Queen of the North Divisional Report

[Northern Exploration]

The Toronto Star published this in today's paper this morning. However, I believe they wrongly match the names to the positions.

QM EDN#7 (Deckhand) is the one not refered to by gender at all in the report and was the one actually at the steering station of the ship during the grounding. EDN#7 cooperated with the inquiry.

Second Officer EDN#3 was off the bridge in the mess with the handheld radio and is referred to in the report as "he". He was the senior officer for the night shift. He did not cooperate.

Fourth Officer EDN #5 had the con and was left in charge on the bridge and is refered to as "he". He did not cooperate.

www.thestar.com/News/article/196303

[Neil]

The report mentions that one crew member, identified as Quartermaster (EDN 7), was nervous about taking the helm of the 'North when the ship was in Prince Rupert harbour. This crewman could have, but had not yet taken the bridge watchman's exam, and was a 'rating under training', although superior officers said they had confidence in the member's helmsman's abilities.
EDN #7 came on nav watch at 2350, 32 minutes before the 'North struck rock. #7 was not aware of where the ship was at the time of assuming bridge duties, although perhaps that's not out of the ordinary for someone coming on duty. #7 did report making one or two course corrections. This is also the crew member who couldn't find the switch to turn off the auto pilot when instructed to by Fourth Officer, EDN #5. Immediately after the collision, EDN #5 told his Second Officer, "I'm sorry, I was trying to go around a fishing boat".

BC Ferries insists this is not a training issue, but reading the report one could be forgiven for thinking that there may have been one person on watch after 2350 that night who was not up to all the necessary monitoring and navigation tasks, and that perhaps that person's colleagues were not sufficiently alert to this. Inexperience on one hand, and complacency on the other, could have led to the disaster. And what are we to make of the fishing boat comment?

[Northern Exploration]

They seem to take great pains to quote the radio recording with traffic to show exactly where the other ships were. In the radio position reporting call at 3 minutes past they would have been able to see the lights of any vessels dead ahead in their path. None were mentioned and they were told to watch for the tug towing logs coming out of Verney Pass. Out of the way for the QoftN. When the Master came on the bridge after the grounding he only saw one other light which they seem to indicate was the fishing vessel Lone Star seeking refuge from the blow page 13. No where near the QoftN.

Question for someone who may know. They took the navigational track off the hard drive -does the radar images also record there or just the gps track of the ship. In some new systems the radar images, chart, and track are combined in one display. The individual systems still exist as a fall back.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Judging from the photos in the attachments, I would conclude that the system on the bridge was a combination display, though this doesn't answer your question about the data log.

[Queen of Cowichan]

Re: The Missing couple,

I heard on the news soon after the ship sank that the cabin that they had was searched and had no one in it. Then again the media does not always has its facts straight. I was thinking that yes they could have been stuck in the elevator.(I belive the QTN only had one) but most people have the knowledge not to use a elevator in a event of fire, or emergency.

Now these 2 bridge crew members who are not talking know what they have done and just how serious this is. Not only are they responsible for the sinking, but they may have Killed 2 people by doing so. Think about it, if they are found guilty in a court of Law for the sinking, they could also be charged with the deaths of the 2 missing passengers if they ever are found on the ship.

There are many rumors around which is why I think the BC ferry Marine Workers should come clean and tell the truth so that we all don't think they are Hiding. These rumors are doing them more harm then good.

In regards of the Music, I have not heard the transcript but If the music is down low I do not see the big deal, as even the Transit drivers where I live listen to music as they drive. Now if the music was realy loud well we have a differn't story hear.

In regards of "The Sex" Rumor, I would be very angry if I knew that my friends were killed because of the two people in charge of the ferry were having Hanky Panky when the vessle went off course. This would in my view be out right murder. I am with David Hahn on this one that I do not think this is the case. But if it is Jackie Miller and the gang at The Union should take the responsibility to make the two crew members held to account.

