M/T Tropic Breeze Struck by Mega Yacht Utopia IV and Sinks Off the Coast of New Provi

[svfinlandia]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I guess I don’t pay much attention to the gender of those who post here unless they use an obviously female sounding name, and even then it’s 50/50 whether I’d assume it was the name of their boat. After all, why does it matter? If they have something to contribute I’m interested in what they have to say, be they male or female, and if they want to stick their nose in and make snarky suggestions rather than allow someone who was asked a very simple question to answer it, I’m not too interested in that sort, be they male or female.

From what I am reading, I am beginning to think that you may not be paying much attention at all.
Yes, your question was valid. I also think that littlewings comment was valid. I don’t think she meant any disrespect and she was just trying to keep the thread focused and I don’t think that you have any reason to come down on her as hard as she did. If you didn’t like the comment you could have just ignored it And it wouldn’t matter if she would’ve been a she or a he, the same applies.
Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean to be coming down on you either. I just think that we all should keep it civil on the forum.

Al, S/V Finlandia

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I see despite being lambasted ( not by you) and that all these superyschties are highly trained competent msriners , yeah right .

Firstly, let's not forget that we still do not know all of the facts and are making some assumptions.

Secondly, you were lambasted (by me) because what you wrote was 99.9% false, as well as offensive and derogatory in relation to most crew working onboard superyachts - so it needed to be corrected.

I also therefore asked you not to write such misinformation on a public forum like this, thereby possibly misleading other people too. We certainly don't need more fake news being spread in the world.

But regarding the topic in general, being trained, qualified, experienced, whatever, is still not a foolproof defence against someone making an error of judgement.

Neither is it a foolproof defence against fatigue, which is often found to be a factor in incidents of any type, marine or otherwise.

Separately I was clear that I was not defending the actions of Utopia, even though I could maybe understand how something like this may have happened (even if it should not have).

Errors of judgement still happen with merchant mariners regularly (who you said are 'much' higher trained, or words to that effect), it happens with airline pilots (who most would agree are also highly trained), it happens with professionals in many different fields - even in the medical profession too.

Mistakes and accidents still happen. Humans are fallible, for many different reasons.

[jmh2002]

On the subject of collisions, here's a great one which will also dumbfound everyone here about how it could possibly happen in the middle of the open sea - again with trained, qualified, experienced merchant mariners onboard both vessels...

But unfortunately these types of events are not rare in the merchant shipping world, and collisions happen regularly.

Fortunately they are rare in the superyacht world though, despite suggestions to the contrary.


"The collision occurred before dawn Sunday morning approximately 17 miles (28 km) north of Cape Corsica (ie: in the open sea) as the Ulysse was underway from Genoa, Italy to Rades, Tunisia. The CSL Virginia was reportedly anchored at the time of the collision."

"The investigation into the collision involving a roll-on/roll-off vessel and a containership in the Mediterranean Sea last October identified human errors on a multitude of levels as the root cause of the accident."

"According to Tunisian, French and Cypriot investigators who revealed their findings on Monday, the investigation revealed that the watch officer on board the Tunisian ro-ro Ulysse was alone on the bridge and on his phone, far away from radar, at the time of the collision early on October 7th."

"Officers on the Cypriot container ship Virginia also not attend to radar alarms, investigators questioned why the ship had dropped anchor in the middle of a shipping lane."

Human Error ID’d in Mediterranean Ro-Ro’s Collision with Containership
https://gcaptain.com/human-error-idd...containership/

Watch: AIS Animation Shows Mediterranean Ship Collision
https://gcaptain.com/watch-ais-anima...hip-collision/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgXqpUCXwhU

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by svfinlandia

From what I am reading, I am beginning to think that you may not be paying much attention at all.

Yes, your question was valid. I also think that littlewings comment was valid. I don’t think she meant any disrespect and she was just trying to keep the thread focused and I don’t think that you have any reason to come down on her as hard as she did. If you didn’t like the comment you could have just ignored it And it wouldn’t matter if she would’ve been a she or a he, the same applies.

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean to be coming down on you either. I just think that we all should keep it civil on the forum.



Al, S/V Finlandia

I’m sure you’re right that I haven’t paid as much attention to the interpretations and opinions of some other CF posters on this thread as you and some others apparently think I should, but I do think I’m pretty well up to speed on the information regarding this incident that’s been circulated. Do you understand the difference? I am of the opinion that any watchstander or helmsman on duty on either vessel at the time of a collision very likely bears some responsibility so Dons emphatic statement to the contrary caught my eye so I queried him as to his reasoning which he provided. It was a completely civil and appropriate exchange regarding a difference of opinion with both of us recognizing that either could be wrong because neither of us (or anyone else) is 100% sure of all the facts at this point.

