Select to expand quoteMorningBird said..Achernar said..
According to Patrick O'Brien's "Master and Commander" series (yeah, its fiction, but it seems authentic), the Captain is Court Martialed whenever he loses a ship. I suppose they call it a Board of Inquiry, now.
It is fiction!
Yes, but Patrick O'Brien did his homework.
As required by the Articles of War, whenever a ship was lost there was an automatic court martial of the captain. The published list The Lost Ships of the Royal Navy 1793-1900 is an important reference guide and is available at The National Archives' reference library and the National Maritime Museum.
www.exploreyourgenealogy.co.uk/royal-navy-courts-martial-and-tribunals-1595#:~:text=As%20required%20by%20the%20Articles,and%20the%20National%20Maritime%20Museum.
Ask Australia for some of those Arafura Class OPVs that we don't seem to know what to do with?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..julesmoto said..
Not a good look. Nor is praising the captain for an orderly evacuation whilst ignoring the elephant in the room. But then again she is a woman so she can't be criticized by the media or indeed probably anyone in the government or public service/defence job.
So what, in your opinion, is the elephant in the room?
Why would you expect the RNZN to have enough information within 12 hours of the vessel sinking for them to have conducted a Court-martial and reach decisions like:
- Stripping her of command
- Demotion or even ejection from the service?
I had a similar issue with people making comments on the Fiji patrol boat that ran aground.
Hard to make criticism if you don't have any information about the incident, why not wait for the BOI before making commentary on the repercussions for the CO and Nav?
Some never let ignorance get in the way of commenting on that which they know nothing. 
Select to expand quoteAchernar said..MorningBird said..Achernar said..
According to Patrick O'Brien's "Master and Commander" series (yeah, its fiction, but it seems authentic), the Captain is Court Martialed whenever he loses a ship. I suppose they call it a Board of Inquiry, now.
It is fiction!
Yes, but Patrick O'Brien did his homework.
As required by the Articles of War, whenever a ship was lost there was an automatic court martial of the captain. The published list The Lost Ships of the Royal Navy 1793-1900 is an important reference guide and is available at The National Archives' reference library and the National Maritime Museum.
www.exploreyourgenealogy.co.uk/royal-navy-courts-martial-and-tribunals-1595#:~:text=As%20required%20by%20the%20Articles,and%20the%20National%20Maritime%20Museum.
What was relevant in 1800 is not necessarily relevant today.
While these didn't involve the loss of the ship they are relevant to how things are done in more recent times.
HMAS DARWIN FFG04 ran aground a few times that I had some involvement with. Twice in the Barrier Reef under one skipper and once off Oahu with another. The one off Oahu was extremely bad and we were lucky to not lose the ship.
No courts martial of the two skippers involved, although they both suffered some setbacks in their careers.
Without any concrete knowledge of what happened here, I'm suspecting a total power failure.
HMAS MANOORA had one leaving the heads and was lucky not to end up on North Head.
I was also on the bridge of HMAS SYDNEY in 1984 (I was up there to brief the skipper on our helicopter sortie just prior to launch) when we had a total electrical power failure. We had no steering for some minutes while the problem was found by which time we collided with YARRA with which we were doing a RAS. We had a couple of prangs that year. The skipper wasn't courts martialed.
For those of us with no naval experience to understand, from those who do:
What would the level of difficulty handling a boat like that in those waters be?
I heard it said that the NZ ship was being used as a Hydrographic survey ship. Bought second hand from Norway. Kinda funny, if that is the case, it running aground and all. 
Who on this forum (of > than say 10yrs fixed keel yacht ownership including club racing in enclosed waters..........) hasn't run aground.............there goes the grace of God upon you...............
We all recall the below..........suggest we move on.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/08/military
www.abc.net.au/news/2003-09-12/four-sailors-disciplined-over-nottingham-grounding/1477716
For those of us with no naval experience to understand, from those who do:
What would the level of difficulty handling a boat like that in those waters be?
Bow thrusters, maneuverable ships propellers, very powerful engines. This vessel was an ex North Sea oil rig supply vessel. Designed for dynamic positioning.
This type of vessel can keep station in extreme conditions.
One of our vessels out of Singapore undertook a rescue on a sinking oil rig off the coast of Burma under cyclonic conditions.
What would the level of difficulty handling a boat like that in those waters be?
Manual combined with computer assisted positioning would make this a maneuverable vessel.
The weather conditions do not seem to be an issue.
However, a power failure will render all of that equipment and ability useless.
