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

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Oeanda

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

I haven't really been reading the last few pages. What's the topic now?

[goboatingnow]

So on the face of it a “ competent “ Captain handled over control to a Neophyte bridge officier on whose bridge the lights were permanently on and furthermore the spray seriously restricted visibility while doing 28 knots at night !!!
And this is described as an error of judgement “!!!!

Well at least he’ll never be behind the wheel again.

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

So on the face of it a “ competent “ Captain handled over control to a Neophyte bridge officier on whose bridge the lights were permanently on and furthermore the spray seriously restricted visibility while doing 28 knots at night !!!
And this is described as an error of judgement “!!!!

Well at least he’ll never be behind the wheel again.

Meh thinks the "Neophyte bridge officer" was an un-licensed deck hand not qualified to stand watches.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Meh thinks the "Neophyte bridge officer" was an un-licensed deck hand not qualified to stand watches.

Even further away from a “ error of judgement “

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Even further away from a “ error of judgement “

More like gross negligence. (If true, I will give the Captain the benefit of doubt, and I say again IF True)

[DeValency]

Good this thread returned back to sanity, after that sideway...

The whatever called Utopia 'captain' is the sole responsible for the event, unless he just got a heart attack and passed 30 minutes before the collision. Just like the Concordia captain 10 years ago.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by DeValency

Good this thread returned back to sanity, after that sideway...

The whatever called Utopia 'captain' is the sole responsible for the event, unless he just got a heart attack and passed 30 minutes before the collision. Just like the Concordia captain 10 years ago.

I thought the captain of the Concordia was alive and well.. and on the first lifeboat launched..

[DeValency]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I thought the captain of the Concordia was alive and well.. and on the first lifeboat launched..

That was related to the first sentence in my post, but on a second thought a creature is considered dead when it’s brain stops functioning.

Sounds like the case for both criminal ‘captains’

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I thought the captain of the Concordia was alive and well.. and on the first lifeboat launched..

Certainly alive; but well?
The captain of the Costa Concordia, Francesco Schettino, was found guilty of manslaughter, in 2016, and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Schettino was given 10 years for multiple manslaughters, 5 years for causing a shipwreck, and 1 year for abandoning the passengers at the time of the sinking.
Schettino is still in prison, in Rome, and not expected to leave prison until he is at least 70 years old [2032].
IIRC: Four other crewmembers also got prison sentences.

[LaughingWarrior]

That's a funny way to spell Prime Minister?

[ilenart]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Four other crewmembers also got prison sentences.

Afraid not, apart from Captain none of the four officers were jailed because their sentences were suspended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_...ainst_officers

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by GordMay

... IIRC: Four other crewmembers also got prison sentences.

Originally Posted by ilenart

Afraid not, apart from Captain none of the four officers were jailed because their sentences were suspended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_...ainst_officers

Indeed.
The four Costa Concordia crew members, and a company official, were convicted, and received sentences [between 18 and 34 months] for multiple manslaughter, negligence and shipwreck, in exchange for pleading guilty.
As is usual, in Italy for sentences under two years, their sentences were suspended.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by DeValency

Good this thread returned back to sanity, after that sideway...

The whatever called Utopia 'captain' is the sole responsible for the event, unless he just got a heart attack and passed 30 minutes before the collision. Just like the Concordia captain 10 years ago.

I find it odd that so many posters on this thread keep insisting on claiming that this collision had only one party at fault even though we all know that responsibility for a collision at sea is almost always split between BOTH vessels involved, even if one of them is at anchor. As you say, unless he just had a heart attack or was similarly disabled, the Utopia captain deserves to assume MOST of the blame, but I very much doubt that this will turn out to be the extremely rare accident where only one person on only one of the vessels is found ‘solely’ to blame and everyone else involved will be found to be entirely blameless. Just like if you are sailing on starboard tack, and a speedboat operated by a drunk runs into the port quarter of your sailboat, even though he’ll assume most of the blame and also be prosecuted for operating under the influence, if you weren’t keeping a proper watch and you took no action to avoid the collision once it should have been apparent to you that the drunk in the approaching give way vessel wasn’t giving way, you have violated the Colregs and will share in a portion of the blame. I know that’s a difficult concept to grasp for people accustomed to how a similar accident involving a drunk driver on land would be handled, but the Colregs differ from highway laws and it’s the Colregs that were in effect when the Utopia ran into and sunk the tanker. It might not seem fair but it’s how blame is almost always apportioned at sea. If it turns out that the tanker helmsman was keeping a proper watch and did see the Utopia and attempted contact and did take evasive action, then you might be right that the tanker captain and crew was entirely blameless, but I haven’t read that they’ve even made that claim. Hopefully we’ll all learn details like this once the investigation is complete and then we can discuss this based on established facts rather than what one person or another said or what we think might have happened.

The big difference between this accident and the Concordia is that the Concordia hit a ledge so no other vessel was involved, but even though it at first seems like the Concordia captain deserved sole blame for the collision itself, in addition to him, after the investigation was complete, 4 others were found to be criminally responsible, one of those convicted being the helmsman who was only attempting to follow his captains orders. The point is, using words like “sole” or “100%” or “only” in relation to any accident at sea, and especially a collision between 2 vessels is very rarely appropriate, and certainly not before the investigation is complete and all available facts are known.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

...The point is, using words like “sole” or “100%” or “only” in relation to any accident at sea, and especially a collision between 2 vessels is very rarely appropriate, and certainly not before the investigation is complete and all available facts are known.

Thank you for some voice of reason

Whilst nobody is defending the actions of M.Y. Utopia, sadly it does seem that some members here are blinded by 'rich owner / luxury superyacht', resulting in some questionable, biased, misinformed, and even just plain false statements being posted.

That's unfortunate but it does demonstrate the general lack of knowledge and understanding often present in the cruising community, even of such basics as the COLREGs.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

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

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?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about each person making their own choices about which thread to read all the way through. It seems pretty self evident to me that is each posters choice. Do you disagree with that?!

Cancel culture is when people attempt to stifle opposing opinions rather than discussing them like mature adults. In this case, I asked a question regarding why someone would emphatically state that ONLY one party was to blame for this accident and since then I've said that I disagree with this opinion, and I've explained why I formed my opinion just as the person I questioned explained the basis for his opinion. It's all good. But many others seem to think I was out of line or rude or disruptive to even ask the question and to have a different opinion. Littlewing took it upon herself to let me know (publicly) that my question which implied a difference of opinion was out of line because she assumed my question indicated that I was uninformed, and I object to anyone, male or female, trying to silence other posters opinions like that and suggested that if she found it so objectionable, she could put me on ignore so she wouldn't be bothered again when my opinion was different from hers. I'm really not sure what you think is rude about that. I note that you seem to have no hesitation in lecturing me about what you think are good manners so I'm not sure what ground you think you have to stand on regarding criticizing my response to Littlewing.