|
Post by gordon on Aug 21, 2009 6:23:43 GMT -8
Although $200k is a fair amount of money but considering the2 girls lost their Dad a larger settlement would have been better. It is sad that court expenses in this province are such that a court trial would be too expensive. The people of B.C. who in effect own the ferry service deserve to know what happened that fateful night.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 16, 2009 6:21:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 16, 2009 17:16:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 17, 2009 8:13:08 GMT -8
Thanks for that link. A few things that I found interesting: - The first testimony from the boy mentioned that he awoke when the ferry docked at Bella Bella, and then fell asleep again before the accident. Ha! I wonder how that bit of misinformation managed to get into the court testimony. ;D - The various person's stories are interesting to read regarding the events on the sailing. These eye witness accounts of what happened give us a better perspective of what those hours must have been like. - The various person's stories are sad to read about how people had problems afterward in their lives. The judge has a tough job to decide who actually deserves some compensation. From my reading of the various stories, it was tough for me to see the reasons for why some people were awarded nothing and that one guy from Bella Bella was awarded $14,000. The stuff of psychological injury is so subjective. I think it comes down to who has the best medical reports and who was able to articulate the best argument.
|
|
|
Post by nolonger on Mar 16, 2010 11:31:35 GMT -8
VANCOUVER - Queen of the North navigating officer Karl Lilgert has been charged with criminal negligence causing the deaths of Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette, in the sinking of the B.C. ferry on March 22, 2006. The charges were sworn today in Provincial Court in Vancouver, and the next appearance has been scheduled for Wednesday April 14, according to a news release. At 12:22 a.m. on March 22, 2006 the British Columbia ferry Queen of the North struck bottom along the north side of Gil Island in Wright Sound. The vessel sank approximately 80 minutes later. While passengers and crew abandoned the vessel before it sank, passengers Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette could not be located following the sinking. Lilgert has been charged on the basis that he was the navigating officer responsible for steering of the vessel at the time of the incident. The available evidence does not support the laying of charges against anyone other than Lilgert, according to the news release. The Queen of the North sank March 22, 2006, in Wright Passage after it failed to make a crucial turn and struck Gil Island. Ninety-nine of the 101 passengers and crew got off the vessel onto lifeboats. Colin Henthorne Henthorne was not on the bridge at the time of the crash. Second officer Keven Hilton was on a scheduled meal break, leaving crew members, and former lovers, Lilgert and Karen Bricker in control of the vessel when it went aground. A Transportation Safety Board report concluded the sinking happened in part because of the lack of a third qualified person on the bridge to aid Bricker. Lilgert, Hilton and Bricker were subsequently fired by the company. www.globaltvbc.com/Navigating+officer+charged+2006+fatal+Queen+North+sinking/2689567/story.html
|
|
|
Post by stvfishy on Mar 16, 2010 13:53:49 GMT -8
www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/03/16/bc-queen-north-charges.htmlCharges laid in BC Ferries deathsLast Updated: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 | 12:42 PM PT CBC Newswww.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/11/05/bc-generic-queen-of-the-north-TSB.jpgFigure Caption: The Queen of the North sank March 22, 2006, near Gil Island off B.C.'s coast. This image was taken by a submersible robot. (Transportation Safety Board)One of the officers on the ill-fated Queen of the North has been charged with criminal negligence causing the deaths of two people, in the sinking of the BC Ferries vessel off the West Coast in March 2006. Karl Lilgert, the navigating officer responsible for steering the vessel at the time, was charged on Tuesday morning in B.C. Provincial Court in Vancouver, said a statement issued by the province's Criminal Justice Branch. The ferry sank two hours after running aground near Gil Island, south of Prince Rupert. While 99 crew and passengers managed to abandon ship, passengers Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette were never found, and are believed to have gone down with the ship. The statement by Crown spokesman Neil MacKenzie said the evidence did not warrant laying charges against any other member of the ship's crew. Previous investigation led to suspensions A BC Ferries internal report on the sinking, issued in March 2007, blamed human error for the accident and singled out two officers and one crew member in charge of navigation and steering at the time for failing