Remember the Dali hitting the bridge in the US?
Yeah let's all move on after having a good laugh from this:
Select to expand quotejulesmoto said..
Yara has the right attitude but the original post contained a link to a blatantly feminist/woke article which is all too prevalent today and is a perfect example of how the media brainwashes our society including the intellectual minnows who think that I am criticizing women in the workforce generally rather than the differential way they are treated when they screw up.
Fair enough. This seems like a reaonable PoV about journalism in a media article. Select to expand quotejulesmoto said..
But then again she is a woman so she can't be criticized by the media or indeed probably anyone in the government or public service/defence job.
This however does not.
Looks exactly like a dig against women in positions of reponsibility.
If you didn't intend it that way, my apologies. But man, it sure reads that way.
We live in a world now where your colour, gender, and how you have sex seems to matter. There is notion that glass ceilings need to be broken and to use DEI/affirmative action rather than ones own merit to get that minority demographic to the top .
It's no hard to see why one may question the ability of a person when their gender or what they want to screw is often first and foremost.
I can see why things are questioned and I am not outraged by those that do, it's just a symptom from something the regressive left has created.
Flying up to Hammo in a few days to bring a 45'er south. Just me, a good mate and two ladies, both who are owners, skippers, damn good sailors, successful in business and great friends to boot.
I see them as my equals in every way, if not better and smarter.
The earned their stripes, the last time I checked it's not the 1950's anymore.
My wife is an airline skipper and she is the first to admit that she got an interview because was female. It was in the Ansett days and they had a 5% quota for female pilots. However she will defend to the enth degree that she got her job on merit.
Who cares if this RNZ Capt got a look-in because she was a one legged pink lesbian that spent her teens living in a hippy commune. As long as she had the skills and qualifications and was the best candidate for the job and I'd hazard a guess that she did.
And to much time effort and money goes into training these professional personnel, that you don't just judge and demote before a proper investigation has taken place. And even then you might look at ways of retraining and retaining.
Select to expand quoter13 said..
Who on this forum (of > than say 10yrs fixed keel yacht ownership including club racing in enclosed waters..........) hasn't run aground.............there goes the grace of God upon you...............
We all recall the below..........suggest we move on.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/08/military
www.abc.net.au/news/2003-09-12/four-sailors-disciplined-over-nottingham-grounding/1477716
I've heard it said, there's two types sailors, those who have run aground and those that lie
It's not hard to imagine that the critics of this type of incident have zero commercial vessel certification let alone a science degree that is required to operate such vessels
Select to expand quotewoko said..r13 said..
Who on this forum (of > than say 10yrs fixed keel yacht ownership including club racing in enclosed waters..........) hasn't run aground.............there goes the grace of God upon you...............
We all recall the below..........suggest we move on.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/08/military
www.abc.net.au/news/2003-09-12/four-sailors-disciplined-over-nottingham-grounding/1477716
I've heard it said, there's two types sailors, those who have run aground and those that lie
It's not hard to imagine that the critics of this type of incident have zero commercial vessel certification let alone a science degree that is required to operate such vessels
Wow pulling out all the stops now.
Wow a science degree!!
In my experience degrees have an inverse relationship with common sense.
If you do want to play that game however I've got one of those pieces of rote learning toilet paper too. Along with a Commonwealth scholarship and two other degrees.
Bout time we ended this drivel isn't it. I don't think anyone in the woke camp is going to move camps and neither are thinking people.
Select to expand quotejulesmoto said..
Bout time we ended this drivel isn't it. I don't think anyone in the woke camp is going to move camps and neither are thinking people.
One day someone will explain what this weird American colloquiliasm even means.
If it's roots are political, then please don't. I'd rather grab my beer and wander down the other end of the bar and talk Australian with people that don't conflate politics and religion as conversation.
Select to expand quotejulesmoto said..woko said..r13 said..
Who on this forum (of > than say 10yrs fixed keel yacht ownership including club racing in enclosed waters..........) hasn't run aground.............there goes the grace of God upon you...............
We all recall the below..........suggest we move on.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/08/military
www.abc.net.au/news/2003-09-12/four-sailors-disciplined-over-nottingham-grounding/1477716
I've heard it said, there's two types sailors, those who have run aground and those that lie
It's not hard to imagine that the critics of this type of incident have zero commercial vessel certification let alone a science degree that is required to operate such vessels
Wow pulling out all the stops now.
Wow a science degree!!
In my experience degrees have an inverse relationship with common sense.
