Why did the Bounty sink?

Death does not shelter improper choices.

However, a shoestring budget requires compromises.

Compromises can lead to catastrophic tragedy.

Fault begins with the owner.

Any burden belongs to the owner.

NYCAP, I think we just got here a wise reason why so many important and responsible positions are manned by dang amateurs

I'm paid for my educated opinion.


Sometimes it's don't do it. I need a lawsuit and damaged reputation a lot less than I need a job.
Old Phart, you're right. The fault, or at least the responsibility, always goes to the deep pockets. Lawyers don't sue the poor or the dead.

That makes two of us.
What I've been saying is when someone is positively set on ordering a half-assed job and not an inch more, he will get it. Maybe not from you or any other self-respecting professional, but still. So it's not even a matter of "whom to sue", it's a matter of who pays and therefore calls shots.

Just a week ago I had this classic conversation with prospective client: "I want you to make me 2x2=5" - "Listen, that's not exactly the quality I think you'd like." - "Maybe, but I just want 2x2=5, you're a pro, make me so." - "Ok, see, this is two matches. I double it, so I take this two more matches. Here, count, 4 matches, no more, no less." - "This is just too much of all that goobbledook specifics and particular trees. You don't seem to see the forest. You've been recommended as a professional but now I see you can't accomodate my needs..."
Now I'm willing to bet my '13's whole income this guy is going to hire someone who promises to make him 2x2=5. It won't be me, and it's impossible to tell what exact kinds of hilarity ensues, but there's a demand - there'll be a supply. And quite honestly, I won't even blame that someone too much.

Math lesson.

2 x 2 = 8

1 match

light it = burns once.

Touch boss while match still hot = burns twice.

Twice x 2 matches = 4 burns x 2 = 8 burns experienced by boss.

End of lesson.

Who was the owner? The HMS Bounty Preservation Society? And that was who? The Captain and his wife and whatever investors could be swindled into thinking they could help?

The fault lies with everyone involved. Yes, it starts with the owner. You're responsible for providing safe working conditions for your employees and the fact it's non-profit doesn't change that, nor does whether they're paid or not.

The Captain obviously is at fault and made so many serious errors in judgement that it becomes almost like a death wish. He had previously expressed thoughts of going down with the ship one day.

And to the professional crew members, there is a time to step up and stop the risk of other's lives. The following blindly concept can't always be held. Then the "Engineer" who clearly took a job he wasn't capable of, putting others in danger.

I agree to a point. But were any of the "crew" paid? It sounds like they had titles, but they didnt seem to mean much. When you hire people with no experience or even decent training, do they know enough to be responsible? The "engineer" who claimed to be proficient with Diesel engines and hydraulic systems proved to be neither, so I consider him to be partially at fault. I do find it hard to fault the amateurs that didnt know better. They took the word of "experts" and thought it was good. It really looks like the captain built himself an improperly trained crew that wouldn't understand the danger he was putting them in. Come on, they all thought 2 feet of water in 4 hours was normal for wooden boats. In a boat that size, that's several thousand gallons.

Note I qualified it as "The professional crew members". And, yes, some were paid. As to the volunteers without professional credentials, they really had no way to know better as they made the critical mistake of putting their trust in the captain and the boat. I'm sure their thought was, "This man knows what he's doing and if it was dangerous, he would never do this."

Ok, I see what you mean. Even then, it looks like the few longer term members had no nautical experience aside from their time on the Bounty. If their on the job training was faulty, did they know enough to be considered professional? The first mate didn't seem much more competent than the other crew members. Although he did seem to have experience fixing things.

Since the normal crew seemed to include about 10 more people, I wonder if those people were smart enough to know something was wrong. Makes me wonder if they tried to warn the newbies?

Some members need to read the reports before posting.


http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/MAB1403.pdf

Owner/operator HMS Bounty Organization, LLC

******** Maritime & Offshore News | Hansen and HMS Bounty Organization Sued for $90 Million

I've read all that, I just missed or forgot the project manager and didnt catch the owner. The project manager claims the captain informed him of the rot and it's extent, but was he given the whole story? The failure to testify makes me think yes, but was he a finance guy or a ship guy? The owner looks more like an investor who left the ship in the captain's hands? Did he have any nautical background? I understand that they skirted the rules and didn't have to have an engineer or any trained crew on the ship. Doesn't change the fact that they did list people in those positions without the training to have the title.

Please don't mis-understand me and think I'm trying to stir up the feces, I'm just curious of other people's thoughts on the situation. And I do appreciate pointing out anything I missed. I'm on a phone, and sometimes I miss things on some of the websites. My old iPhone 4 is getting on in its life and maybe a little senile. Sometimes it forgets it was online and goes to the home screen.

I stand corrected, I guess I did miss your last link. I see that some of the crew had been aboard tall ships before. Somewhere on another link I thought I had read that only the captain had been on tall ships before. I'm reading further on this now.

I got all that. There was also something said about the fuel filters being the wrong ones as well. Also the water pumps were clogging with sawdust from the rotting to pieces ship. Was it algae in the tanks? Or was it more water separation issues? I guess a real engineer would have known, but some amateur that was taught "if this happens, do this" wouldn't.

Anyone that has spent time running a boat for a living knows that bad weather brings out the worst in a boat. It's one thing for a refrigerator to break loose or portholes to leak like mad but if you have things in the engine room shifting and breaking loose then you are pretty well doomed. That boat should have never left the dock.

AKA: Monkey see Monkey do seems to work well 99% of the time it is just that 1 in 100 chance that this way of doing things will come round and bite you big style.

Vessels have been lost with fully qualified and experienced individuals on them as well, poor decision making can easily negate the benefit of qualifications.

Substitute "certification" for qualification. The YOGI was manned by highly "certificated" but apparently completely unqualified senior officers.

That appears to be a not uncommon condition on many of the larger yachts lately.

Hi,

The YOGI did spring to mind but as the folks holding the key positions had dubious right to hold their bits of paper I thought the Torrey Canyon would be a better example where a silly decision on the part of the Ship Master caused the disaster and the Amoco Cadiz where the reluctance to take outside assistance contributed to the grounding.

The qualifications of none of the Officers on those two vessels were questioned, it was poor and or the inability to make a decision that led to the ultimate end result.

A combined total of just over 100 Million gallons of oil being dumped in the sea.

As for yachting , I tend to agree with your sentiment. In some ways I am sad I am nearing the end of my career but in others not so much because like you I see and hear things that makes my skin crawl on a regular basis.