You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
7

[–] PotatoFarm 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It seems to me that the article fails to acknowledge the elephant in the room while it keeps trying to pinpoint all the fault in a commercial cargo ship.

Just in case, the elephant is: a modern military ship with the best available technology, a ship build around speed and maneuverability, a ship with a crew trained for war operations, etc. collided with a big and slow cargo ship following a known route.

Naturally, I don't want to place any blame on anyone at this point (I really have no business doing so), but the author should seriously step back and see the greater picture.

0
3

[–] carlinco 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Considering the cargo ship had tracking technology on board, the crew should have been aware of its location and course the whole time, even if they had been on some kind of exercise where radar and such was turned off to stay invisible.

It's quite obvious that whoever was in command was asleep or distracted.

And there's also a big failure in the command structures if such errors are not noted in time by the base and corrected. Even if there was some kind of radio silence, I'd expect them to be able to put up some kind of data link so the imminent collision should have been visible to someone in Japan or in the Pentagon or so when there was still time to react.

Pains me for the 7 who went over board, 1 or 2 of whom might even have tried to warn the bridge w/o success.