"Reef Fish" wrote:

> having given Lee my 100% endorsement in his very first post
> in the Christian/DeBarger/CDNN episode, I now take Lee to
> task on a related, but SEPARATE and DIFFERENT episode, of
> Lee's unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and biased conclusion
> on the basis of his own ignorance.

Thanks you for that.

>>> For the record, IMMARBE released its final report early this year. 
>>> Their
>>> conclusion was that the Captain of Wave Dancer was solely at fault, and
>>> they banned him from ever again serving on a Belize-registered vessel.
>>> They did not, however, go beyond their finding that he was inexperienced
>>> and incompetent to ask who made the decision to hire an inexperienced,
>>> incompetent person and put him in charge of the safety of twenty-eight
>>> passengers and crew -- twenty of whom paid dearly for that decision.
>
> Notice the "official" FINAL report was that the Captain was
> "solely" at fault.   The investigators were not exactly blind
> to the fact that he was an employee of the Peter Hughes Fleet
> and was in contact with Peter.

I'm not entirely sure what we disagree on.  If it's the captain's 
competence, I both took that from information other than what appeared in 
the official report and from my own knowledge of the factors that must be 
taken into consideration when mooring a boat in hurricane and storm surge 
conditions.  Whether or not it agrees with the conclusion of the IMMARBE 
investigation, it was not out of ignorance.

If it has to do with the contact with Peter Hughes and the corporation, much 
the same thing applies.  Reliable reports, the source of which I no longer 
have, detailed the contact with Peter Hughes and the instructions provided. 
While it is the Captain's responsibility to ensure the safety of the ship 
and its passengers, Peter Hughes provided input to the decision.  Again, my 
conclusion is my decision, based on facts I believe to be reliable.

If, by "responsibility" you mean legal liability, we agree.  That is, and 
apparently has been, determined in a court.  If, by "responsibility" you 
mean who could have and should have acted differently and whether different 
actions might have change the outcome, we don't agree.  The issues are not 
the same, even if the words are.

Government agencies may only conclude what they can prove in court.  I am 
under no such limitation.  Based on all information available to me, 
including the report mentioned, I conclude that the Captain was not 
competent (he failed to ensure the boat was secured properly) and that Peter 
Hughes is also responsible.

>>> Peter Hughes was back to "business as usual" (his words) in
>>> Belize within four months of the loss of the Wave Dancer.

> Why shouldn't he?  It's his "business".

That one wasn't mine.

> The Okeanos Aggressor lost two Israli divers in Cocos Island,
> for the first time in about 20 years.  CDNN and and other
> Aggressor-bashers were quick to cite that and other "shit
> happens" stories to boycott the Aggressor Fleet forever.

I hope I was not among those that called for a boycott on this one. 
Somebody was responsible, but it probably wasn't the fleet or company 
management.  As far as I know, nobody the the corporate level gave 
instructions that led to the problem.

> Don't be so naive, Lee.  You have had absolutely NO
> experience with either the Peter Hughes Fleet OR the Aggressor
> Fleet.

That's pretty much correct.  I did consider booking with them once, but 
their no refund policy turned me away.  Their safety record, at the time, 
was not an issue.  Still, I feel comfortable making personal decisions on 
who I will and will not do business with on the basis of information I feel 
is reliable, as I stated.  I don't have to have spent money with them to 
know I won't spend money with them in the future.  I never bought a Cochran 
computer either.

> I have had AT least 25 liveabord trips on each, including
> TWO PhD trips after the Belize incident and two Aggressor
> trips after the Okeanos incident.

Yes, I know, and overall, I believe you've had positive experiences with the 
fleet.  I have no problem with your decision to keep doing business with 
them.  I happen to chose differently.  That shouldn't be a problem either.

> By the same token, when I make the vow, "to death do we part"
> when I married my wife, I mean that 100%, no ifs, no buts.
> That's one of the positions of the Catholic Church I support.
> But even the Catholics find all kind of excuses to disvow
> a vow.

Yeah, me too.  Unfortunately, my first two wives didn't feel the same.

Lee