charges against navigator - Queen of the North
- Thread starter Peahead
- Start date
spring time
Well-Known Member
how can it be incompetence on management. it's 100 % fault of that bridge officer. if he can't do it with all his training and all the equipment then is he stupid or something. I've done it lots of time without any nobeltec or computers. and so have lots of other boa in on the coast. it's not the fault of the ferry corp that he and his ex girlfriend were fighting. I guess he can't do two things at once, fight with his ex girlfriend and make a corse change or even look and the navigation equipment
I agree. 'Management' wasn't on the bridge of that ship failing to do their duty by making a course change on time. This is 100% the fault of whoever was in charge of that ferry. I think they ALL should be charged and it's a disgrace that it took 4 years to get to this point.
pescador
Well-Known Member
Whatever happened to people accepting responsibility for their actions? Everyone is looking for someone else to blame for their errors. I'm sick of this "it's someone else's fault" because my dad spanked me or my mother was an alcoholic or the government didn't pay for my education bs. Be accountable, man up. The bridge officer knows what his responsiblity is. When your contolling a vessel that size with the technology they had, there is no excuse. He's accountable. If you don't want the responsiblity, don't take the job.
Matador
Matador
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
x 2 Pescador. My question is why did it take the power that be 4 years </u> to finally charge the guy???
Long live wild salmon!!!
><
)))>
Long live wild salmon!!!
><
)))>
Peahead
Well-Known Member
I totally agree it was the fault of the navigating officer. I also have little good to say on how I feel the corporation handled the situation. Questions about what went wrong that night have not been answered and were avoided since the beginning. 200 K settlement to the family for two lost parents just adds insult to injury - the whole situation has been ugly not just the idiot who rammed the island.
Pippen
Well-Known Member
I lost a really nice 35lb+ spring last summer off of Kyuquot due to a "netting malfunction"....but I think it was cuz my Dad spanked me when I was 7 after he had asked me to weed the garden. Unfortunately I pulled out ALL of the bedding plants AND the weeds....and thus lost the salmon.
Dogbreath
Well-Known Member
Whatever happened to companies taking responsibility?
Anyone here remember when BC Ferries said the two deceased had swum away from the Ferry in the dark to escape and establish new identities?
How can anyone take anything 'management' @ BC Ferries says seriously?
Had the new navigation system really been disabled for two weeks prior to the accident and if so who was responsible</u>?
So many unanswered questions and none will be answered with a criminal trial.
I apologise in advance for putting anyone here in a position where have to defend the actions of that idiotic clown show.
Anyone here remember when BC Ferries said the two deceased had swum away from the Ferry in the dark to escape and establish new identities?
How can anyone take anything 'management' @ BC Ferries says seriously?
Had the new navigation system really been disabled for two weeks prior to the accident and if so who was responsible</u>?
So many unanswered questions and none will be answered with a criminal trial.
I apologise in advance for putting anyone here in a position where have to defend the actions of that idiotic clown show.
tubber
Well-Known Member
How they made it down the long, very narrow Grenville Channel safely only to smash into the huge Gil Island is still perplexing. Regardless of what the video screens of their nav. systems were saying, wouldn't it be wise to look out the window occasionally? Clearly no one was looking at anything once they cleared Grenville and set their next heading. Both people on the bridge and the skipper are criminally responsible in my opinion.
beemer
Well-Known Member
As someone who has operated a boat with the accused I can honestly say that it is no surprise that this happened. B.C. Ferries in my opinion is culpable for letting Karl on to the bridge. Why someone with his experience level was in charge of a vessel is beyond belief.
I think that the Captain of the vessel should also be charged. It is his responsibility to oversee the training and competance level of his crew and as such is fully responsible for their actions..
Sorry Dogbreath can't hide behind the union on this one.
I think that the Captain of the vessel should also be charged. It is his responsibility to oversee the training and competance level of his crew and as such is fully responsible for their actions..
Sorry Dogbreath can't hide behind the union on this one.
Fish Assassin
Crew Member
Shocked that this can be posted without moderation. Wow, seems one sided to me. Do you not like Carl?
Dogbreath
Well-Known Member
If you're directing your remark @ me you're sadly mistaken I haven't had a Union job for 30+ years.
I'm merely asking people to see the situation in it's entirety and not let a narrow definition of criminal negligence further obfuscate a situation BC Ferry's mouthpieces/lawyer/hacks have done their level best to confuse.
Does anyone know the Real</u> Reason</u> the Director of Health and Safety for BC Ferries resigned so soon after the accident?
EDIT</u>-As to the Captain, if he was on a legally mandated rest break was he still responsible?
I imagine a person would need to have a background in Marine Law to answer definitively.
beemer
Well-Known Member
Sorry Dogreath my comment was not intended to be personal. I was referring to the attitude that someone else was to blame other than those on the ship.I applaud your comment that people need to see this tragedy in its entirety.
I strongly believe that the captain should be held responsible even though he and the first officer were on "breaks". The people who were left on the bridge were obviously not competant and should not have been left unsupervised , if supervising and scheduling who should be on the bridge is not the captain/masters job then what is?
In regards to my comments about Karl, I stand by them and can substantiate them. It is my belief that with his skill level he should not have been left in charge of that vessel.The Captain should have recognized that.