to make a required course change. BC Ferries suspended Lilgert and second officer Kevin Hilton when they refused to give crucial details of what happened before the ferry sank. A separate investigation by the Transportation Safety Board determined Lilgert and a crew member on the bridge, quartermaster Karen Bricker, were having a conversation and did not make a critical course change just before the ship ran aground. The pair had recently ended a romantic relationship, the report noted. In November 2008, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the suspensions of Lilgert and Hilton. No previous criminal charges were ever laid. Lilgert's next court appearance is scheduled for April 14. The vessel's captain, Colin Henthorne, was not on the bridge at the time of the incident, and WorksafeBC ruled in March 2009 that he should return to work, two years after he lost his job over the incident. =========================================== -->we need a thumbs down/up commentary section
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Mar 16, 2010 18:04:31 GMT -8
Have the Crewing levels on the bridges of the new vessels changed?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 16, 2010 19:01:26 GMT -8
A second report from CBC.ca: www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/03/16/bc-queen-north-unanswered-questions.html Sunken ferry trial will fall short: lawyer
Won't address broader issues of ferry operator's responsibility
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 | 5:31 PM PT The Canadian Press
The criminal trial of the navigating officer charged in the 2006 sinking of a B.C. ferry won't address the larger issues of responsibilty that a public inquiry would and leave many questions unanswered, said the lawyer for the daughters of one of two people killed in the incident.
Karl Lilgert was charged Tuesday with criminal negligence in the deaths of Gerald Foisy and his common-law wife, Shirley Rosette. Lilgert was the navigating officer on the Queen of the North when it sank March 22, 2006, after crashing into Gil Island off the northwest coast of B.C., about 140 kilometres south of Prince Rupert.
Foisy and Rosette were the only people aboard the vessel who did not survive — out of a total 101 passengers and crew members. They are believed to have gone down with the ship, but their bodies were never found.
Foisy's two daughters settled a lawsuit with BC Ferries last year for $200,000 after their lawyer said legal costs were making it impossible to proceed to trial.
Lawyer Peter Ritchie complained at the time that the settlement meant many of the questions about what went wrong that night would remain unanswered.
On Tuesday, he said he was skeptical that a criminal trial would change that.
"I think you might find out more about it, but you have to bear in mind this is a criminal trial; this is not an inquiry, and the frame of reference is very much different," Ritchie said in an interview.
"I would expect a whole variety of issues which will never see the light of day."
Ritchie said those issues include assessments of the ferry operator's rescue procedures, crew training and discipline policies.
"I would suspect that a lot of these issues would not arise [in a criminal trial]," he said.
Officer admits responsibility but not negligence Lilgert plans to plead not guilty, said his lawyer, Glen Orris.
"He doesn't deny that he is responsible for what happened," said Orris. "He was the person in charge of the ferry at the time that it ran aground, so clearly, he's the one that's responsible.
"But my view is the mistake or mistakes he may have made don't amount to criminal negligence."
The Transportation Safety Board found in its report on the incident that there were only two crew members on the bridge, and they failed to make a crucial course correction, which is what caused the ship to hit Gil Island.
Navigation equipment that would have warned of a collision had been turned off weeks earlier.
The report said quartermaster Karen Bricker and Lilgert, the fourth officer, had recently ended a relationship, and it was their first shift alone together on watch since the break-up.
The safety board said the two were engaged in a personal conversation while the ship was on its collision course.
Bricker and Lilgert, along with Second Officer Keven Hilton, who was on a scheduled lunch break at the time of the collision, were all fired.
Orris wouldn't comment on what Lilgert is up to now.
"Obviously, a tragedy like this, Karl is going to carry this around for the rest of his life," said Orris. "You can't cause people to have lost their lives and not carry that around with you."
Four-year investigation The criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General said the four-year investigation has been a difficult and detailed one, although it didn't elaborate on why Lilgert was charged but Bricker wasn't.
"Mr. Lilgert has been charged on the basis that he was the navigating officer responsible for steering of the vessel at the time of the incident," the branch said in a news release.
