|
Post by Northern Exploration on May 13, 2013 19:17:37 GMT -8
Has also made it to the National and other national news reports. On the CBC it was put ahead of the Tory's losing their only Newfoundland seat to the Liberals.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 13, 2013 20:21:02 GMT -8
This might not be over yet, as the defence might appeal the verdict. I can't see such an appeal over-turning the jury verdict, though.
It would also be nice to know all other steps that have been taken to deal with other contributing factors that led to this tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on May 13, 2013 20:49:31 GMT -8
I would like to take this opportunity to say a few things regarding Mr. Lilgert, whom I've been friends with since I was 10 years old (1979). While I do not dispute that he was, to some degree, negligent on the night of the accident, Karls skills as a mariner are second to none. He's a good, solid, intelligent, stand up kind of guy - very creative and meticulous with everything he does, and a lot of fun to be with. Obviously,this whole incident is awful for himself and everyone else concerned, as well as all of us who know and care deeply for him. He's a good man who, it appears, made a major mistake, and I wish him well.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on May 14, 2013 9:17:23 GMT -8
I would like to take this opportunity to say a few things regarding Mr. Lilgert, whom I've been friends with since I was 10 years old (1979). While I do not dispute that he was, to some degree, negligent on the night of the accident, Karls skills as a mariner are second to none. He's a good, solid, intelligent, stand up kind of guy - very creative and meticulous with everything he does, and a lot of fun to be with. Obviously,this whole incident is awful for himself and everyone else concerned, as well as all of us who know and care deeply for him. He's a good man who, it appears, made a major mistake, and I wish him well. I was really disheartened by the testimony that Mr Lilgert gave at the trial. I was hoping to hear a convincing argument that equipment deficiencies, training issues, or just some really unfortunate combination of chance circumstances led to the tragedy. I did not want the evidence to indicate that someone fell down so badly in executing their responsibilities that a ship went to the bottom of the sea with two lives onboard. Even given the evidence, I thought that perhaps the jury might not add it all up to criminal negligence... but they did, and I suppose it's not a shock. No doubt Mr Lilgert will appeal, as is his right. This story is not over yet. Thanks to the previous poster for his personal insight.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on May 14, 2013 12:05:26 GMT -8
His Lawyer is assembling the facts for the appeal. He is simply requesting leave to appeal. The Justices have the right to reject the request and it would all end right there.
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider2013 on May 14, 2013 15:48:59 GMT -8
I will not and Can not object to the Charge that Karl is guilty of criminal Neg in regards to the Sinking. However in regards to causing the deaths of the 2 MISSING Persons, I strongly object to, Based on this, Innocent until PROVING Guilty of the (Deaths). You have to Prove (Do all that you can do and all that technology has to offer) to make absolute sure they are indeed on board the ship. The Charges are based on ASSUMING AND PRESUMING Not on absolute concrete evidence.
What I am Saying is the Courts need to order someone to take a ROV down to the ship and actually try to find the bodies or at least one of them. Then you can prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The Point is In this case we have the technology to prosecute based on Facts and not Assuming and Presuming. If the bodies are indeed found on the ship, the evidence would warrant this charge, And it would bring closure to the famillies.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 17, 2013 5:51:38 GMT -8
Another twist to the tale... from here: www.canada.com/Guilty+ferry+crew+member+said+regular+Monkey+Island/8399384/story.htmlBC Ferries: the place where it's ok for officers and crew to smoke pot while on their ship. I didn't realize that's what monkey-island was for. - and the ship (the place of work) is also a place for a married guy to hook-up with someone else's wife. Awesome culture of excellence, for awesome quality people of exceptional character. Knowing all this, re the relaxed culture of the officers and crew, would any passengers have felt comfortable riding that ship ? - Would any of us be comfortable placing our safety in the hands of this kind of workplace culture ? For me, "No". So the accused/convicted man thought it ok to choose which rules to adhere to. Expert navigator or not, this defaults him from being a "mariner", in my opinion. Was he conducting himself in a manner where the safe passage of his passengers and ship was his overriding goal (and I'm referring to the general continuing behaviour while on-board ship, not specifically the 22 minutes before he struck the Gil Island)? No, it sounds like he was not a mariner who valued his ship and passengers. Would anyone here feel safe taking a night trip on the inside passage? Has BC Ferries culture changed? Why would anyone pay those high fares (no pun intended) in order to put your safety in the hands of officers & crew who flaunt company rules while on board ship and who allow themselves to possibly be distracted by continuing extra-marital affairs with each other? - Who would pay money to place their safety in that kind of situation ?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 17, 2013 9:01:30 GMT -8
