Two Killed in Cruise Ship Berthing Accident on Independence of the Sea

[FLACRUISER99]

Yes, there has to be

 

"SCAPCA’s procedure dictates that there is a scheduled time for a ship to leave port. Once that arrives, a pilot goes on board and takes the ship out of the harbour and hands over to the captain. The linesmen assist in the process by releasing the lines from the mooring points.

"

I disagree the pilot only acts in an advisory position and the Captain is in control of the ship..

[Beachdude]

We always get an aft balcony, so I've watched a lot of these little mooring boats in action. Anybody who has much time in these smaller boats understands they require a lot of experience to maneuver in close spaces. These boat crews (usually 2) have the added complexity of handling heavy mooring lines against the ocean current, propeller wake and wind. I've seen them hit our ship several times. Sometimes in the smaller 3rd world ports the boat pilot appears to be working with a very inexperienced crew.

 

Burt

Edited April 7, 2014 by Beachdude

[BillB48]

I disagree the pilot only acts in an advisory position and the Captain is in control of the ship..

 

While what you say is true just about everywhere, depending on the circumstances the pilot or the captain can be conning the ship. I have no idea what is the practice is at St. Kitts and the captain could certainly override a pilot's order. To override a pilot's order/advice there would have to be some extenuating circumstances for the captain to do so.

[chengkp75]

While what you say is true just about everywhere, depending on the circumstances the pilot or the captain can be conning the ship. I have no idea what is the practice is at St. Kitts and the captain could certainly override a pilot's order. To override a pilot's order/advice there would have to be some extenuating circumstances for the captain to do so.

 

Actually, there does not need to be any extenuating circumstance for the Captain to countermand or relieve the pilot; if it doesn't feel right, it is his responsibility to do something. However, should he do so, and the ship run aground or whatever, then he would come under very close scrutiny. While the Captain normally gives the conn to the pilot (or in many cases for cruise ships, has pilotage himself), he remains on the bridge, and listens to all pilot commands, checks the aids to navigation himself, and is constantly ready, regardless of how many times he has worked with a pilot, to take over. Having the "conn" (the one person authorized to give orders at a particular time), and having "control" of the ship are two different things.

[FLACRUISER99]

Does anyone know what "SCAPCA" is?

[grand isle joe]

Whether or not there was a pilot onboard is irrelevant. The pilot's role is as an advisor to the Captain on local conditions. There are a very few places on earth where a Captain relinquishes control of his vessel let alone his responsibility. Those areas are: the Panama Canal, the Soo locks on the Great Lakes (thanks Tonka's Skipper for that one), and when entering a drydock. At all other times, the Captain retains control of the ship, but may relinquish the giving of orders to either a pilot or a deck officer. He always has the right to countermand a pilot, to relieve the pilot of the conn, or to advise the pilot of some circumstance the Captain feels the pilot isn't aware of.

 

....thus the Captain is where "the buck stops" as you argue.....Honor would dictate that the Captain step down until the investigation is concluded. But then what would all those D+ passengers do at dinner as they pine to dine with the Captain dressed in his pseudo military garb.....but there isn't much honor left in the world IMO....

[setsail]

Does anyone know what "SCAPCA" is?

 

Google does

 

Saint Christopher Air and Sea Ports Authority

Edited April 7, 2014 by setsail

[chengkp75]

....thus the Captain is where "the buck stops" as you argue.....Honor would dictate that the Captain step down until the investigation is concluded. But then what would all those D+ passengers do at dinner as they pine to dine with the Captain dressed in his pseudo military garb.....but there isn't much honor left in the world IMO....

 

Wow. If you hold the profession in such low regard, why are you still cruising? Every time a President is accused of some wrongdoing, or his subordinate is accused by laymen of wrong doing, should he step down until the investigation is complete? Do any military leader step down because one of his subordinates is accused by laymen of wrong doing? I guess by your definition, there is NO honor in the world anymore. The Captain will be available for questioning by the Kittsian authorities at any time, yet you are asking him to set aside his livelihood for something that has not been proved to be his fault, or even that of the ship or company? If they felt they had reason to hold him during the investigation, they would have.

[chengkp75]

Google does

 

Saint Christopher Air and Sea Ports Authority

 

No, google knows that SCASPA is the Saint Christopher Air and Sea Ports Authority. :o

 

The statement you posted may be the port authority's procedure, but it is not the international law regarding the master/pilot relationship. And in some cases I've seen, the Captain has pilotage, but the pilot's association or the port authority requires that a pilot be onboard, who then quietly sits in a corner drinking coffee while the Captain takes the ship out. The master/pilot relationship has been set in international maritime law for centuries.