"The available evidence does not support the laying of charges against anyone other than Mr. Lilgert."
Bricker's lawyer, Christopher Giaschi, declined to comment or to speculate why she wasn't charged.
"She was just a deckhand," he said.
The president and CEO of BC Ferries, David Hahn, said he couldn't comment on the charge.
Many lawsuits not settled "Hopefully, the families who lost their loved ones and the other people that were on the vessel that night will get some closure," Hahn said in an interview.
"I think our work on this ended some time ago."
A spokeswoman for the provincial transportation minister said he wouldn't be commenting, either, and referred questions to the Criminal Justice Branch.
Three passengers who survived the sinking were given small court settlements for psychological distress and physical injury in a court ruling last year, including $14,000 for a commercial fisherman who said the sinking left him afraid of the water.
Two other passengers received nothing, but they are appealing the ruling.
Forty-four passengers still have their cases before the courts.
Its is statements like the one quoted here that lead me to believe that there is a lot more to this story than just one or two or three people...
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 16, 2010 20:27:57 GMT -8
I heard this earlier today and didn't have time to post anything.
I guess I don't quite understand why it has take this long just to lay charges with a case like this. There isn't any additional information or active investigation going on. No new recordings of conversations etc. that lend a window into what was going on during those minutes on the bridge as the ferry failed to make its usual turn. Unless of course someone finally decided to be more forthcoming with some evidence or pressure on one party to cooperate more fully. Or perhaps a new crown prosecutor has decided to run with what was already known.
|
|
|
Post by nolonger on Mar 17, 2010 7:48:49 GMT -8
according to a news report, charges were forwarded to the crown in Feb. 2008. Crown apparently decided that more investigation was required, and after further investigation, charges were laid this week. Sounds like either new information has been discovered or some one has agreed to talk.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 18, 2010 19:27:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 16, 2010 7:09:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 31, 2010 20:18:18 GMT -8
More on the dismissed captain's legal appeal... from the Tyee. Queen of North Captain Fighting His FiringTribunal ruled Henthorne 'heroic' but responsible for tragedy. He claims he was dumped for raising safety concerns. By Andrew MacLeod, 23 May 2010, TheTyee.ca
Colin Henthorne, the captain aboard the Queen of the North the night it sank, has filed for a judicial review of his firing.
The legal question hinges on whether or not Henthorne's raising safety concerns during British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.'s divisional inquiry into the 2006 sinking had anything to do with the company later firing him.
The two bodies that have already looked at the case have made opposite rulings. Those rulings, previously unreleased, have now become public as part of Henthorne's 129-page court petition.
In a July 21, 2008, report WorkSafe B.C. case officer Elaine Murray wrote, "I find that at least part of the motivation for deciding to terminate the worker relates to the employer being displeased with the worker's attitude towards safety issues as a member of management. Thus, the motivation for firing the worker is tainted."
But a Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal decision dated March 11, 2010, reversed Murray's finding. Panelists Heather McDonald, Lesley Christensen and Warren Hoole, having heard testimony from former B.C. Ferries captains Trafford Taylor and George Capacci, decided raising safety issues had nothing to do with Henthorne's firing.
"Rather, we have found that with the sinking of the ship and the loss of two lives, the worker's continued employment as exempt Master was already in serious jeopardy," they wrote. "Subsequent events confirmed, in the employer's mind, that the employment relationship could not continue."
The two passengers presumed drowned are Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette.
As on-duty master of the Queen of the North, Henthorne was accountable for the accident, the tribunal found. "The employer lost confidence in the worker's suitability as an exempt Master due to the employer's perception that the worker failed to accept ultimate responsibility and accountability as Master for the marine accident and due to the employer's perception that the worker did not appreciate his role as a member of its management team."
Ruling discourages voicing safety concerns
Howard Ehrlich, the lawyer acting for Henthorne, said his client wants the judicial review to set aside the WCAT decision and reinstate Murray's finding.