[Coastal Canuck]

After reading Queen of Cowichan's story over a couple of times I figured something out. Maybe the two people had gotten up for some weird reason and the two people were in the elevator before the Queen of the North hit whatever she hit and the elevator stooped! If that happened they could have been in the elevator and not have gotten in when there was an emergency!

[Scott]

I don't really believe the "sex rumor" either, especially since EDN #7, I believe, did cooperate with BC Ferries and there's nothing mentioned about it in the report. However, I don't know why people who are in the know, at least come out and say it wasn't so... that would probably stop the talk from going around.

Does it really matter what they were doing or just the fact that they were negligent in their duty and are responsible, no matter what was distracting them?

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

admin said:

Does it really matter what they were doing or just the fact that they were negligent in their duty and are responsible, no matter what was distracting them?

As a learning experience for every other crew in the fleet, understanding the mistakes made by this bridge crew is vital. Putting aside the whole sex angle, which I think most of us feel to be an unlikely scenario, given the possibility that something as simple as the volume of the music on the bridge could have resulted in an alarm being missed (presented as a speculative possible scenario), how the general bridge atmosphere affected the operation of the ship needs to be investigated, and appropriate recommendations and procedures put in place.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

hornbyguy said:

Immediately after the collision, EDN #5 told his Second Officer, "I'm sorry, I was trying to go around a fishing boat".

hornbyguy said:

And what are we to make of the fishing boat comment?

After thinking about this for a bit, my only conclusion is EDN #5 thought he was about to overtake or meet the vessel observed by EDN #3 (believed to be the Lone Star), and was maintaining course to have the vessel pass on the port-side of the QotN. After reviewing the charts, and photos in the attachments, I can see some of the logic in this decision...by holding the course of 136T for a few extra minutes before correcting to 118T would have allowed the QotN to either overtake or meet the other boat (the boat was reported as fine on the bow, or direct ahead traveling on the same course or the opposite course), passing wide of the intended course at the Point Cumming light. At this point the ship would have been able to make her heading adjustment to 081T to resume the intended course.

Of course, how the QotN failed to make the required turn after passing the Sainty Point light is still in question, but I have a theory about this. EDN #7 stated several course corrections were ordered, but none appear to have been made. Is it possible the corrections were made at the autopilot, but the set button was never pushed? Or, the other possibility along this train of thought, the tiller was used to make the course correction, but the autopilot had not been set to accept the change in such a manner. If so, both EDN #7 and EDN #5 might have believed the ship had been brought to the correct heading of 118T, but the autopilot "corrected" back to the set course of 136T. See Page 35 of the attachments which outlines the procedures behind adjusting the course programmed into the autopilot. It outlines the two ways to adjust course while the autopilot is engaged.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

The latest from CBC:

www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/03/27/bc-ferry.html

[kylefossett]

here is a question for everybody on here. if you were involved in something were required to make a statement about it and that statement could possibly come back at you in a civilsuit would you make that statement? these 2 crew may not have done anything wrong but feel that what they say could come back and haunt them in a courtroom. so let them be. when the time comes in court or where ever then we will find out

[Northern Exploration]

Well they did do something wrong. They didn't turn the ferry as they had in that same place many times before. They made the call into traffic and should have followed that with a turn. What they were doing and why they didn't turn is important to preventing it in the future. Unfortunately for them they will have to live with what did and didn't take place. Their lives will never be the same as a result of that less than a half hour that it took for the ferry to not turn and subsequently ground. But more importantly people lost their loved ones because of those minutes. That family deserves peace.

Unless they are going to be obtuse to confuse their testimony, refuse to answer, or lie - chances are they will face the questions in court. Whether it is criminal court or just the civil lawsuit case or both remains to be seen. Obviously their lawyers feel they should keep quiet. Whether that is sound advice or not - we don't know enough to judge. The delay in hearing the truth can only continue to make the individuals look guilty and the lawyers must be weighing that in their counsel to the two of them. They are without pay according the CBC report BCinNJ posted so it isn't to stay on the payroll.