 

Please note on the SCASPA website, the statement made by the head of the organization, and his mention of what has been done by RCI towards the investigation, and that the St. Kitts police force are investigating.

Edited April 7, 2014 by chengkp75

[Ocean Boy]

While what you say is true just about everywhere, depending on the circumstances the pilot or the captain can be conning the ship. I have no idea what is the practice is at St. Kitts and the captain could certainly override a pilot's order. To override a pilot's order/advice there would have to be some extenuating circumstances for the captain to do so.

 

A small boat by the stern of the cruise ship probably qualifies.

[setsail]

No, google knows that SCASPA is the Saint Christopher Air and Sea Ports Authority. :o

 

The statement you posted may be the port authority's procedure, but it is not the international law regarding the master/pilot relationship. And in some cases I've seen, the Captain has pilotage, but the pilot's association or the port authority requires that a pilot be onboard, who then quietly sits in a corner drinking coffee while the Captain takes the ship out. The master/pilot relationship has been set in international maritime law for centuries.

 

Please note on the SCASPA website, the statement made by the head of the organization, and his mention of what has been done by RCI towards the investigation, and that the St. Kitts police force are investigating.

 

If you wish to question the port authority , that's fine with me. Its not my policy nor was it my statement:rolleyes:

[FLACRUISER99]

Google does

 

Saint Christopher Air and Sea Ports Authority

Thanks when I Google it I got "Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority":eek: LOL

[BillB48]

A small boat by the stern of the cruise ship probably qualifies.

 

I don't believe the presence of a small boat that is assisting in casting off the ship would be something out of the ordinary.

[Ocean Boy]

I don't believe the presence of a small boat that is assisting in casting off the ship would be something out of the ordinary.

 

No, but it might make me think twice about starting to push away from the pier.

[tobiasds]

Deleted

Edited April 7, 2014 by tobiasds

[tobiasds]

Deleted

Edited April 7, 2014 by tobiasds

[Beachdude]

No, but it might make me think twice about starting to push away from the pier.

 

Its pretty normal from my observations over the years. It's not like the mooring boats don't know what going on.

 

Burt

[BillB48]

Actually, there does not need to be any extenuating circumstance for the Captain to countermand or relieve the pilot; if it doesn't feel right, it is his responsibility to do something. However, should he do so, and the ship run aground or whatever, then he would come under very close scrutiny. While the Captain normally gives the conn to the pilot (or in many cases for cruise ships, has pilotage himself), he remains on the bridge, and listens to all pilot commands, checks the aids to navigation himself, and is constantly ready, regardless of how many times he has worked with a pilot, to take over. Having the "conn" (the one person authorized to give orders at a particular time), and having "control" of the ship are two different things.

 

Perhaps it is just semantics but IMO if something did not feel right that is where the extenuating circumstance begins entering into the picture. Either way, I know that the master of the vessel has the last word. I'm am just a little surprised by some of the comments that want to place the blame for this accident almost completely at the master's doorstep. It's a little early for that.

[grand isle joe]

Wow. If you hold the profession in such low regard, why are you still cruising? Every time a President is accused of some wrongdoing, or his subordinate is accused by laymen of wrong doing, should he step down until the investigation is complete? Do any military leader step down because one of his subordinates is accused by laymen of wrong doing? I guess by your definition, there is NO honor in the world anymore. The Captain will be available for questioning by the Kittsian authorities at any time, yet you are asking him to set aside his livelihood for something that has not been proved to be his fault, or even that of the ship or company? If they felt they had reason to hold him during the investigation, they would have.

 

you can't have it both ways....either he is in charge and responsible at all times or he is not in charge and responsible only on the bridge...... they never gave the Captain of the Exxon Valdez that doubt did they?....honor does not say "it's not my fault"....that is what is wrong today it is always someone else's fault.....Step down, take a leave from the bridge and wait until the conclusion......but then again we saw how some "Captains" acted in the Costa Concordia "mishap".....Like in the Wizard of Oz don't look behind the curtain....

[nolesrule]

It's unfortunate that two people lost their lives, but you are comparing this to Exxon Valdez and Costa Concordia? Really?

[iheartbda]

you can't have it both ways....either he is in charge and responsible at all times or he is not in charge and responsible only on the bridge...... they never gave the Captain of the Exxon Valdez that doubt did they?....honor does not say "it's not my fault"....that is what is wrong today it is always someone else's fault.....Step down, take a leave from the bridge and wait until the conclusion......but then again we saw how some "Captains" acted in the Costa Concordia "mishap".....Like in the Wizard of Oz don't look behind the curtain....