I strongly believe that the captain should be held responsible even though he and the first officer were on "breaks". The people who were left on the bridge were obviously not competant and should not have been left unsupervised , if supervising and scheduling who should be on the bridge is not the captain/masters job then what is?
In regards to my comments about Karl, I stand by them and can substantiate them. It is my belief that with his skill level he should not have been left in charge of that vessel.The Captain should have recognized that.
Peahead
Well-Known Member
Here is some follow up info from 24 hrs:
http://eedition.vancouver.24hrs.ca/epaper/viewer.aspx
Go to page 1
"Karl Lilgert was charged on the basis that the navigating officer is responsible for the steering of the ship and that the evidence did not support charges against any other crew members"
beemer
Well-Known Member
Driving a boat is like driving with your wife. Just because you are behind the steering wheel doesn't mean you are in charge the ship!!
The Captain , first or second officer should be on the bridge at all times. There is no certification in Canada as a "navigator" and there should have been a been a superior officer on the bridge. This ship was operated in a sloppy manner with little regard for its passengers.
The Captain , first or second officer should be on the bridge at all times. There is no certification in Canada as a "navigator" and there should have been a been a superior officer on the bridge. This ship was operated in a sloppy manner with little regard for its passengers.
Peahead
Well-Known Member
actually , I don't think anybody was behind the "steering wheel" [:0]
I do agree with Beemer however it makes me wonder why one of the other officers leaving the bridge was not in itself enough 'evidence' to charge one or more of them ? A pee break would have the captain leave the bridge - surely thats legal ??)
I do agree with Beemer however it makes me wonder why one of the other officers leaving the bridge was not in itself enough 'evidence' to charge one or more of them ? A pee break would have the captain leave the bridge - surely thats legal ??
)
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Have you guys read the accident report and watched the TSB simulation?
I hate to say this, but even my boat has autopilot, in which I can program the entire route and it even comes with the standard warning to have someone on “watch”? Looking at the simulation… the autopilot was indeed not programmed for the route. Why, really makes no difference, as long they were using and updating their waypoints. I do that all the time! Problem was the boat never veered from its last heading… meaning the autopilot was set to maintain heading, not track the route. Which it did as no one updated the heading to the next waypoint! – Pretty bad! When watching the video, pay close attention to the actual instrument readings- as stated, there was “nothing” wrong with the instruments or any of the equipment! The course of that boat was left leaving the heading set straight for that island! So, nothing was changed long before the 14 minutes of being “off course”. That indicates to me a very “LONG” time to not even glance at your “GPS” or “radar”, which both clearly show what is getting ready to happen! Must have been one hell of a “personal” conversation!
As far as leaving the bridge (or aircraft cockpit), it happens all the time and required at times; however, when the Captain does make that decision - it should be based on their belief the person left in charge is qualified to perform the needed duties! I never left my seat if I had any doubts about the person I was leaving in charge! Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to second guess, but there seems to be valid questions to the capabilities of the person? So there should also be valid questions of why he was left in charge! Many “BAD” decisions and practices from the time that boat left. It seems from the report they were known by both TC and BC Ferries!
Finally, listen to the final coordinates given by the ship! In my opinion, It really does look pretty bad (as in gross negligence) of the “entire officer crew” and BC Ferries! They “all” should be glad I am not on their jury!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC1GF95aPxk
I hate to say this, but even my boat has autopilot, in which I can program the entire route and it even comes with the standard warning to have someone on “watch”? Looking at the simulation… the autopilot was indeed not programmed for the route. Why, really makes no difference, as long they were using and updating their waypoints. I do that all the time! Problem was the boat never veered from its last heading… meaning the autopilot was set to maintain heading, not track the route. Which it did as no one updated the heading to the next waypoint! – Pretty bad! When watching the video, pay close attention to the actual instrument readings- as stated, there was “nothing” wrong with the instruments or any of the equipment! The course of that boat was left leaving the heading set straight for that island! So, nothing was changed long before the 14 minutes of being “off course”. That indicates to me a very “LONG” time to not even glance at your “GPS” or “radar”, which both clearly show what is getting ready to happen! Must have been one hell of a “personal” conversation!
As far as leaving the bridge (or aircraft cockpit), it happens all the time and required at times; however, when the Captain does make that decision - it should be based on their belief the person left in charge is qualified to perform the needed duties! I never left my seat if I had any doubts about the person I was leaving in charge! Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to second guess, but there seems to be valid questions to the capabilities of the person? So there should also be valid questions of why he was left in charge! Many “BAD” decisions and practices from the time that boat left. It seems from the report they were known by both TC and BC Ferries!
Finally, listen to the final coordinates given by the ship! In my opinion, It really does look pretty bad (as in gross negligence) of the “entire officer crew” and BC Ferries! They “all” should be glad I am not on their jury!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC1GF95aPxk
The captain is completely responsible for his ship and the actions of his crew while he is in command. Even if he is sleeping. The 2 officers on the bridge and the captain should all face charges for failing to perform their duties and resulting in loss of the ship and the death of the passengers. They were very lucky it wasn't much worse as the ship stayed afloat quite some time even with a hull opened almost from bow to stern.
Similar threads
