Hundreds missing as S Korea ferry sinks

[SCM]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27045512

[alistairuk]

I see the captain has now been arrested - probably just routine... Given that it sunk completely and from the photos doesn't look like they hit something... Perhaps cargo not secured properly or water on the car decks?

[GuinnessMan]

I see the captain has now been arrested - probably just routine... Given that it sunk completely and from the photos doesn't look like they hit something... Perhaps cargo not secured properly or water on the car decks?

And the fact that he did a Schettino and buggered off fairly quickly after the event...

[SCM]

I see the captain has now been arrested - probably just routine... Given that it sunk completely and from the photos doesn't look like they hit something... Perhaps cargo not secured properly or water on the car decks?

When it first happened the media, or at least the Korean media, were claiming the ferry had hit the reef but this has been strenuously denied by the ferry company, captain, the investigation teams and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. From reading what people in Korea are saying and some of the English language SK news websites it seems that the numbers of passengers, crews, and cargo weight were different from marine transportation company's record and that the ship might have been overloaded with cargo.

As for the Captain and crew that have been arrested they've actually had charges brought against them, initially for abandoning the ship and dereliction of duty but now they've all been raised to manslaughter.


Seems like a very grim situation which has been made even grimmer by the suicide of the deputy head of the school that was on a school trip on the ferry.

[size4riggerboots]

I heard from my Captain this morning that it was a new third mate on watch who hadn't done the run they were on before. Apparently she made a turn at speed and the ship listed, and then unsecured cargo all moved over. There is debate as to whether she went hard over on purpose, or whether there was a problem with the rudders. If this is true, I wonder if she had been given proper training on all the bridge equipment, including the ships manoeuvring characteristics, and I wonder also why the captain wasn't supervising a new third mate on their first run?

Edit: Found this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...irst-time.html

[alistairuk]

I heard from my Captain this morning that it was a new third mate on watch who hadn't done the run they were on before. Apparently she made a turn at speed and the ship listed, and then unsecured cargo all moved over. There is debate as to whether she went hard over on purpose, or whether there was a problem with the rudders. If this is true, I wonder if she had been given proper training on all the bridge equipment, including the ships manoeuvring characteristics, and I wonder also why the captain wasn't supervising a new third mate on their first run?

Edit: Found this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...irst-time.html

From reading the article, the third mate had worked for the company for 5 months (and deep sea previously), from reading it looks as if she was "navigating the area for the first time" because the ship had departed late and that section would normally have been on another watch as opposed to it was her first time on the ship.

Besides if the captains statement that he had only returned to his cabin briefly and was returning to the bridge around time of the accident was true... It's not really unusual to happen - when we all join a new ship (other than the handover few days and unless you were on a double watchkeeping ship) was someone on the bridge with you constantly? Probably not.

[note: that sounds like I'm attacking you s4 - I'm not honest!]

Alas whenever passengers are involved you have to take what is in the press with a pinch of salt - since majority of these journalists have no bloody clue - just like the general public - and it sells more papers to be dramatic.

Unfortunately there's no common approach to dealing with emergencies, what works in one occasion will be a disaster in others - on face of it, not wanting to evacuate the passengers initially due to strong currents until rescue ships are nearby sounds reasonable...

At end of the day it's up to the command team at the time, in difficult circumstances usually, to make the best decision to deal with it, they're only human and unfortunately sometimes mistake are made. With benefit of hindsight clearly they didn't have the time to wait, but you can imagine the headlines if they had evacuated "100s of students die after being swept away".

[size4riggerboots]

Dude, I agree with you, the main body of that post was made before I found the article!