You’re right that we both could have ignored the others comment but my comment that she chose to respond to was directed at another poster, not her, and her post was directed at me.

I also much prefer civil discourse and I think a big part of that is each participant realizing and accepting that almost every thread will contain posts that we think are wrong or unnecessary or even inappropriate but unless the post threatens to completely hijack the thread or violates the forum rules, we should allow the mods to set the offending poster straight. We don’t all need to take it upon ourselves to correct other posters when we think they inappropriately asked another poster to clarify their reasoning regarding a statement they’ve made, and we also shouldn’t be so sure of our own interpretation of another’s motivation for asking another poster a question that we tell them to review the whole thread rather than asking that question.

[DeValency]

The bottom line of this particular event speaks for itself.

Stories from other cases are irrelevant.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Auspicious that’s ridiculous! People make comments all the time without reading the entire thread

Not ridiculous at all. People do a lot of stupid and rude things all the time. Skip classes and expect classmates to "fill them in" before the final. It's entitled in the most pejorative sense of the word. In this case that particularly subtext was addressed in some depth and the discussion moved on.

It is one thing to say--truthfully--one has read the thread and has a perspective to offer on the previous discussion of one aspect and quite another to bust in late.

Also, don't assume because I take a stand on the issue of actually reading in that I agree with any particular position. Unwarranted assumptions are rude also.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Not ridiculous at all. People do a lot of stupid and rude things all the time. Skip classes and expect classmates to "fill them in" before the final. It's entitled in the most pejorative sense of the word. In this case that particularly subtext was addressed in some depth and the discussion moved on.

It is one thing to say--truthfully--one has read the thread and has a perspective to offer on the previous discussion of one aspect and quite another to bust in late.

Also, don't assume because I take a stand on the issue of actually reading in that I agree with any particular position. Unwarranted assumptions are rude also.

I see little correlation between skipping classes and asking a question about an opinion (not a fact) that another poster expressed.

As for "busting in late" I think if you asked the mods or the owner of this forum, they would tell you that they want as many posters as possible to "bust in" whenever they happen to feel like it as long as they aren't chronic thread hijackers or violate the forum rules. As I've said earlier, though some posters seem to want them to be, these discussions aren't limited to just the "regulars" who post the most or who always get in early, and their 'opinions' aren't any more valid than anyone else's. When I "busted in" I wasn't disagreeing with a fact that had already been adequately covered and instead was merely asking for the clarification of an opinion, and I wasn't being at all impolite or disruptive. Compare that with some of the things that have been directed at me and about me by you and others since then because I told Littlewing that if she found my question to be so disagreeable that she felt that she needed to take some action, it would be more appropriate for her to spend the 5 seconds it would take to put me on ignore than to tell me to read the whole thread, which incidentally would serve no purpose since I wasn't disagreeing or even questioning any facts that had been covered. That way I could have gained clarification as to why Don said what he did and she would never again be subjected to feeling in danger that the thread would lose 'focus' because of a question from me 'busting in' to a conversation she was part of. Win, win, and all the subsequent off topic discussion we've engaged in could have been avoided.

Despite what you seem to think, you are not the last word on what constitutes rudeness....

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by DeValency

The bottom line of this particular event speaks for itself.

Stories from other cases are irrelevant.

This is true unless the idiot that almost ran over me got a new job as the captain of this boat.

[tennis4789]

Gf n i pretty sure we just saw the utopia at the nassau cruise terminal. We're on the ncl encore.

We were trying to figure how anchor area of the utopia got smashed up a bit.

It didn't look like it was enough damage to sink another ship. (I'm definitely not an expert tho.)

[contrail]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Ever been engrossed in a conversation with some friends when someone who wasn't part of the conversation jumps in and instead of listening respectfully for a few minutes to get the gist of it, just interjects with something that you all already covered in depth? That's what one does when one can't be bothered to spend what, 5 minutes of one's oh so precious time reading a thread before interjecting themselves in something that was obviously covered already. One is basically saying their time is worth more than everyone else's, so everyone should happily tolerate their disruption, in fact requiring that hundreds of respectfully readers of the thread should have to take the time to read through the disruptive post and block the offending person, all so that person can choose what threads they read before interjecting. It's unquestionably considered rude by the vast majority of one's fellow humans, in fact I dare say all but the tiny minority who engage in this type or rude behavior. But even worse is the level of self absorption and lack of self awareness required to have the gall to accuse others of rudeness when they point this rude behavior out.