[lest69]

From what I've read, the QM answered the questions asked of her. If this is true, then would she not have explained what was happening on the bridge? She was right there, so she should know. I'm also curious why the 2nd officer (who wasn't on the bridge at the time) hasn't answered questions. This would seem to indicate that he knew something was happening on the bridge that shouldn't have been. Either he knew this when he left the bridge, or he discovered it in the aftermath. If it is the latter, this would mean he is covering up for other crew members (4th officer). There is also an RCMP investigation going on. Wouldn't they be forced to answer the questions in this investigation? What would be the ramifications if they refused? Obstruction of justice? Also, looking at the photos chartplotter system show the GPS coordinates clearly in the sidebar. In the transcript, the first coordinates given have the right lat, but the long given is 113 29 37. The actual long should have been 129 13. Can anyone advise on the positioning of the equipment on the bridge? From the transcripts, it seems like someone is calling out the coordinates to the 4th officer as he is talking on the radio. Is the radio distant from the chartplotter? Is either the radio or chart distant from the helm, where he should have been?

So many questions. Hopefully the TSB report has enough detail to answer most of them.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Two more CBC Radio stories, including interviews with our friendly BCFS CEO David Hahn, and NDP Ferries Critic Gary Coons:

www.cbc.ca/daybreaknorth/media/20070327HAHN.ram
www.cbc.ca/daybreaknorth/media/20070327COONS.ram

[Low Light Mike]

I listened to both interviews in the above post: Hahn and Coons.

I am disappointed in Mr. Coons' response to the report's release. I'm disappointed in his political rhetoric, which seems to take precedence over discussing the issues. But I suppose he's playing his role, which is a political one.

And to me, the big issue being played by the media this week re the refusal of some crew members to respond is a real issue.

I hope that the TSB report will provide the answers that we're all looking for.

[Political Incorrectness]

I share your opinion flugel, Mr. Coons did not argue his side very well in my opinion. I think the missing thing is that with the crew members not saying anything is what is really getting everyone fed up.

[Northern Exploration]

I agree. I don't know Coons at all just through you folks on the board. But he seemed very political. You could imagine him sticking a finger up to see what way the public opinion was blowing and then going that way.

[nolonger]

flugelhorn said:

I listened to both interviews in the above post: Hahn and Coons.

I am disappointed in Mr. Coons' response to the report's release. I'm disappointed in his political rhetoric, which seems to take precedence over discussing the issues. But I suppose he's playing his role, which is a political one.

And to me, the big issue being played by the media this week re the refusal of some crew members to respond is a real issue.

I hope that the TSB report will provide the answers that we're all looking for.

Mr Coons political rhetoric is no different than Hahn's political rhetoric. Both have sides to sit on and both represented their sides. This is not supposed to be a political forum.

Are these crew members to be expected to act differently than any other Canadian citizen. The Canadian Charter of rights protects us all the in same way. You all would do the same on advice from your legal counsel.

[WettCoast]

I heard both Hahn and Coons live, as I live in the part of BC that gets the CBC Daybreak North program. I was disappointed with both of them. Coons is ever the politician, and being an NDP'er, ever a voice for the union viewpoint. Hahn, on the other hand, should hirer a professional PR person to do the talking on his behalf. He comes across sounding like a politician himself.

I am afraid that BCFS's internal report on the sinking is not of much value in getting to the root cause of what happened here. We will have to wait for the TSB report for answers, and even then we may not know what actually took place during those critical fourteen minutes.

Some of the crew members sleeping in their cabins below the waterline came within a whisker of drowning. I believe that they, along with the families of the 'missing' couple, and all of the rest of us are owed explanations as to why the ship missed a turn and why this went unnoticed until it was too late.

[Neil]

Maybe I'm off the mark here, but there's something about this whole we-demand-answers furore that seems a bit incongruous to me.