Explain please.:confused:

[reallyitsmema]

you can't have it both ways....either he is in charge and responsible at all times or he is not in charge and responsible only on the bridge...... they never gave the Captain of the Exxon Valdez that doubt did they?....honor does not say "it's not my fault"....that is what is wrong today it is always someone else's fault.....Step down, take a leave from the bridge and wait until the conclusion......but then again we saw how some "Captains" acted in the Costa Concordia "mishap".....Like in the Wizard of Oz don't look behind the curtain....

 

Do we even know if the captain is still on the ship? In the past, corporate has replaced the captain during the investigation of an incident. With the severity of this accident, you would think he has left the ship.

[saurian]

I feel very badly for these two men, the crew, and passengers.

 

Perhaps the IOS needed to leave after 4 hours, based on tides. I am not a mariner, and certainly not familiar with the areas underwater hazards, but at a certain point, it may no longer be possible for the ship to safely navigate the shipping lane. Such a large vessel probably normally cuts it close, so waiting until the lowest tide might have made for a problem both at the dock and in the channel. If she were stuck in port until the tide turned (if she could even stay and not run aground), it may have created havoc in the channel for all other vessels, including cruise ships, tankers, cargo, and ferry vessels. Again, I do not know the hazards, or even the tidal chart for the area, but considering the media attention and the small size of the community where it occurred, I personally doubt that RCI was trying to flee the scene or hamper the investigation. And my understanding of these huge engines (azipods/thrusters, ect) is that it takes a few minutes to start them, and an equal amount of time to turn them off, they are not an on/off switch, but technologically challenging, very fickle machines made to run long and hard, not switch like a key in a car engine.

 

Without these dock workers, the ships could not dock. These people matter, every day, to both the visitors and the residents of the islands, which rely on shipping for everything they have. Cruise ships would not be able to dock or leave. The dock workers deserve a lot of credit for their hard, dangerous work, but accidents can happen. We should not call for someone to lose their job, or assume a payoff, or a poorly done investigation if we were not there for the situation. should they have had better safety gear? likely yes. Was there a mistake in communication on the IOS? again, quite probably, yes. Was/is there an investigation, using statements and ship data? to be sure. all we can do is wait for a formal report, pray for all those involved or witnessed, and appreciate dock workers around the world for their hard and dangerous work with cargo, pleasure, and military vessels.

[chengkp75]

you can't have it both ways....either he is in charge and responsible at all times or he is not in charge and responsible only on the bridge...... they never gave the Captain of the Exxon Valdez that doubt did they?....honor does not say "it's not my fault"....that is what is wrong today it is always someone else's fault.....Step down, take a leave from the bridge and wait until the conclusion......but then again we saw how some "Captains" acted in the Costa Concordia "mishap".....Like in the Wizard of Oz don't look behind the curtain....

 

I've never said that the Captain isn't in charge at all times. He is, but that does not mean that he should relinquish his position until an investigation is completed. Do you know that the USCG (and I know I'm going to get another lecture that US maritime law does not apply to cruise ships) requires an report to them and an accident investigation every time something on the ship is damaged above the value of $20,000 or a crewmember or third party is injured beyond requiring first aid? Should all these Captains step down from sailing until the investigations are done? How long did it take the USCG (who were asked to be lead investigator) take to complete the investigation of the Carnival Splendor? Oh, about two years. And then, the Captain was not found to be at fault, but it happened on his ship. Should he have stepped down? I have no idea what you do for a living, but when someone is injured on your business' property, do you or the boss take a leave of absence to satisfy the honor of your position?

 

Both Hazelwood and Schettino were relieved of their command. Hazelwood was relieved by Exxon, not the USCG, and in fact he never lost his Captain's license. Schettino was arrested by the Italian authorities on the report of the Italian Coast Guard. Both of these were done based on the legal systems of the jurisdictions involved. The St. Kitts authorities decided that nothing showed immediately that the Captain or the ship were responsible, based on the information they had at the time. The Captain is not saying, its not my fault, the authorities are saying it.

 

Lets say that someone runs into your car. The police show up. They say, okay, we have all the information we need at the scene, we will let you both know the results of the investigation when it is completed. Does your honor require you to stop driving until then, since you are legally responsible for your actions while driving, and you don't want to say its not my fault? I mean really.

[Ocean Boy]

 

Lets say that someone runs into your car. The police show up. They say, okay, we have all the information we need at the scene, we will let you both know the results of the investigation when it is completed. Does your honor require you to stop driving until then, since you are legally responsible for your actions while driving, and you don't want to say its not my fault? I mean really.

 

And it certainly is not like the authorities would not be able to locate the Independence or its captain at a later date if need be.