While the WCAT panel heard from Taylor and Capacci, the decision to fire Henthorne was made by a group of people that included senior executives and B.C. Ferries president David Hahn, according to Henthorne's submission to the court.
The panel failed to seek or find "direct evidence of the state of mind of several of the individuals who decided to terminate the petitioner's employment" and whether Henthorne's raising safety concerns affected their decisions, it said.
Also, it said, the appeal is based on "the admissions of B.C. Ferries' witnesses that the petitioner was terminated in part because of their perception that the petitioner avoided responsibility for the marine accident in which he was involved, and that the fact that the petitioner raised safety concerns contributed to their perception that the petitioner avoided taking responsibility."
The WCAT ruling sends a worrisome message to workers, Ehrlich said in an interview. "The important part from our perspective is if an employee can be fired if an employer incorrectly and unfairly perceives that an employee is raising safety concerns to avoid taking responsibility, employees won't raise safety concerns."
Similarly, if the fact an employee raises safety concerns allows an employer to view that person as someone who is not a team player, who can then be fired, that's a problem, he said. Workers will be loathe to voice their safety concerns, he said.
The lawyer acting for B.C Ferries on the file declined to comment.
OK to fire hero: WCAT
Neither the Transportation Safety Board nor B.C. Ferries divisional inquiry assigned blame to Henthorne. Even the WCAT ruling against him called his actions the night of the sinking "heroic."
"By all accounts, prior to the sinking of the ship the employer viewed his performance as a Master as excellent," wrote the panel. "The worker was asleep in his cabin at the time of the ship's collision and there is no question that he was entitled to be there at the time.
"His role in the evacuation and rescue of the ship's passengers and crew was heroic. Our ruling in this appeal does not detract from the courage and leadership he displayed in the aftermath of the marine accident."
Still, Capacci and Taylor told the WCAT panel that as master captain Henthorne was ultimately responsible for what happened to the ship.
According to B.C. Ferries' fleet regulations, "The Master has the overriding authority and responsibility on matters affecting the safety of the vessel, passengers, crew, cargo and the environment."
Capacci told the panel, "a Master has no one to turn to but himself and is responsible for all manner of things that take place on his ship, such as (just to name a few) activities in the engineering, catering, or deck departments and issues of passenger service and safety."
According to the document, Capacci told the panel that "we're all responsible" and that he offered his own resignation to B.C. Ferries president Hahn, which was not accepted. "Captain [Capacci] testified that in his postion as vice-president for Fleet Operations he felt responsible for the situation and he took the loss of the ship and two lives very personally."
Capacci is no longer with B.C. Ferries and is now working for a ferry company in the U.S.
Ship's master responsible regardless
Taylor, who has also since left the company, was quoted saying, "It doesn't matter what happens on a ship... the safe navigation of a ship, it's all the responsibility of the Master."
The panel agreed Henthorne was responsible. "This is despite the fact that the worker had retired to his cabin hours before the ship grounded and despite the fact that no one has ever indicated that it was inappropriate for the worker to have made the decision at that time to get the requisite hours of sleep."
Within the maritime culture, it was expected that a master would take responsibility for a ship's sinking regardless of whether he or she was directly at fault, they found. "Captain [Capacci] said that if he had captained a ship that sunk he would expect to be relieved of his command and he 'would move inland with an oar over my shoulder.'"
Henthorne's address on the court documents is in Alberta.
But it is also clear from the documents that Henthorne raised numerous concerns about safety in two interviews during the divisional inquiry into the crash.
He provided a list of 58 concerns, including problems with the guardrails, pitch control systems, the need for accurate passenger counts, the maganetic compass on the ship's autopilot, handles on searchlights, a sink draining onto the car deck and dangerous inner bow doors.
None of the problems were things he figured caused the crash and many, but not all, of them had been dealt with by the company. He did offer in his list this observation on chronic B.C. Ferries safety problems: "First, they are created by someone who does not have to cope with them and second, the person who does have to cope with them does not have the means to solve them."
'Bridge crew staffed according to regulations': WCAT
The original Workers' Compensation Board decision by Murray made reference to the report George Morfitt wrote for the company on safety.
