quote:Originally posted by pescador
Whatever happened to people accepting responsibility for their actions? Everyone is looking for someone else to blame for their errors. I'm sick of this "it's someone else's fault" because my dad spanked me or my mother was an alcoholic or the government didn't pay for my education bs. Be accountable, man up. The bridge officer knows what his responsiblity is. When your contolling a vessel that size with the technology they had, there is no excuse. He's accountable. If you don't want the responsiblity, don't take the job.
Matador
quote:Originally posted by pescador
Whatever happened to people accepting responsibility for their actions? Everyone is looking for someone else to blame for their errors. I'm sick of this "it's someone else's fault" because my dad spanked me or my mother was an alcoholic or the government didn't pay for my education bs. Be accountable, man up.
quote:Originally posted by beemer
As someone who has operated a boat with the accused I can honestly say that it is no surprise that this happened. B.C. Ferries in my opinion is culpable for letting Karl on to the bridge. Why someone with his experience level was in charge of a vessel is beyond belief.
I think that the Captain of the vessel should also be charged. It is his responsibility to oversee the training and competance level of his crew and as such is fully responsible for their actions..
Sorry Dogbreath can't hide behind the union on this one.
If you're directing your remark @ me you're sadly mistaken I haven't had a Union job for 30+ years.quote:Originally posted by beemer
Sorry Dogbreath can't hide behind the union on this one.
quote:Originally posted by beemer
I strongly believe that the captain should be held responsible even though he and the first officer were on "breaks". The people who were left on the bridge were obviously not competant and should not have been left unsupervised , if supervising and scheduling who should be on the bridge is not the captain/masters job then what is?