Another twist to the tale... from here: www.canada.com/Guilty+ferry+crew+member+said+regular+Monkey+Island/8399384/story.htmlBC Ferries: the place where it's ok for officers and crew to smoke pot while on their ship. I didn't realize that's what monkey-island was for. - and the ship (the place of work) is also a place for a married guy to hook-up with someone else's wife. Awesome culture of excellence, for awesome quality people of exceptional character. Knowing all this, re the relaxed culture of the officers and crew, would any passengers have felt comfortable riding that ship ? - Would any of us be comfortable placing our safety in the hands of this kind of workplace culture ? For me, "No". So the accused/convicted man thought it ok to choose which rules to adhere to. Expert navigator or not, this defaults him from being a "mariner", in my opinion. Was he conducting himself in a manner where the safe passage of his passengers and ship was his overriding goal (and I'm referring to the general continuing behaviour while on-board ship, not specifically the 22 minutes before he struck the Gil Island)? No, it sounds like he was not a mariner who valued his ship and passengers. Would anyone here feel safe taking a night trip on the inside passage? Has BC Ferries culture changed? Why would anyone pay those high fares (no pun intended) in order to put your safety in the hands of officers & crew who flaunt company rules while on board ship and who allow themselves to possibly be distracted by continuing extra-marital affairs with each other? - Who would pay money to place their safety in that kind of situation ? Mr. Horn, your questions are right on the money. These concerns have haunted me these last seven years. There was at that time a bad 'culture' on board the northern live-aboard vessels and I can only hope that it has changed. Amongst other things the tolerance for the use of marijuana by crews is deeply concerning. Crew on these ships are never really off-duty during their two-week rotation (they are either 'on duty' or on 'standby' and all have a role to play in emergency responce). What they do while truly 'off' during their two weeks off is one thing, but use of any intoxicants during their two-weeks-on is quite another manner. Crew member, it would seem, were either participating in this, or turning a blind eye to it. I do not believe that senior crew (e.g. masters & senior officers) and BCFS northern region management at that time did not know what was going on. They were not only putting passenger safety at risk but also crew safety. One must remember that one or more crew members had near-death experiences in the sinking of the QotN. This 'culture' problem also extended to many aspects of the way the bridge was manned and navigational equipment was (not) operated. Examples: - apparently it was routine to 'con' the ship with just one licensed officer on duty as was the case in the early hours of 22 March 2006. It is my understanding that regulations required at least two licensed officers - It is known that the wheelhouse on the QotN was wired up with Sirius satellite radio that was in use at the time of the incident. I am not sure that the use of entertainment devices are appropriate for BC Ferry wheelhouses. - Use of electronic navigational aids - some (most/all?) of these were not used as they should have been, and that appears to have been routine. For instance, why would there have been no 'off-course' alarm once they got well away from their intended course in Wright Sound? I could go on. One can only hope that this sort of culture has been changed. Are you putting yourself at excessive risk, even now, when you board a northern route BC Ferry? One suggested contributing factor in this accident was training/ lack of familiarity with bridge equipment. One must remember that these crews operated the QPR through most of the fall/winter in those days. The QotN had only just replaced the QPR a week or two prior to the accident. New navigational equipment had apparently been installed. At that time were all crew members expected to use such equipment adequately trained on it, and was their competency tested? What is the situation today? I have heard it said that this cultural slide was brought about, at least in part, by the decision circa 1980 to base the northern ships in Prince Rupert.
And now for something not completely different.... Still at Sea: The Queen of the North - a documentary by Betsy Trumpener from CBC Radio's Daybreak North and presented on The Current. Give it a listen... www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2383986045
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jun 24, 2013 10:03:35 GMT -8
Karl Lilgert was sentenced to 4 years in Prison. Here's more
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Jun 24, 2013 21:33:57 GMT -8
Four years for Karl Lilgert. In reality, perhaps fifteen months.
I don't know quite how I feel about this. I'm sure that the very last thing Karl Lilgert ever intended on the night in question was that there would be a catastrophic accident, with two people dying. He probably didn't even have the sense that he was being careless. He had probably been on the bridge for many other uneventful passages by Gil Island.
But the trial pointed out weaknesses in his defense, and possibly even lies. The standard of seamanship, which may on other occasions have not led to any mishaps, was on this night fatal.
And that's the key. No criminal intent, perhaps no consciousness of a cavalier attitude, but conduct far below that which is required of an officer on the bridge of a ferry. There needs to be a message sent to all others in the same position of responsibility, and I think it was.