Not only is what you said 100% correct, but the simple get out of jail card of saying, "just block me", compounds the error. The person who interrupts may well have something worthwhile to add, either in that post or down-thread, and now it is the exasperated blocker who is missing part of the conversation and winds up asking a redundant question as a result! And so on and so on. Either folks are courteous enough to follow a thread before blurting out a question (or point out that they haven't), or they don't respect others who are sharing the virtual conversation....just like an in person conversation. I have been on this forum for over ten years and have posted many a time. Only once, did I do so without reading what had gone before. When I realized how dumb and inconsiderate I sounded, I resolved never to make that mistake again, and I haven't.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Despite what you seem to think, you are not the last word on what constitutes rudeness....

That's the thing about rudeness, it's a social convention and the person exhibiting rude behavior actually is the one person who doesn't get to decide what is or isn't rude. I'm not sure your original comment was rude so much as the extreme self entitlement inherent in subsequently telling us all you can jump into any thread without reading it whenever you want because your time is valuable, but that every single reader who finds that rude should have to take the time to read through your post and block you if they don't like that behavior. The majority of people would find that rude, regardless of your thoughts on the matter, which are really irrelevant when it comes to determining how others perceive you.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Firstly, let's not forget that we still do not know all of the facts and are making some assumptions...

I often lament “baseless speculation”, but, we should remember that we [on CF] are not an accident investigation board, nor a jury - we’re just a bunch of folks, harmlessly discussing a subject, of some interest, to us.

It’'s just harmless fun.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by contrail

Not only is what you said 100% correct, but the simple get out of jail card of saying, "just block me", compounds the error. The person who interrupts may well have something worthwhile to add, either in that post or down-thread, and now it is the exasperated blocker who is missing part of the conversation and winds up asking a redundant question as a result! And so on and so on. Either folks are courteous enough to follow a thread before blurting out a question (or point out that they haven't), or they don't respect others who are sharing the virtual conversation....just like an in person conversation. I have been on this forum for over ten years and have posted many a time. Only once, did I do so without reading what had gone before. When I realized how dumb and inconsiderate I sounded, I resolved never to make that mistake again, and I haven't.

OMG, go back and read what I wrote and how Don responded. There was nothing discourteous about it and though you and some other CF posters may think it was “settled science” that the helmsman was entirely blameless, Im not so sure about that and felt it worthy of further discussion so asked him WHY he felt that way and was so emphatic about saying “entirely blameless” rather than something less severe. And why do you assume I hadn’t read several others stating similar opinions? But all those posts are just OPINIONS and unless cancel culture has entirely taken over this forum I think opposing opinions and the reasoning behind them is allowed. I was not disputing any facts (as far as we can tell what the facts are) are. I could have quoted any number of earlier posts but Don was most recent and most emphatic and I’ve noticed Don posts on a lot of topics and correctly thought he’d have a reasonable response to my question so I’d better understand that line of thought that I (respectfully) disagree with. What exactly was rude or out of line in any way about my question to Don?!

On the other hand, I do think it’s rather rude to assume someone’s question (not argument) was based on not having bothered to read the thread and then based on that assumption telling them to read it. I agree that the conversation suffers when you have too many posters on ignore but I only suggested it because little wing seemed so bothered by my entirely valid, on topic question that she felt she had to respond to it with a post directed at only one poster (me) that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion. IF something as trivial as my request to Don for clarification of his reasoning is enough to trigger her to make incorrect assumptions and based on that, tell me to reread the whole thread, if she simply put me on ignore we all could have been spared this whole side road we’ve been down and Don could have explained his POV and we all could have moved on long ago. But the best solution would be for her to have simply let Don answer my question and then maybe even try to understand why my POV is slightly different than his or hers is.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

On the other hand, I do think it’s rather rude to assume someone’s question (not argument) was based on not having bothered to read the thread and then based on that assumption telling them to read it.

Well given that you said in a post just one page ago

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Please choose which threads you read from start to finish, just as I will. If my question seemed bothersome to you, you could put me on “ignore” in less time than I could read the whole thread, and your post which had nothing to do with the subject of this thread could have been avoided as well, just sayin….

this simple redneck just took you at your word that when you say you choose which threads you read from start to finish that you meant that you choose which threads you read from start to finish.

Now I don't know much about this "cancel culture" thing you're talking about, but it appears it means being considerate and polite to others and not standing by silently when others are rude? The stuff my momma taught me growing up? If so, then we need way more "cancel culture"! Or maybe we could just call it good manners like we always did?

[Oeanda]

If this thread was a boat it would be in danger of running into something…