El Faro: NTSB findings so far, EL Faro's boilers needed servicing

What difference does 65 miles make? I was in Pompano Beach when Hurricane Andrew roared through Homestead (72 miles to the south). We had a windy / rainy day. Homestead was wiped off the map. I also was home on Long Island about 60 miles east of the eye of Hurricane Sandy when she roared ashore. Again a windy / rainy day. In both cases I was on the stronger side of the hurricane, as opposed to El Faro which was aiming for the weaker side.

Quite frankly I really resent Monday morning quarterbacks trying to blame the deceased captain. His course was no secret. There's more than a few professional involved in where and when these ships cruise, and nobody raised a red flag. If the El Faro hadn't lost power nor taken on water nor......(what we don't and may never know) she'd be on her return trip to Jacksonville right now, and maybe be posting videos on YouTube about their trip through the hurricane.

Wouldda, shoulda, coulda. All easy to say from the comfort of an easy chair on a Monday morning. What about the tugs that brave the North Sea in winter or the crab boats that ply the Bearing Sea. What about the ships that battle the elements in the North Atlantic every day. Should they all turn tail and run home because it'll be rough out there? What about the coasties who go out in nearly anything. They all have a job to do and do it to the best of their ability. Would you blame the captain of the Maersk Alabama for getting hijacked? He was in an area known for piracy. Shouldn't that area of the world be closed to shipping or the captains refuse to cruise there? There would have been nothing wrong with the captain's call had he not lost power and taken on water. Sometimes God has to take the blame, and that's this case unless something new is discovered.

P.S. The captain didn't plan to be towed, because he had no way of knowing he'd need to be towed, or should all ships plying that route go along the Florida coastline just in case, and the crab boats in the Bearing see stay inside Dutch Harbor?

It pains me to agree with Marmot, but each time you've started this thread you've headed it toward an indictment with no evidence as if you have an agenda, instead of just letting the facts speak for themselves. Let's end this speculation (and this thread) and wait for the investigation to complete it's work, rather than defaming people who are not alive to defend themselves. There are families of 33 souls who don't need this.

It will only hurt a little bit, besides, it's good for you.

Let it keep going. That way readers can see for themselves the true value of speculation and speculators.

Hey Marmot, you do have a sense of humor.
Capt.J, the crab boats, the North Sea tugs, and the ships that ply our oceans push hard because that's their job. They calculate risk every day, and go unless there's a real reason not to, and comfort isn't one of their considerations. The ships that crossed the ocean during WW I & II didn't say we can't go because the are U boats out there. Would you fault the captains of those ships that went down? You and I have the luxury of saying it's too rough because we might damage these plastic boats. Not so with commerce. They go unless there's an overwhelming reason not to and there wasn't in this case. If the captain knew they were likely to lose power that would be one thing, but he didn't. If the ship had failed inspection that would be one thing, but it didn't. All parties involved believed this to be a routine, albeit rough, voyage. Not just the captain, but his crew, the company, the insurer and the coast guard. Nobody advised against making the voyage, and nothing would have happened if the unforeseeable hadn't occurred. It was just another day at the office for a big boat (commercial) captain, and he and the crew and the company paid the price they all new they might one day because they were in a dangerous profession. Curse God, but don't defame a brave captain who did his job to the best of his abilities. At least not until the investigation is complete.

Completely disagree.

Fact is we don't know the ultimate cause of the sinking. I imagine it will be a combination of many factors.

What we know with certainty is the the ship sailed in the direction of the hurricane with a hurricane warning out and then as forecasts worsened and there was still a chance to return or detour, it didn't.

I don't need to know any more, don't even need to know the boat sank, to form the opinion that they shouldn't have taken it into the hurricane area. That's an opinion, everyone entitled to their own. There were other routes available. There was also the option of waiting. Had the boat not sunk and made it through fine, I'd still hold the same opinion.

I don't see this as a fight though, it's just people with different opinions.

I am interested in the official investigation report but do tend to agree that with all the information available that it seems like a rather strange move to head directly into a hurricane no matter what vessel you are on.

Debris to be checked and determine if from El Faro.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/el-faro-debris-found/35968768

Do you somehow know the Captain planned to avoid what he thought was a "safe route"?
-Chris

So you think the Captain thought he was following a safe route?

-Chris

Capt J was quoting your post and I think being a bit sarcastic. You used the term "safe route." What the captain thought we can't know. But a prudent mariner would surely have known there were safer routes. That was Capt J's point. It wasn't as if going through the hurricane, or even going close to the hurricane, was the only possible route.

We can't know what the captain thought but we can have opinions as to what we consider reasonable on his and the company's part.

I know, and I was quoting him with that "safe route" (post 30).

He seems to know the Captain thought he was following an unsafe route and did it anyway... and that it was caused by company greed.

My next question would have been "how do you know this to be true?"

-Chris