There's no indication that he is not in essence a good man who is deeply troubled by what he did. In the end, though, that's not good enough. Two people died. He'll have the rest of his life to reflect on that, in and out of jail.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jun 25, 2013 8:05:04 GMT -8
Four years for Karl Lilgert. In reality, perhaps fifteen months. Four years for murder that is not harsh at all; he has ten year banned for operating vessels. It should be a least ten years in jail for murder plus addition ten years for the sinking of the boat.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Jun 25, 2013 8:24:01 GMT -8
Four years for Karl Lilgert. In reality, perhaps fifteen months. Four years for murder that is not harsh at all; he has ten year banned for operating vessels. It should be a least ten years in jail for murder plus addition ten years for the sinking of the boat. Get your terms right- Lilgert was not convicted or accused of murder. No one gets ten years for 'sinking the boat'.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 25, 2013 8:46:03 GMT -8
Four years for Karl Lilgert. In reality, perhaps fifteen months. Four years for murder that is not harsh at all; he has ten year banned for operating vessels. It should be a least ten years in jail for murder plus addition ten years for the sinking of the boat. ...ahh, where is member "Billable Hours" when we need some good legal explaining. "Murder" is by definition a pre-meditated act. - there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Lilgert decided in advance to kill those people. (I'm just spelling it out, to show how absurd the murder concept is to this matter).
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 25, 2013 15:25:52 GMT -8
Four years for Karl Lilgert. In reality, perhaps fifteen months. Four years for murder that is not harsh at all; he has ten year banned for operating vessels. It should be a least ten years in jail for murder plus addition ten years for the sinking of the boat. When it comes to justice it depends on where you make your comparison as to whether or not you think the punishment fits the crime. BC's former Premier, Gordon Campbell, was convicted of drunk driving in Hawaii. He had a blood alcohol content of almost double Hawaii's legal limit. He could very easily have killed one or more persons. What was his punishment? Did he get to keep his job? In my view, the sentence handed to Mr. Lilgert is appropriate. As I have said before, the 'blame' for this tragedy is not his alone.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jun 25, 2013 18:46:40 GMT -8
:)the blame is hardly Mr. Ligalrt's alone, how could a bridge of a complex northern vessel have been left to a wheelhouse manned by these two characters? It would have been unthinkable for this to have happened on the bridge of the QPR in my years back in 1966, let alone in today's complex navagation! mrdot.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Jun 25, 2013 19:00:51 GMT -8
:)the blame is hardly Mr. Ligalrt's alone, how could a bridge of a complex northern vessel have been left to a wheelhouse manned by these two characters? It would have been unthinkable for this to have happened on the bridge of the QPR in my years back in 1966, let alone in today's complex navagation! mrdot. Could you expand on this? How, in your view, were the qualifications, and perhaps the overall ship culture and training protocol, different from 1966 to what apparently existed on the Queen of The North? What do you mean by 'these two characters'? Your comments are very intriguing to those of us struggling to understand this tragedy.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jun 25, 2013 19:47:58 GMT -8
:)expansion on this 'unthinkable' navigation practice, I can never remember less than three well qualified navigation crew in any of the wheelhouses that I ever encountered, save the little mill bay ferry, and excuse my old fashioned 'sexisim' but a recent waitress from the cafeteria, as quartermaster? mrdot.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Jun 25, 2013 20:18:13 GMT -8
:)expansion on this 'unthinkable' navigation practice, I can never remember less than three well qualified navigation crew in any of the wheelhouses that I ever encountered, save the little mill bay ferry, and excuse my old fashioned 'sexisim' but a recent waitress from the cafeteria, as quartermaster? mrdot. ...but then, I have to ask- and since you were there, you seem a good person to direct this to- would someone with Karen Briker's qualifications not have been found in a junior capacity on the QPR's bridge in 1966? Were the protocols for advancement and training different- perhaps more stringent- forty five years ago? I don't think anyone has questioned Karl Lilgert's qualifications for the position he was executing that night. His attentiveness and judgment are another matter.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jun 25, 2013 20:40:06 GMT -8
:)perhaps, like new head coach torteleni, I need to be careful in my reply, but much has changed from my days on the QPR, and they crew out of Rupert, very unlike my time out of Kelsey Bay, it seems there is much change from those years, and it appears you can rapidly advance from the cafeteria! O_omrdot.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 25, 2013 20:47:57 GMT -8
Neil, I believe that BC Ferries as an organization was probably negligent for allowing that ship to be conned by just one licensed officer, and another unqualified person in a training position. We should remember that this crew included a captain & a first, second, third & fourth officers. There should have been a second licensed officer engaged in the navigation of the ship. Had there been a third person there it seems improbable that the other two would have gotten 'distracted' in they way that they apparently were.