In that report Morfitt described the relationship between the union and the employer as largely dysfunctional and a "significant impediment to resolving operational safety issues."
"It is more than apparent from the employer's submission that it viewed the worker as still playing on the union team even though he was in management," Murray wrote. "Mr. Morfitt's conclusions about the lack of cooperation between union and management in the workplace with respect to safety concerns resonate here. In my view, the evidence suggests that at least part of the employer's reasons for expecting the worker to have an 'appreciation of his role on the management team' stems from it not understanding... that safety concerns are not to be divided along lines of management or union."
Henthorne's speculation for the cause of the crash was similar to what the TSB and other investigators found: the officers on duty on the bridge, Karl Lilgert and Karen Bricker, failed to make a course correction and 14 minutes later struck Gil island.
Lilgert has since been charged with criminal negligence causing death. The criminal justice branch found the available evidence didn't support charging anyone else.
Henthorne told the divisional inquiry he'd been unaware that Lilgert and Bricker had previously had a romantic relationship, and that he had no concerns about the staff on the bridge the night the ship sank, according to WCAT's summary. "The bridge crew was staffed according to regulations and he had been confident in his overnight watches."
Captain not seen to be sad
The WCAT panel found that Henthorne's raising safety concerns was not a factor in his termination, though Henthorne's lawyer contends Capacci and Taylor's testimony shows the raising of safety concerns contributed to their seeing Henthorne as someone who was not a team player, as someone who was failing to take responsibility for his own role in the sinking.
"Rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, they did not perceive the worker as feeling remorse and sadness about the loss of the ship and two lives or that he questioned the part he may have had to play in the cause of the accident," the panel wrote.
Part of that perception, said Ehrlich, was Henthorne's discussion of safety issues during the divisional inquiry.
The panel considered a similar argument and disagreed. "We find that it is not fair or reasonable to isolate a few sentences from the testimony of Captains [Capacci] and [Taylor] from the overall context of the [Divisional Inquiry] panel's message to the worker and the employer's response to his concerns," they wrote.
The WCAT panel found that B.C. Ferries has a commitment to safety and the people running the divisional inquiry genuinely wanted to hear about safety concerns that might have contributed to the sinking.
"Viewing the evidence about the DI interviews as a whole and considering the testimony from the employer's witnesses as a whole, we find it clear that it was not the raising of the worker's safety concerns that was the problem for the employer. Rather, it was the worker's failure to address himself to the focus of the DI and, as requested by the DI panel, turn his mind to providing them with helpful information about the sinking of the ship."
It will be up to a supreme court judge to decide whether or not Henthorne's raising of safety concerns was a factor in his dismissal. A court date has not yet been set. Nor has B.C. Ferries filed a response to the petition.
B.C. Ferries is reportedly suing Henthorne to recover the back wages that were paid to him after the first decision reinstated him, plus interest. Ehrlich said that his client hasn't yet responded in that case, which is a separate action.
However, he added, if Henthorne is successful in the judicial review, the back wages case would likely disappear.
Andrew MacLeod is The Tyee's Legislative Bureau Chief in Victoria.
TIMELINE: HENTHORNE AND BC FERRIES 1987, June: Colin Henthorne joins B.C. Ferries as a seaman.
2006, Feb. 7: Henthorne promoted to Master, a job he took saying he hoped to use the position to affect change in the company.
2006, March 22: Queen of the North sinks with Henthorne on duty as Master. All but two passengers, Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette, escape with their lives.
2006, April to May: B.C. Ferries convenes a divisional inquiry into the sinking. Henthorne is interviewed twice. As part of his testimony he raises safety concerns and between interviews submits a list of 58 safety concerns.
2007, Jan. 15: B.C. Ferries sends Henthorne a letter saying it no longer required his services. A few days later it posts an advertisement seeking Masters to join the company.
2007, March 26: The inquiry issues a report that doesn't blame Henthorne for the accident.
2008, Jan. 10: Henthorne files a complaint with the Workers' Compensation Board alleging his raising safety concerns contributed to his firing.
