Conception Indictments

[boulderjohn]

That would be, other Truth captains, I don't believe any others were questioned.

Yes, that is what I meant.

 

[Storker]

Very sad for those who lost their lives in this tragedy and their family and friends, but also sad for what has been a very good operation over the years.

Why was it "good"? Because they followed healthy practice, or because they were damned lucky (rules and regulations be damned) over the years?

 

[lexvil]

Do you believe that the only purpose of a roving watch is to assist passengers in an evacuation? Do you believe that fire is of so little consequence on a boat that it possibility of one can be ignored as a matter of standard policy? Do you have any sense of how much help that crew member on the Conception was able to provide in the evacuation before she burned to death with the others?

We face risks every day in life, and we have to evaluate the degree to which we need to prepare for them. In that evaluation, we look at the likelihood that something will happen and the consequences if it does. If the combination of likelihood and consequence is determined to be relatively safe, we take the risk. A fire on a boat like this is very unlikely, but the consequences are dire. That is why a roving watch is required by law. Truth Aquatics intentionally decided that the fact that a fire is unlikely made violating the law requiring a roving watch a reasonable risk, even though they had to know that the consequences would be catastrophic. In your view, that makes then a good organization. My opinion is different.

Do you believe that I inferred that? If you don’t detach from an emotional point of view you will insist that pure luck is all that keeps this from happening on truth boats and will blindly walk onto the next boat feeling safe and secure that at least you aren’t on a truth boat! Or we can realize that every boat on the water shares the exact same risk, roving watch fixing a fuel leak can’t detect a fire in another compartment, it’s not a cure all it’s a precaution, a good one but doesn’t guarantee anything.

 

[Storker]

Why was it "good"? Because they followed healthy practice, or because they were damned lucky (rules and regulations be damned) over the years?

In my day job, I have to perform a bunch of HES evaluations, to make sure that people working for me aren't put at an unproportionate risk. If I were to just follow the letter of the law, I wouldn't be doing my job properly. It's my effing obligation to use my brain and do a proper assessment of the risks I'm asking my people - and everybody around - to take.

If I didn't do that, it'd be a serious breach of duty. And I ought to be fired.

 

[lexvil]

In my day job, I have to perform a bunch of HES evaluations, to make sure that people working for me aren't put at an unproportionate risk. If I were to just follow the letter of the law, I wouldn't be doing my job properly. It's my effing obligation to use my brain and do a proper assessment of the risks I'm asking my people - and everybody around - to take.

If I didn't do that, it'd be a serious breach of duty. And I ought to be fired.

This is the crux of everything, following rules to the letter or doing it right, the problem arises when right or wrong way of doing things comes under scrutiny of those who only know the codified rules, I think we needs better and more easily modified regulations as thing change with emphasis on safety not profit.

 

[boulderjohn]

If you don’t detach from an emotional point of view you will insist that pure luck is all that keeps this from happening on truth boats and will blindly walk onto the next boat feeling safe and secure that at least you aren’t on a truth boat!

I'm sorry, but the logic here escapes me. Perhaps it is the syntax.

Yes, I was terribly shocked to see that Truth Aquatics intentionally and routine violated the rule for a roving watch. Why do you think would that make me feel safe and secure getting on another boat? Quite the opposite, especially when I later saw the same things was true for the Red Sea Aggressor, even after they assured the passengers they would have a roving watch. I feel much less safe and much less secure getting on another boat. I fear they will be just as bad as Truth.

My quarrel with you is your belief that an operation that intentionally risks the lives of all the passengers on its boat by ignoring an important safety rule is "a good operation."

 

[Storker]

This is the crux of everything, following rules to the letter or doing it right, the problem arises when right or wrong way of doing things comes under scrutiny of when the sh*t hits the fan and wrong choices are uncovered by facts and consequences

FTFY

 

[Wookie]

Do you believe that I inferred that? If you don’t detach from an emotional point of view you will insist that pure luck is all that keeps this from happening on truth boats and will blindly walk onto the next boat feeling safe and secure that at least you aren’t on a truth boat! Or we can realize that every boat on the water shares the exact same risk, roving watch fixing a fuel leak can’t detect a fire in another compartment, it’s not a cure all it’s a precaution, a good one but doesn’t guarantee anything.

In the nuclear navy ( I understand that this isn’t the nuclear Navy) the roving watch is not allowed tools, not are they allowed to be distracted from roving by “fixing things” because the Navy understands that by being distracted by fixing things, you are now no longer a roving watch. The roving watch has a mechanic, an electrician, and a reactor operator assigned to him that do not have to be up and roving, but must be available to fix things. The rover should be more properly called a sounding and security watch, as that is truly their job that fits the description. They look for fires, flooding, and stand by to repel boarders.

 

[lexvil]

In the nuclear navy ( I understand that this isn’t the nuclear Navy) the roving watch is not allowed tools, not are they allowed to be distracted from roving by “fixing things” because the Navy understands that by being distracted by fixing things, you are now no longer a roving watch. The roving watch has a mechanic, an electrician, and a reactor operator assigned to him that do not have to be up and roving, but must be available to fix things. The rover should be more properly called a sounding and security watch, as that is truly their job that fits the description. They look for fires, flooding, and stand by to repel boarders.

Fully aware, same with the non nuke navy but the navy has a lot of excess crew for just this sort of thing, not only roving fire/security watch but to man all operational spaces.

 

[The Chairman]

I have read all of these threads and most of the posts, and realize that there's a lot of emotions that cloud our vision. Emotions don't impress me much and just because someone's angry doesn't mean they're right... or wrong. It's why I pay particular attention to @Wookie and @Capt Jim Wyatt. They are the "EF Huttons" of what a good captain should or shouldn't do. They give us facts and perspectives and rarely can you tell just how pissed they are... or aren't.