5 thoughts on “Known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and the unknowable unknowns.”
Because reefs are able to grow overnight in heavily trafficked, heavily surveyed waters. Alternatively, boats are always supposed to go full speed in waters where chart information is uncertain or in doubt.
(If he would have said ‘sandbar’ vice ‘reef’, at least that would have been somewhat credible)Report
It seems unlikely, doesn’t it?
But consider the converse: a mariner with enough experience to be put in charge of a ship of this size steamed through marked waters containing a hazard that could destroy his vessel.
My expectation is that an inquire will reveal something along the lines of the Exxon Valdez disaster; dereliction of duty, subordinate inexperience, and human error. That’s where I’d make my bet (if I had to bet.)
But I have enough personal experience finding unmarked features (some hazardous) in ” heavily trafficked, heavily surveyed waters” that I wouldn’t make the bet in the first place.
Whatever the outcome, from a personal/professional point of view it’s a sobering reminder that the technology that’s become commonplace on boats always needs to be regarded as adjunct to situational awareness, common sense, and judgment; not a substitute.Report
Fwiw, found this at another site posted by a former US Navy quartermaster (Nav ET)
AIS track for the CONCORDIA
(paper) chart for the area in question
CONCORDIA’s track data:
Time Lat Long Head Speed
2021 42’19”39.86N 11’03”39.86E 278 15.7
2024 42’19”46.03N 11’02”35.90E 278 15.5
2029 42’19”57.00N 11’00”50.23E 278 15.4
2033 42’20”05.45N 10’59”15.68E 276 15.4
2037 42’20”15.50N 10’57”57.81E 285 15.5
2053 42’22”01.91N 10’55”32.59E 351 2.9
The picture that’s emerging is shocking in the extreme.
In a public statement he made over the weekend, he mentions that he was at least 150 meters from shoal water, and about 300 meters from land. Putting those numbers into context, he had knowingly put his ship within half a ship-length of shoal water, in the dark, and without a pilot on board. Anyone who’s ever driven a ship understands how foolish that is.
Because reefs are able to grow overnight in heavily trafficked, heavily surveyed waters. Alternatively, boats are always supposed to go full speed in waters where chart information is uncertain or in doubt.
(If he would have said ‘sandbar’ vice ‘reef’, at least that would have been somewhat credible)Report
It seems unlikely, doesn’t it?
But consider the converse: a mariner with enough experience to be put in charge of a ship of this size steamed through marked waters containing a hazard that could destroy his vessel.
My expectation is that an inquire will reveal something along the lines of the Exxon Valdez disaster; dereliction of duty, subordinate inexperience, and human error. That’s where I’d make my bet (if I had to bet.)
But I have enough personal experience finding unmarked features (some hazardous) in ” heavily trafficked, heavily surveyed waters” that I wouldn’t make the bet in the first place.
Whatever the outcome, from a personal/professional point of view it’s a sobering reminder that the technology that’s become commonplace on boats always needs to be regarded as adjunct to situational awareness, common sense, and judgment; not a substitute.Report
Fwiw, found this at another site posted by a former US Navy quartermaster (Nav ET)
AIS track for the CONCORDIA
(paper) chart for the area in question
CONCORDIA’s track data:
Time Lat Long Head Speed
2021 42’19”39.86N 11’03”39.86E 278 15.7
2024 42’19”46.03N 11’02”35.90E 278 15.5
2029 42’19”57.00N 11’00”50.23E 278 15.4
2033 42’20”05.45N 10’59”15.68E 276 15.4
2037 42’20”15.50N 10’57”57.81E 285 15.5
2053 42’22”01.91N 10’55”32.59E 351 2.9
Report
A few more known knowns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM9sam2u_TkReport
The picture that’s emerging is shocking in the extreme.
Report