it. Not because they had enough or more than enough information and simply failed to use it properly.
That’s a slippery slope to start down.[/QUOTE]
you misinterpret my words. I say that with a whole array of technology, a master can become less cautious to have a “weather eye” and to simply look at lots of pictures to give him a sense of knowing all which then plays into overconfidence in decisions based on that data. Without all the fancy animated color graphics, a master just might have a little more doubt in his mind about what a storm will do and where it will go. A prudent master who has doubts would be one who then will apply caution to ameliorate the inherent risks of challenging dangerous weather. There is a repeat of the BOUNTY again here. EL FARO’s master did in fact challenge Joachim to stop his vessel. He lost that challenge and 32 additional souls perished.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=tugsailor;171684]It’s surprising that they are unaware that TOTE is building two new state of the art ships here in the US to replace its older ships in the Puerto Rico trade. And that the first of these new ships will go into service around the end of this year, and the other new ship next year. Of course they are unaware that Crowley is also building new Jones Act ships. Nor do they mention that US shipyards are busy building Jones Act ATBs.[/QUOTE]
remember there is a self serving agenda behind that opinion in the National Review and to mention anything which is contrary to the hollow claims the authors make only undermines what they say so out course they will omit telling us that new ships are about to be delivered and that US shipyards are fully capable to build new safe modern ships. What is behind everything they are decrying is that these new safe modern US built merchant ships cost more than a Korean or Chinese build version and it is all those CHEAP ships which these cretins seek.
I may have misunderstood what you meant, but those aren’t the words you used.
In any case, the first significant weather-avoidance technology usable on a ship was the barometer, and not everyone had them or even knew how to use them, let alone be skilled in their use. It wasn’t until Robert Fitzroy published his “Barometer Manual” in 1866 that things really started to change. Barometers also had and have inherent limitations, even for the most skilled user. Before then one simply looked at the sky and the sea, made educated guesses (if you lived long enough to get a sea education) and hoped for the best. It often ended badly, and sometimes still does.
There may be some superficial similarities, but I don’t think it’s fair to compare the respective captains of Bounty and El Faro until much more is known about the more recent tragedy, and we have time to digest it properly. Bounty’s captain was known for recklessness and overconfidence, particularly regarding hurricanes.
But the assertion that El Faro’s master meant to “challenge Joaquin to stop his vessel” is a huge stretch without any evidence. I’m inclined to believe that he really thought that they could duck under Joaquin, cut it way too close given the uncertainty of the forecasts, and got caught when the storm rapidly intensified and they lost propulsion. They shouldn’t have been there, but I doubt he meant to sail right through the middle of it.
I would liken it more to the people who run with the bulls in Pamplona, and sometimes get stomped or gored when they misjudge them or stumble, rather than a bull fighter that faces off with the bulls directly in a “bring it!” mentality.
I’ll agree that any technology can be used poorly by some, and sometimes lead to poor outcomes, but I’d rather have it than not. That same reasoning could also conceivably be used to argue against better safety and survival equipment, too. In the case of lifeboats (or some new super-technology that succeeds them) how would knowing that there was a near-guarantee of surviving even a worst-case scenario as a result of badly misjudging the weather (or anything else going wrong) affect the judgment or risk-aversion/acceptance of any given master? There can be unintended consequences.
Do airbags and anti-lock brakes save people or only embolden them? Both, by my reckoning, but probably impossible to ever accurately quantify.
Something to think about, anyway.
[QUOTE=captjacksparrow;171703]Bounty’s captain was known for recklessness and overconfidence, particularly regarding hurricanes.[/QUOTE]
No, he was not. He made some strange remarks to a back woods reporter, probably trying to impress the boob, but no one that knows him or has ever sailed with him remembers ever “chasing” a hurricane or being otherwise reckless in regards to weather.
I believe his major problem was overconfidence in his vessel due to the “it’s always worked before” mindset that has caused numerous previous vessel casualties.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=captjacksparrow;171703]Do airbags and anti-lock brakes save people or only embolden them? Both, by my reckoning, but probably impossible to ever accurately quantify.[/QUOTE]
Excellent comparison!
Bounty and El Faro both sunk in hurricanes after they got too close. No doubt mistakes were made. Beyond those obvious points, there is little comparison. It’s ok to have a gut instinct informed by years of relevant seagoing experience for what probably happened, or shouldn’t have happened, but it still too early for too much finger-pointing.