3 ms·
>Yeah, I'd like to know what the officers could/should have done differently... To copy the same excerpt as a comment below: [...] sound judgement, prudent dec
by QuarterReptile 5y ago
>Yeah, I'd like to know what the officers could/should have done differently...
To copy the same excerpt as a comment below: [...] sound judgement, prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in navigation planning, watch team execution and risk management could have prevented the incident [...]
>And why wasn't the Navigator dismissed?
That is probably still in the works. There's more due process involved in firing someone further down the chain of command.
>If it was an unknown seamount, surely the only way they could have known about it to avoid it would be using active sonar
While this is true, you don't need to know where the seamounts are to avoid hitting them. When driving on a highway, I can go very fast because there are not people walking around because the environment is pedestrian-hostile to the point of extinction. Driving through a dense urban core, I have to be much slower because there are people everywhere and I might be in a city where crossing mid-block is normal.
- ethbr0 5y agoMy original point was along the lines of people not realizing there's a "bicyclist walking across the interstate at 3am" analog here. No obvious indicators that happened, and we'll probably never know, but it is a possibility. So "nothing that should happen to an experienced crew" is a pretty strong statement to make given the domain and known facts.
- QuarterReptile 5y ago>My original point was along the lines of people not realizing there's a "bicyclist walking across the interstate at 3am" analog here. The thing is, this was almost certainly not that case. If you have bad sounding data (which is a thing that the planners know), then you are not on an interstate.