Discussion in 'Motorhomes in the News' started by joncris, Feb 11, 2015.
Should have been longer! Despite anything else HE made the decision to sail the ship where he did, no one else, he can whine as much as he likes about the company being guilty but in reality he was the responsible person on the day.
I agree but only upto a point AND I realize there was considerable loss of life BUT and its a big but it was is essential for the vessels owners that if they were in any part to blame to redirect that blame towards the Captain.
I'm also concerned that he didn't get a fair trial and that some of the witnesses may if not lied gilded the Lilly somewhat.
My reasoning is based on the fact that during my working life I have met and worked with many sea Captains and all of them without exception have been honest and above all sensible.
I was involved in the in the Marchioness Disaster and the dredger Captain although tried the jury was unable to agree TWICE infact although drinking that day he was returned his licence even though he had falsified his referencs to obtain it. He and and the vessels owners were negligent not just once but multiple times
Forgot to mention except the Greek ship owners and THEIR Captains. Also remember there was considerable loss of life in that disaster also
I thinks this guy could be the exception! Firstly he puts the ship in an unsafe position by sailing to close to the shore for reasons that may be never be completely clear, but he was at the helm and made that decision. Then there is a delay in abandoning ship, but when that decision is made he is one of the first in the line to leave the stricken vessel and then refuses coastguard requests to return?
Far to much indisputable evidence in my opinion, guilty as charged. The potential here was for considerably more loss of life which thank goodness there wasn't.
Agreed but only if you accept the evidence as submitted. I'm saying some of the 'evidence' was tainted in that the witnesses, hence by default, the prosecution Gilded the Lilly somewhat
Thought it was well documented at the time that there is a record of the Coastguard transmission telling the Captain to get back on board and do his job ?
Having been in the Merchant Navy for 25 years there is no doubt in my mind that the Master placed the vessel in danger, there was no requirement to alter course as he did. When I heard of the incident on the news I turned to my wife and said the Master had been "showboating" to impress a passenger.
Agree completely the Captain was showboating but there were others on the bridge that day who should and could have told the Captain of the danger, having said that the order to abandoned ship, which is not an easy one to give, should have been given sooner and as others have said the Captain should have been the last to leave his ship, no excuse there. As with most things it's easy with hind sight to say what should have been done.
I also agree with the sentiment that the captain was the guilty one. Having done a fair bit of yachting over the last 40 years one is always fully aware of the responsibilities that the skipper of any yacht has, and some who make mistakes are really punished for it by the courts.
The enjoyment of yachting is fantastic for me, but all the disciplines of being on the seas have to be adhered to, it is a very serious responsibility for any skipper and not one that can be taken lightly.
P.S. Didn't mean to put anyone off yachting by the way.
Same here. 14 years at sea (all at sea, some would say) but followed the reports from the enquiry and no doubt at all that Carnival Cruises were very lucky that more lives were not lost - as I recall, it was about 40 minutes before an emergency was declared. Inexcusable.
I'm not a seaman in anyway but I heard a thoughtful report during the trial that at any one time on a cruise ship that size there would be 13 people on the bridge when it was underway. Each with a particular role re navigation and safety. It said that some of them in this case were given immunity from prosecution in return for statements pointing the figure at the Captain.
Admittedly he behaved like a shit after the ship struck but there was the suggestion that he could not have been 100% responsible but that the Italian Justice system, the ships owners and the ships insurers wanted a nice neat end to the whole episode.
The ships captain is legally responsible for everything on that ship. It might seem unfair but that is a fact of life - it could have been avoided by sticking to the passage plan and not trying to showboat. Looking at the tracking data, it looks like it may have all been done "by eye" after the deviation from the planned course. Guilty of endangering the ship no matter who gave the actual orders (ineffective safety management) and guilty for not only not reporting a distress until some 40 minutes afterwards but also for abandoning the ship "to supervise the evacuation from ashore" - a Greek captain who did that after a collision off South Africa some 20 years ago was jailed for that alone
A very short sentence in consideration that he put his vestal in a very serous situation endangers his passenger crew and the safety of the vestal and was the first to leve laving the passengers and crew to there own fate.
It is lucky the vestal came to rest where it did another 20ft of water there would have been moor fatality's
he will be out in a few years to live his life with his family.
will the victims family's be reunited with there loved ones NO
Italian captain.........surprised he wasn't in reverse !!!!
Sorry, black humour !!!!!
Precisely ! and that's my point and whilst he's probably responsible for a lot of what happened at the very least there are certainly others who should have been in the dock with him. Had there been I suspect his sentence would have been much less
Once upon a time it was my job to investigate on behalf of others such losses amongst which included sea vessels and aircraft both private and commercial. My department included access to Master Mariners, Ships Architects, Marine Engineers, Commercial Pilots and most of the other skills needed to conduct such investigations.
AND I've had course to arrest aircraft + vessels (including sister ships) in various ports throughout the world including New York, USA and Murmansk, Russia. The Russian were particularly helpful but then a 28 of their fishermen had been drowned when their trawler was rammed and sunk
Finally I think he'll appeal if not the conviction certainly the sentence which may be reduced considerably
Deleted by me
Or so I thought until I pressed save Doh.
Dear Jim can you delete my previous long winded post please
Maybe it should also be noted/questioned that although the dredgers captain had had a drink that day he was not drunk at the helm.
The question on my lips would be where was the captain of the marchioness at the exact time of impact? It was not a straight forward investigation by far and although the dredging company were negligent in some areas, the actual cause of the collision will always remain under a dubious cloud.
I understand he didn't appear drunk but that doesn't mean his judgment wasn't affected by drink
Subscribers don't see these adverts