It also seems fairly apparent to me that navigational aids (radar, GPS, off-course alarms, etc) were not being operated in a competent manner and that appears to have been routine on this vessel (& probably the QPR, as well). I believe that Mr. Lilgert was only one part of the problem. Much of the rest 'belonged' to the organization.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,181
|
Post by Neil on Jun 25, 2013 21:15:19 GMT -8
Neil, I believe that BC Ferries as an organization was probably negligent for allowing that ship to be conned by just one licensed officer, and another unqualified person in a training position. We should remember that this crew included a captain & a first, second, third & fourth officers. There should have been a second licensed officer engaged in the navigation of the ship. Had there been a third person there it seems improbable that the other two would have gotten 'distracted' in they way that they apparently were. It also seems fairly apparent to me that navigational aids (radar, GPS, off-course alarms, etc) were not being operated in a competent manner and that appears to have been routine on this vessel (& probably the QPR, as well). I believe that Mr. Lilgert was only one part of the problem. Much of the rest 'belonged' to the organization. It's been my contention from the time of the sinking that people were too quick to jump on the crew on the bridge that night, and that there were most likely corporate factors that weighed heavily in producing an environment where an accident like this could happen. The comment from mrdot intrigued me, but I quite understand if he doesn't want to get into specifics regarding the situation at the time of his employment on the northern route. The trial reflected poorly on Mr Lilgert, but he is going to appeal, and despite the verdict, BC Ferries should not rest comfortably in the assumption that his conviction absolved them of their role in the ' North's demise.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jun 26, 2013 1:01:42 GMT -8
Every time I"ve logged into the forum the last few days I've seen this thread as the active thread in the BC Ferries - General Discussion forum. I haven't checked out the new posts as I'm kinda tuckered out on this subjet. I was grabbing a beer tonight in Seattle with a friend of mine who just got back from five days in Surrey with his BC dwelling girlfriend. Somehow we started talking about ferries. He's from a family of fishermen. He said "hey, I heard on the Canadian news they convicted the watch officer on that BC Ferry that sank." I was like, "huh, that must be why that thread is active again." And so, I get home, and sure enough, thats why.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jun 26, 2013 6:25:04 GMT -8
I would suspect that some of these improper practices on the bridge of the QotN were dealt withe in the Transport canada report. The overnight service should have 2 full bridge crews due to the trip's length. what did T.C. change the brighe crewing levels too?
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jun 29, 2013 13:48:15 GMT -8
This is a sad end to a very sad event. I think as the senior person on the bridge the sentence, which will be adjusted no doubt with a much earlier release, is probably appropriate. However hard I was on the crew on the bridge, I think it was justified, as they had forgotten they had the lives of the people onboard all [relying] on their skills and attention.
However, that doesn't mean that there are other complicit factors and being hard on the bridge crew doesn't mean others bear some culpability. Other factors however doesn't mean in my mind that it is an excuse for the loss of attention. If you go way back in the discussion I believe the two crews for the Northern route were run somewhat differently. I clearly remember one trip where the crew came across very different. I think one was quite a bit "looser". I believe BC Ferries dealt with that with the firing of the Master that the appeals upheld. If I remember correctly no link was formally made to the sinking but have a strong inkling that it was very much in the picture as evidence of the management style and practices for that crew. As well there likely were procedures and policies that should have been in place, such as dimming of radar equipment etc. that in hindsight should have been in place. However, it is likely that the test levels for charges to be laid were not met.
Unfortunately more change at an organization comes from a severe situation than in normal daily management. It takes an extremely agile and effective manager to stay in front of the sorts of situations that the sinking has highlighted, when you are constantly distracted by the ongoing daily flood of just getting the job done. Those are the CEO's and top managers that often due to their skills get hired away too often and don't stay long enough at any one organization to fully make change and keep the momentum going. You also really have to be tenacious at forcing change, because everyone is just wanting to get on with things and not have to deal with the stress of new methods and enforced rules. Severe situations are an opportunity to make change because people's resistance level is temporarily reduced. Sad that it often takes a big mistake or a bad situation to make changes that are needed. In this case lost lives should mean more lives are saved through a safer culture and procedures. One would hope those changes don't erode over time back to something less than it should be.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Jul 1, 2013 3:44:49 GMT -8
I always come to the conclusion that BC Ferries just has werid accidents like this...its a curse I think of the pseudo-privatization. A few of my friends in the maritime trade also agree with me.
|
|