2008, March: A Transportation Safety Board report on the sinking is released, which doesn't blame Henthorne either.
2008, July 21: The Workers' Compensation Board finds in Henthorne's favour, saying his raising of safety concerns did contribute at least in part to his firing.
2009, Feb. 23: B.C. Ferries ordered to reinstate Henthorne to his former position.
2009, June-Nov.: 10 days of hearings are held into B.C. Ferries appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
2010, March 11: The WCAT finds in B.C. Ferries' favour.
2010, May 10: Henthorne applies for a judicial review, seeking to set aside the WCAT decision.
|
|
|
Post by uricanejack on Jun 1, 2010 12:49:13 GMT -8
I have no doubt senior management was less than pleased to be handed a 58 item list of safety deficiencies during their divisional enquiry. I may have appeared he was pointing the finger of blame back at them instead of acknowledge his own failure to ensure the safe navigation of the ship.
The transportation safety board never portions out blame. Blame is specifically avoided in the interest of getting full cooperation and information from those involved. They did not blame any of the officers involved.
The companies divisional enquiry would be very unlikely to directly point a finger of blame at the Master. From a legal point of view for the company to blame the Master is an admission of the companies liability.
Normal legal advice is to retain the services of the Master in some other role until the after the official TSB report is published. And the civil liability dealt with then quietly dispense with his services.
In the TSB report one can usually read between the lines where some one has not performed as they should have.
In this case they refer to 4th officers distraction by a conversation and failure to check the vessels position for 14 minutes. No blame but figure it out yourself.
The TSB report gives one of its most damaging comments ever in one over their report referring to the operation as being lax and sloppy from the top to the bottom.
It is the Master’s job not to be on the bridge all the time but to ensure the vessel is properly run in accordance with good navigational practices and the ordinary practice of good seamanship.
In this case it is pretty clear to any professional mariner this vessel was routinely not operated in accordance with good navigational practice and the ordinary practice of good seamanship.
In short the Master was at fault.
There was probably a good deal of fault going well above the Master but the Master is the Man with the direct responsibility and authority for the safety of the ship.
Finally it is clearly stated the minimum safe manning requirement for the Navigational watch is one certified officer with at least watch keeping mate certificate. And one additional CERTIFIED bridge watch with in conditions of confined waters darkness heavy concentrations of traffic a 2nd additional bridge watch.
THE 2ND ADITIONAL PERSON MAY BE UNCERTIFIED AND UNDER TRAINING. THE 2ND ADITIONAL PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED IF AN AUTO PILOT IS IN USE.
Mr Lilgert was a certified watch keeping mate. Miss Bricker was not a certified bridge watch man. The ship was on auto pilot..
The company will not be quick to admit the ship was not in compliance. The TSB just points out the facts not blame.
Was this ship being operated in compliance with the rules? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jun 1, 2010 13:18:15 GMT -8
Was the Master not on a scheduled meal break? It seems that theremay well have been less crew on the bridge than required . Does B.C. Ferries now have the proper number of accredited crew on The bridges of the Nor Ad and the Nor EX?