For five years, Willie Pickton sat in jail while the Crown built a meticulous case against him. Not two, but dozens, of families of slain women have had no prospect of early answers as to their loved ones' fates as the wheels of justice slowly turned. During that time, I don't think anyone thought to demand that Willie make a statement, 'fess up, so that the public could be satisfied, and the concerned families could begin to get some 'closure'. It has always been understood that even monsters get their due process, and that, as painful as the wait may be for the rest of us, that's the price we pay for a fair and just legal system, and society.

On the other hand, you have a couple of crew members on the Queen of The North who may have been derelict in their duties, or perhaps careless, or perhaps improperly trained. They've been charged with nothing so far, although they may be, and they certainly are going to face civil action. The stakes are extremely high for them. Yet not even their worst detractors would call them murderers.

So why do we allow a monster his silence for more than five years, and recognize his right to an unprejudiced day in court, when we're so eager to bully a couple of sailors into possibly incriminating themselves before they've even been charged with anything?

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe anybody on this forum who asserts, that if they were in the same predicament, with the same legal advice, they would be any more forthcoming.

[Scott]

What is the "union viewpoint" anyways? Are they sticking up for their "brothers" and "sister" no matter what they did, or are union members upset at the crew members who have tarnished their pride and reputation?

[Low Light Mike]

I realise that we're into the "Haven't we already discussed this enough" phase.

The 2 issues noted in this thread yesterday by Hornbyguy and Notmuchlonger seem to indicate a few fundamental issues, that I will take and "chew on" for a while.

1) Hornbyguy's assertions re due process....and how this balances against an Employer-employee relationship and a general public impact.

2) Notmuchlonger's assertion that we would all do the same as the crew members (in not answering employer questions), under the same legal advice.

-----------------------------
The above is just me attempting to sum-up the key issues coming from this discussion, as they pertain to me. I like to take stock of differences of opinion....and then decide if I've reached that point of "no further discussion needed by me", or if there are key issues that I'm still interested in discussing. Again, this is just my personal attempt to conclude on this discussion's results, for issues that are of interest to me.

I have appreciated reading the various points of view, and thinking on those.
-----------------------------

[Northern Exploration]

You make some good points Hornby. However, Picton is behind bars and not in a position to hurt anyone else. Justice often times is not as satisfying nor as complete as we would like it. And of course due process has to be respected. Being impatient about knowing the details of something is difficult particularly when it is an area of passion or interest.

Whether one of the two crew members was sleepy or napping, or whether they were making out - isn't as important as making sure that the atmosphere on the bridge is professional and well run for the safety of passengers and crew. What we don't know is if it is systemic on all the liveaboard ferries or confined to this crew on this particular ferry and maybe even only on the night shift. Because the ferries continue to run this part is important to know and solve quickly. I think it is very interesting that the change of shift length is included in this report.

[nolonger]

admin said:

What is the "union viewpoint" anyways? Are they sticking up for their "brothers" and "sister" no matter what they did, or are union members upset at the crew members who have tarnished their pride and reputation?

I think "sticking up for their brothers and sister" is the wrong way to put it. Supporting them yes. As your friends and family would support you if you found yourself in a similiar position. As for pride and reputation, we are pretty thick skinned in that regard. It comes from years of dodging salvos from the press, public and now Ghengis Hahn as well. Lets not forget, innocent until proven guilty.
I also find it rather disgusting that BCTV news would travel over 350 miles to Harrass Mr. Lilgert who is trying start over in a quiet little neck of the woods. This is twicw now that they've done this. The union's position on this is that the only people who knew his whereabouts are a: his lawyers, b: Some of the Union Exec., and c: Management at BCF Services Inc. 3 guesses which one spilled the beans to the press.

[Scott]

I missed the BCTV vs. Mr. Lilgert story. Was it one of those things where they went knocking on the door and nobody opened up? I agree with you, notmuchlonger, that it's not the job of the media to act as private investigators, judge, and jury - at least not when due process is still not complete. Makes good tv I guess.