3 ms·

Is this comment intended to be sarcastic? If lookouts were not posted or the radar was not properly manned, the commander is ultimately responsible. Heads wil

Is this comment intended to be sarcastic? If lookouts were not posted or the radar was not properly manned, the commander is ultimately responsible. Heads will proverbially roll on this one, and his will absolutely be one of the first.

valuearb 9y ago
Not sarcasm. I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel and I was just pointing out he wasn't involved in the decision making. And we do know he will lose his command and never get another one, whether he's shown to have culpability for his crews failures or not. It's the navy way.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  * I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel* Odd, because when I go back to the OP, I don't see any indication that suggests he thinks the captain made an active decision to be reckless. Maybe they edited after you replied? Or is it the quotes around "accident" in this sentence that lead you to interpret their comments this way? There is absolutely no reason a modern warship should have an "accident" like this. If so, I read this differently. In my view, an accident is something that occurs due to unexpected changes in a situation. For example, if a car crash occurred because a deer jumped across the road and lead a vehicle to swerve, I'd use the word "accident". But in cases of negligence, I find the word "accident" makes it far too easy to blame the situation rather than the people. In this case, in my view these two ships colliding was no "accident" in that there must have been clear, conscious human decisions that lead to the event, even if those decisions were simply "I'm going to have a nap now (and thus be negligent in my duties)". Incidentally, I think we're far too willing to refer to car crashes as "accidents", and for this same reason.
mpyne 9y ago
What happens if the CIC (where the radar operators would sit), lookouts, and bridge team were all properly posted with trained watchstanders, who collectively dropped the ball? Don't get me wrong, the CO is still "accountable" here, but while the buck may stop with him, there is going to be plenty of room for blame by the time this is all settled out. I don't care who the CO is, there's no excuse for a Navy watchteam on a modern destroyer to miss on oncoming container ship so badly.

valuearb 9y ago

Not sarcasm. I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel and I was just pointing out he wasn't involved in the decision making. And we do know he will lose his command and never get another one, whether he's shown to have culpability for his crews failures or not. It's the navy way.

zzalpha 9y ago
* I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel* Odd, because when I go back to the OP, I don't see any indication that suggests he thinks the captain made an active decision to be reckless. Maybe they edited after you replied? Or is it the quotes around "accident" in this sentence that lead you to interpret their comments this way? There is absolutely no reason a modern warship should have an "accident" like this. If so, I read this differently. In my view, an accident is something that occurs due to unexpected changes in a situation. For example, if a car crash occurred because a deer jumped across the road and lead a vehicle to swerve, I'd use the word "accident". But in cases of negligence, I find the word "accident" makes it far too easy to blame the situation rather than the people. In this case, in my view these two ships colliding was no "accident" in that there must have been clear, conscious human decisions that lead to the event, even if those decisions were simply "I'm going to have a nap now (and thus be negligent in my duties)". Incidentally, I think we're far too willing to refer to car crashes as "accidents", and for this same reason.

mpyne 9y ago

What happens if the CIC (where the radar operators would sit), lookouts, and bridge team were all properly posted with trained watchstanders, who collectively dropped the ball? Don't get me wrong, the CO is still "accountable" here, but while the buck may stop with him, there is going to be plenty of room for blame by the time this is all settled out. I don't care who the CO is, there's no excuse for a Navy watchteam on a modern destroyer to miss on oncoming container ship so badly.