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 1, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -8
Does B.C. Ferries now have the proper number of accredited crew on The bridges of the Nor Ad and the Nor EX? When I was on the NorAd's bridge, there were AT LEAST four crew on the bridge, maybe more.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 1, 2010 20:47:57 GMT -8
In the TSB report one can usually read between the lines where some one has not performed as they should have. ..... The TSB report gives one of its most damaging comments ever in one over their report referring to the operation as being lax and sloppy from the top to the bottom. It is the Master’s job not to be on the bridge all the time but to ensure the vessel is properly run in accordance with good navigational practices and the ordinary practice of good seamanship. In this case it is pretty clear to any professional mariner this vessel was routinely not operated in accordance with good navigational practice and the ordinary practice of good seamanship. In short the Master was at fault. There was probably a good deal of fault going well above the Master but the Master is the Man with the direct responsibility and authority for the safety of the ship. Finally it is clearly stated the minimum safe manning requirement for the Navigational watch is one certified officer with at least watch keeping mate certificate. And one additional CERTIFIED bridge watch with in conditions of confined waters darkness heavy concentrations of traffic a 2nd additional bridge watch. THE 2ND ADITIONAL PERSON MAY BE UNCERTIFIED AND UNDER TRAINING. THE 2ND ADITIONAL PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED IF AN AUTO PILOT IS IN USE. Mr Lilgert was a certified watch keeping mate. Miss Bricker was not a certified bridge watch man. The ship was on auto pilot.. The company will not be quick to admit the ship was not in compliance. The TSB just points out the facts not blame. Was this ship being operated in compliance with the rules? What do you think? The way I read it the ship was being operated in a less than professional manner. This appears to me to be a systemic problem and the blame for this includes people higher up in the organization than the just the officers of the watch and the master on duty at the time. Some points to consider... 1 - The Queen of the North had only recently returned to service. It had been in lay-up all winter until the time it relieved the Queen of Prince Rupert so that that vessel could have its annual refit. This happened, I recall, about 2 weeks before the accident. 2 - The Captain had only been promoted to rank of Master on 7 February 2006. He had about 19 years of experience with BC Ferries, but only 6 weeks serving as a master at the time of the accident. Is this a factor - I think so. By all accounts he did a very professional and competent job of evacuation of the ship 3 - The master was in his quarters sleeping at the time of the accident. This is quite all right. He is human and not capable of being on duty around the clock. He must get sleep. 4 - The second officer was at the time the officer in charge, as I understand it. He was not on the bridge but was taking a meal break. He left the fourth officer and helmsman on their own in the wheel house to 'con' the ship. This left just one licensed officer on duty. Is that permitted, is it acceptable? Was the second officer aware of something 'going on or previous history' between the two people left on duty? Perhaps an officer needing a meal break should have food brought to the bridge where he/she can continue to monitor the ship's operation. 5 - In the quote above it says that the ship was ' on auto pilot'. Does this not mean that an electronic device was supposed to be 'conning' the ship? In other words the course change at the south end of Grenville Channel should have occurred automatically? Obviously no course change took place initiated either by electronic hardware or human hands. If the auto pilot was operating as it should, what exactly does it do? Do such electronic devices make humans less attentive to their duties, do they allow them to drift off into conversations? 7 - Other electronic hardware is reported to have been switched off, or dimmed out. I understand, for instance, that there were no audible 'off course' alarms from GPS tracking systems or other instruments. Was this in fact the case? Was this a common practise? I have read that some crew members did not know how to dim instruments so as to keep the wheel house dark for night time vision. It sounds like there may have been some training and familiarization issues here. Responsibility to ensure that crew are well trained in the use of the navigational instrument & controls rests with the organization. My overall take on what I have heard and read is that the 'organization' bears a significant portion of responsibility for this unfortunate occurrence. What organizational changes have occurred since 22 March 2006 that would prevent another similar event.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Jun 1, 2010 21:28:21 GMT -8
Was this ship being operated in compliance with the rules? What do you think? I think some of us probably have a bit of debate fatigue with regard to the sinking. If you look back over this lengthy thread, you'll see an exhaustive debate, pro and con, over where the responsibility laid. I think Wett Coast summed things up really well. This was a combination of equipment, training, management style, and less than perfect standards of marinership that ended in tragedy. I would be surprised to have anyone found criminally responsible.
