On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:29:04 -0500, Don Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>For economy, I have replied to several post to this thread in one post:

I'll reply briefly, followed by a SUMMARY of what appeared to me to be
some pertinent INFO (and misinfo) in the discussions in Scuba-SE to
date, for anyone to judge.

>
>At 01:34 AM 10/15/01 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>>That's most unfortunate, from the point of view of FACT FINDING.  If
>>they did nothing wrong, why were they gagged from speaking out?
>
>1)  To prevent crew members (who may be extremely upset) from speculating
>on matters of which they do not have first hand knowledge that may be
>damaging to integrity of the official investigation, and/or PH.
>
>2)  To allow an orderly investigation and prevent a media circus (and
>attempt to head off employees from giving sensational stories to tabloids
>for money).

Speculations.

>
>If I were representing them, I would insist on a ban on unauthorized
>discussions with the media.  This is a routine request, and has nothing to
>do with wrong-doing.  This is also a frequent request from authorities
>investigating an incident.  You should not assume that because the crew is
>gagged from media interviews that they are also gagged from speaking to
>officials investigating.  The latter is not possible.  Thus, the gage can
>be to further FACT finding (versus speculation-finding), not hinder it.

Are you aware of ANY official investigation ongoing?  Why can't we
discuss the case based on FACTUAL information revealed by first-hand
witnesses?   How are the crew members different in that respect?


>>I agree completely. But does it have to be a "legal investigation"?
>>Wouldn't the SAME be of the best interest to everyone (if for no other
>>benefit than clearing away any unwarranted speculatiion and clear the
>>Captain and crew from ANY wrong-doing?
>
>Well, if they are being cleared of wrong-doing, is this not a legal
>investigation?

No.

The HUNDREDS of posts in LISTS and ngs are already conducting a
"public investigation" to FIND FACTS and DISCUSS facts.  Are you
saying we should all keep quiet until the "official investigation"
is over?


>>At 02:12 AM 10/15/01 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>>But my QUESTION is, in view of the above, whether the Captain and
>>crew did everything ELSE properly once they've decided to moor.
>>THAT was the crux of my question(s) to try to understand why the
>>Wave Dancer capsized and lost 20 lives whereas none of the other
>>boats (including the smaller Aggressor) in the same harbor capsized
>>or any OTHER life was lost in the entire country of Belize as a
>>result of Hurricane Iris's hit.
>
>That is a perfectly reasonable question, and I assume the question everyone
>is asking.

Apparently not!


>At 03:39 AM 10/15/01 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>>The fact that the Aggressor had explicit instruction and briefing
>>to the passengers on what to do and where to gather, on the night
>>of the Wave Dancer tragedy -- and the Wave Dancer Captain and crew
>>DIDN'T (but left the passengers wander and fend for themselves)
>>surely qualified them to be considered "negligent".
>
>That is what I would call a leaping to a conclusion.

I disagree.  Why don't you ask Peter Hughes whether ALL their
captains are supposed to (REQUIRED) to give proper briefing and
conduct in a manner similar to what the Aggressor Captain did?


>Simply because one
>boat followed a procedure that another did not follow means nothing!

Unless it's a procedure REQUIRED by BOTH Fleets, or as in the case of
cruiseships, the emergency drills are REQUIRED by law.


The
>issue is what did the captain of the Dancer know, and when did he know
>it.  Once this question is answered than conclusions can be drawn as to
>what should have been done.

You're contradicting yourself by going around in circles.  If you think
it's proper to GAG them from answering to YOUR questions above, how
would YOU or I ever know?

But even more importantly, it's not his decision to moor that mattered
as much as what he DID once he decided to moor.   I've said that more
than once already, but you seem to continue to beat THAT dead horse
which I never questioned in the first place -- in fact I explicitly
CONDONED the Captain's decision to moor, like the rest of the vessels.

-- Bob.