Ah! Finally, a topic I can address with some authority! As a US Coast Guard licensed Master for 15 years, may I point out a teensy-weensy flaw in your reasoning:
In principle the latest cruise ships should be safer than the likes of Concordia. But even so, the older ones can't be characterized as "unsafe". The problem here was mostly human.
Nope. The newer ships are built to merely be more resilient to human malfunction, and offer the humans - who will occasionally malfunction - better tools to avoid said goofs. That is why the crew is required (at least in the US) to keep up-to-date paper charts available at all times and to know how to determine one's position the old-fashioned way when - not if - the magic smoke leaks out of the electronics. And those charts are usually very, very accurate, especially when it comes to heavily-traveled waterways. (In the US, some remote Alaska fishing waters might be the only exception
( ... )
Cowardly is such an apt description. His claim that it's not entirely his fault because the rock wasn't on the charts is awful. As the captain he's responsible for the ship, crew, and passengers. As the captain on a cruise line, he Is an awful example and Carnival should pay through the nose for allowing such a reckless fool to captain their ship.
The Titanic disaster was done in fiction a decade before it happened in the real world, and it and its fictional counterpart reflect a fundamental rule that this is a lesser iteration of: trusting in technology doesn't really handle things in itself unless the technology could be used accurately. High technology used improperly may as well not exist at all.
If something is high technology in terms of potential to avert disasters or alternately a means to strengthen safety but it is not used properly, then what it may or may not have done is utterly irrelevant as it never had a chance to do what it was supposed to do because of human error. The fault is less with the technology than with the people theoretically using it.
I've been watching this incident with a certain fascination and am looking forward to reading the official accident reports.
At first glance it appears to be a classic case of "felony stupid" on the part of the Captain and Executive Officer, but there were probably other factors also in play.
That said, your question on safety and technology got me thinking. There is currently a debate raging in the aviation community about whether or not the various modern convieniences and safety measures are actually making aircraft LESS safe. The argument goes that an over-reliance on automation and computerised controls leads to situations where in pilots are ill-equipped to handle emergancies and often "do not know what the plane is doing".
The most notable example is the crash of Air France 447.
You can read a summary of the report here, It's frightening stuff.
Comments 42
In principle the latest cruise ships should be safer than the likes of Concordia. But even so, the older ones can't be characterized as "unsafe". The problem here was mostly human.
Nope. The newer ships are built to merely be more resilient to human malfunction, and offer the humans - who will occasionally malfunction - better tools to avoid said goofs. That is why the crew is required (at least in the US) to keep up-to-date paper charts available at all times and to know how to determine one's position the old-fashioned way when - not if - the magic smoke leaks out of the electronics. And those charts are usually very, very accurate, especially when it comes to heavily-traveled waterways. (In the US, some remote Alaska fishing waters might be the only exception ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate?
Reply
Reply
At first glance it appears to be a classic case of "felony stupid" on the part of the Captain and Executive Officer, but there were probably other factors also in play.
That said, your question on safety and technology got me thinking. There is currently a debate raging in the aviation community about whether or not the various modern convieniences and safety measures are actually making aircraft LESS safe. The argument goes that an over-reliance on automation and computerised controls leads to situations where in pilots are ill-equipped to handle emergancies and often "do not know what the plane is doing".
The most notable example is the crash of Air France 447.
You can read a summary of the report here, It's frightening stuff.
Reply
Leave a comment