|
|
|
Post by nolonger on Jun 2, 2010 11:19:03 GMT -8
Wett Coast, an auto pilot does not "con" the ship. It merely maintains the course set into it. The course correction must be input to the auto pilot and it will turn the vessel but a human must still dial in the new course. Obviously it wasn't. I believe that it is possible that such devices can make humans less attentive. I sailed with one Master who refused to use the auto pilot for just that reason. Because the quartermaster was not a certified bridgewatchman, there should have been a second additional person with a bridgewatchman's certificate on the bridge. The responsibility lies with the Master to ensure that a proper bridge watch is maintained which it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 21, 2010 22:57:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 21, 2010 23:17:42 GMT -8
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Aug 24, 2010 11:27:29 GMT -8
www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/08/23/bc-queen-north-ferry-settlement-approved.html Judge OK's sunken B.C. ferry settlementA class-action settlement for passengers who escaped the sinking Queen of the North ferry may not be for as much as some had hoped, but it is fair and will help them move on from that frightening night four years ago, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled Monday. Judge Brian Joyce approved a settlement that will see $141,000 split among 45 passengers who were on the ship when it struck an island south of Prince Rupert in March 2006. Individual payments range from $500 to as high as $35,000. Joyce acknowledged many of the passengers aren't happy with the amounts they are receiving, but he said the deal will spare them from further litigation while helping them put the sinking behind them. "The survivors of the sinking of the Queen of the North need to have this matter finally brought to an end so that they can move forward," Joyce said in a written decision. Some settled separatelyTwo people died when the Queen of the North struck Gil Island off the northern B.C. coast, forcing passengers to scramble off the ship in the dark into lifeboats that took them to the isolated First Nations community of Hartley Bay. A total of 99 passengers and crew survived. The class-action lawsuit was launched in the weeks that followed, initially targeted BC Ferries and three of the ship's officers, but the crewmembers were dropped from the case last year. BC Ferries had already admitted liability, leaving the amounts of the payments as the only outstanding issue. One of the reasons some of the payments are limited to a few hundred dollars is a ruling Joyce made last year, restricting claims for psychological damages to those who could prove a "recognizable psychiatric illness." Nearly 20 of the passengers were unable to prove such a condition, and the settlement leaves that group with $500 each. "I do not doubt that most, if not all, of the passengers on board the Queen of the North that fateful night experienced a frightening event that caused emotional upset of one sort or another," wrote Joyce. "But the law, as a matter of policy, limits what is recoverable loss and this settlement must be viewed in light of the law that applies to this sort of injury." There were eight minors among the passengers, and the province's Public Guardian and Trustee argued their payments would be too small, but Joyce said those objections weren't enough to block the entire settlement. Last year, several "mini trials" were held to serve as examples for negotiating the individual payments. After those trials, three passengers were awarded amounts ranging from $500 for a minor back injury to $14,000 for a fisherman who says he's now afraid of the water. Their payments are included in the final settlement. Another passenger received $50,000 for a knee injury after reaching her own settlement with BC Ferries, and that amount is not included in the class-action settlement. Charge laidA couple from Australia have been taken out of the class-action case because of difficulties in assessing their claims, and their cases will be proceed on their own. The families of the two passengers who died have already reached settlements. Gerald Foisy's two daughters settled their case last year for $200,000 after their lawyer said legal costs were making it impossible to proceed to trial. Shirley Rosette's family has also settled, although the terms weren't made public. A 2008 Transportation Safety Board report concluded that two crewmembers on the bridge failed to make a crucial course correction, allowing the ship to run aground. The report said the navigating officer and a quartermaster had recently ended a relationship and were engaged in a personal conversation while the ship was on its collision course. This past spring, navigating officer Karl Lilgert was charged with criminal negligence causing death. He has pleaded not guilty.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 4, 2011 22:58:50 GMT -8
Sunken ferry captain's firing justified: court
The captain of a ferry that sank off B.C.'s north coast five years ago has lost an appeal of a workers' compensation panel ruling that said his firing was justified after the disaster.
Two passengers died when the Queen of the North sank in the middle of the night after failing to make a course change and slamming into Gil Island near Prince Rupert.Read on here, at CBC News BC.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Apr 5, 2011 13:10:01 GMT -8
the Captain -as I remember- was on a scheduled meal break when the tragic accdent occured. I thought the case against Karl Lilgert was going to court this spring.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 5, 2011 16:04:27 GMT -8
the Captain -as I remember- was on a scheduled meal break when the tragic accdent occured. I thought the case against Karl Lilgert was going to court this spring. Wrong, the captain was off duty, sleeping in his quarters at the time of the 'incident'. The person having the meal break was the other officer of the watch.
|
|