Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: martin_fierro
Both the captain and crew so far have refused to be interviewed by the U.S. Coast Guard or other authorities.

As well they should.
My understanding is that once the required local pilot is in charge, he has final control and authority in navigation and control. If any critical equipment was not working or malfunctioning, the pilot should have aborted the exit.

Under those circumstances, what can the captain and crew contribute that is meaningful?

4 posted on 12/01/2007 11:12:35 AM PST by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Publius6961

“My understanding is that once the required local pilot is in charge, he has final control and authority in navigation and control.”

As one who has often been on the bridge of Navy ships moving in and out of the Bay, I am in a position to say that you are correct. At the same time, a ship’s captain can never divest himself of responsibility.

“If any critical equipment was not working or malfunctioning, the pilot should have aborted the exit.”

The only critical equipment a harbor pilot is supposed to need is his eyes and his brain.

A Navy quartermaster might take bearings on three points and report, “Hold us twenty yards left of track.” A harbor pilot will say, “Whan the last piling on that decrepit pier lines up with that old chicken coop, bring it over hard right.” (Actual example.)


8 posted on 12/01/2007 11:56:56 AM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson