Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 29, 2016 12:08:45 GMT -8
Why does this thread now begin in May of 2007? What happened to the previous fourteen months of posts?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 29, 2016 12:25:00 GMT -8
Why does this thread now begin in May of 2007? What happened to the previous fourteen months of posts? Neil, when 'Proboards' upgraded about three years ago they scrambled not just this thread, but all the others of similar vintage. We also lost the post numbering feature that was present in the previous version of Proboards forums. That was a useful feature. The good news is that earlier posts are still there. You just have to look on page 3 or 4 of the thread. For this thread go to about half way down page 3. We had some discussion about this after the Proboards change ... For more on this have a look at this page (& also previous pages) of the thread "ProBoards V5 - Questions and Answers".
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Dec 17, 2016 21:16:31 GMT -8
I finished Colin Henthorne's book a couple of weeks back.
The first thing that impressed me was that he is a good writer. It made a lot of the detail easier to digest, although I have to admit, I did not read every word of his assessment of the navigation equipment on the Queen of The North. I don't have any knowledge of how a ship's bridge is best laid out, or the best training regimens for crew when new equipment is added.
The book didn't change my feeling about the culpability of the crew. From Captain Henthorne's nuanced assignment of responsibility, I still believe that Karl Lilgert was dealt with harshly by the court. I don't believe the mistakes added up to criminal negligence, but that question is now moot.
One could say, if looking at the book through a certain lens or filter, that it was something of a self serving exercise for Henthorne. He casts himself as an experienced, insightful mariner who, through the course of the book, spelled out an alternative view to that of BC Ferries on a wide variety of procedural, navigational, and engineering practises, sometimes leaving me to wonder if he really had the background to make such sweeping insights. If only BC Ferries had listened, and not cast him as a trouble maker, things might have turned out differently, he seems to be saying.
But he may well be right. And the unwillingness of BC Ferries to really accept any portion of responsibility for the accident, and to hang him out to dry- even when some quarters were acknowledging the heroic actions of the crew and the conduct of the captain- was shameful.
I disagreed with his conclusion about whether BC Ferries should have kept him in their employ as a captain. In the book, he cites many instances where skippers have kept their command after accidents. But most of those incidents weren't sinkings. In the case of the 'North, there were questions, some of them now proved to be frivolous, about onboard crew culture. The ship sunk because of navigation errors while sailing a course it had sailed hundreds of times, in weather and sea conditions that were not remarkable. From a public relations standpoint, I don't see how BC Ferries could have kept Henthorne in his post. He was the sacrificial lamb. But at the very least, there should have been a much more amicable parting, in a way that wouldn't have prejudiced his ability to gain another command elsewhere.
A book well worth reading. Questions remain, and will probably never be answered to everyone's satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by mirrlmak on Mar 14, 2017 12:29:30 GMT -8
I'm looking forward to the book - I spoke to someone who works for the gov't .... and they said that the ship still burps diesel every now and then and gets reported. It is interesting because they said that the ship currently is more than 75% buried in the sea floor sediment (50% within the first few weeks). I had no idea that the reason it was not lifted was not because it was not possible (I understand how deep it is), but primarily because the policy which covered the vessel got a quote and said: no way, leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 15, 2017 11:25:58 GMT -8
The wishes of an insurer in these cases are literally irrelevant. I had a job where, randomly, I dealt with abandoned and sunk pleasure craft mainly about ten years ago on behalf of the Province. The laws surrounding safe navigations, environment, and what's called a "common law duty" to protect the public interest (as in there's perhaps no specific law but a government needs to intervene for the collective good) far outweigh a private insurance companies desires.
I'm a Police Officer now, and although I don't deal with sunken ferries again I can speak to the irrelevence of an insurer's wishes when there's a public safety / environmental concern.
If there was a reasonable chance of success based against costs and risks I have no doubt BC Ferries (or now the insurer) would be ordered to lift 'The North.
|
|
|
Post by mybidness459 on Mar 16, 2017 13:24:22 GMT -8
Dane what I can not understand is how the captain can be charged with the deaths of the missing without finding absolute proof they are on the ship.
Yes one can assume beyond a reasonable doubt that they are on the ship, but where?
BC ferries, and the courts owe it to the Captain and to the missing passengers the truth.
I have personally sailed on QTN 4 times on the Tsawwassen to Port Hardy positing cruise plus a tour at Port Days in Vancouver. I and anyone else who have sailed on the ship know there are signs posted at the stairs to the car deck that passengers are NOT permitted on the car deck except at posted times with a escort, to attend to pets need.
I have heard that it is possible that they are in a vehicle on the deck. If that is the case the Captain CAN NOT be held responsible for their death because it can be PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SURVIVED if they were in the passenger deck. The proof... EVERYONE ELSE made it off the ship.
The passengers must take some of the responsibility and accountability for been in a place where they are not supposed to be. This would freeBC Ferries from lawsuits etc.
We have not done all we could have.
|
|
|
Post by mirrlmak on Mar 16, 2017 13:35:57 GMT -8
If the QoftN didn't sink - when was the projected BCFS retirement date? If I am not mistaken the 3/4 life refit she just finished prior to the season in which she sank. Would she still be sailing today if this whole tragic situation never happened? She could have been part of the Groundar fleet already! :-)
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Mar 18, 2017 14:24:51 GMT -8
I thought the projected retirement was on or about 2009.
I still remember getting the call about the QoftN's sinking. I was working for Northern Health. My pager went off at 330am. I saw CKNW's newsroom number and thought 'uh oh, something really bad just happened'.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 18, 2017 14:32:13 GMT -8
I thought the projected retirement was on or about 2009. I still remember getting the call about the QoftN's sinking. I was working for Northern Health. My pager went off at 330am. I saw CKNW's newsroom number and thought 'uh oh, something really bad just happened'. I think I remember reading that on the same day as the sinking, BC Ferries or the Province was scheduled to start the long process of obtaining financing (or permission to finance) for a new northern ship.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Mar 18, 2017 15:52:05 GMT -8
Yes, I remember that interview too. Kevin Falcon did a media scrum about the sinking and had mentioned that.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 18, 2017 18:50:05 GMT -8
Dane what I can not understand is how the captain can be charged with the deaths of the missing without finding absolute proof they are on the ship. Yes one can assume beyond a reasonable doubt that they are on the ship, but where? BC ferries, and the courts owe it to the Captain and to the missing passengers the truth. I have personally sailed on QTN 4 times on the Tsawwassen to Port Hardy positing cruise plus a tour at Port Days in Vancouver. I and anyone else who have sailed on the ship know there are signs posted at the stairs to the car deck that passengers are NOT permitted on the car deck except at posted times with a escort, to attend to pets need. I have heard that it is possible that they are in a vehicle on the deck. If that is the case the Captain CAN NOT be held responsible for their death because it can be PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SURVIVED if they were in the passenger deck. The proof... EVERYONE ELSE made it off the ship. The passengers must take some of the responsibility and accountability for been in a place where they are not supposed to be. This would freeBC Ferries from lawsuits etc. We have not done all we could have. I think you should read the ruling. You've made several substantial errors in law here. I don't really want to play pretend lawyer, but the Conviction was for criminal negligence. To over simplify it doesn't matter where the two outstanding passengers are. It matters that there's a ship on the bottom of the ocean with two people who are clearly dead. While I really enjoyed the book by the Captain, his lawyers couldn't have been too keen about some parts. It basically substantiated the Crown's case and depended on Naval tradition as a defence.
|
|