If you do want to play that game however I've got one of those pieces of rote learning toilet paper too. Along with a Commonwealth scholarship and two other degrees.
Bout time we ended this drivel isn't it. I don't think anyone in the woke camp is going to move camps and neither are thinking people.
You really are extraordinarily arrogant, aren't you, when claim that those think must agree with your insulting rubbish.
You may not agree with what some of us think but we certainly do think about it. You are simply lying once again (just as you did in your earlier posts on this sinking) when you claim we do not.
There are thinking people on both sides of just about every issue, and only a complete bigot would ignore that fact.
Select to expand quoteJolene said..
It's no hard to see why one may question the ability of a person when their gender or what they want to screw is often first and foremost.
The captain of the ship in question doesn't seem to have put their gender or sexuality first and foremost so why the hell do you imply that they have anything to do with her being given the job?
YOU are the people who are putting this captain's gender and sexuality first and foremost - not her or the "woke crowd". YOU are the guys who have seen fit to raise the factors - not her. It's sickeningly hypcritical and dishonest when she gets blamed for putting those factors "first and foremost" when it's the bigots who are doing that, not her.
When the Royal Navy captain ran Nottingham aground, no one said raised his gender or sexuality. When the captain of the Costa Concordia sank, no one raised his gender or sexuality. When the Bayesian went down, no one mentioned the gender and sexuality of the captain.
The guys who are treating this captain differently to male captains who did the same thing are proving that sexism and bias about sexuality are a problem for women and gays. While pretending that there is no bigotry they are showing that they (and that seems to include you) are in fact bigots.
It really does take an extraordinary amount of bigotry against women when you imply that the only reason that over 50% of Kiwis can rise to the rank of captain is because of DEI. The only logical explanation is that you actually think that women are too stupid to make it to that position on their own merits, and that is bigotry of a massive degree.
I cant believe what I am reading here. Grow up you lot and cease the personal attacks.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Jolene said..
It's no hard to see why one may question the ability of a person when their gender or what they want to screw is often first and foremost.
The captain of the ship in question doesn't seem to have put their gender or sexuality first and foremost so why the hell do you imply that they have anything to do with her being given the job?
YOU are the people who are putting this captain's gender and sexuality first and foremost - not her or the "woke crowd". YOU are the guys who have seen fit to raise the factors - not her. It's sickeningly hypcritical and dishonest when she gets blamed for putting those factors "first and foremost" when it's the bigots who are doing that, not her.
When the Royal Navy captain ran Nottingham aground, no one said raised his gender or sexuality. When the captain of the Costa Concordia sank, no one raised his gender or sexuality. When the Bayesian went down, no one mentioned the gender and sexuality of the captain.
The guys who are treating this captain differently to male captains who did the same thing are proving that sexism and bias about sexuality are a problem for women and gays. While pretending that there is no bigotry they are showing that they (and that seems to include you) are in fact bigots.
It really does take an extraordinary amount of bigotry against women when you imply that the only reason that over 50% of Kiwis can rise to the rank of captain is because of DEI. The only logical explanation is that you actually think that women are too stupid to make it to that position on their own merits, and that is bigotry of a massive degree.
Never said anything about the case in question,,
Simply showed a tolerant view as to why some may view it as dei in play.
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..
I cant believe what I am reading here. Grow up you lot and cease the personal attacks.
It's not "grown up" to stand by when bigots attack people. It's not "grown up" to stand by when things that are wrong happen.
The personal attacks were started by one person. They weren't aimed at anyone in this thread but attacking someone behind their back is worse, if anything.
The first real attack on anyone on the forum was from Jules when he referred to "intellectual minnows" (before I entered the thread, by the way). If Jules can't take it he shouldn't have dished it out.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Jolene said..
It's no hard to see why one may question the ability of a person when their gender or what they want to screw is often first and foremost.
The captain of the ship in question doesn't seem to have put their gender or sexuality first and foremost so why the hell do you imply that they have anything to do with her being given the job?
YOU are the people who are putting this captain's gender and sexuality first and foremost - not her or the "woke crowd". YOU are the guys who have seen fit to raise the factors - not her. It's sickeningly hypcritical and dishonest when she gets blamed for putting those factors "first and foremost" when it's the bigots who are doing that, not her.
When the Royal Navy captain ran Nottingham aground, no one said raised his gender or sexuality. When the captain of the Costa Concordia sank, no one raised his gender or sexuality. When the Bayesian went down, no one mentioned the gender and sexuality of the captain.
The guys who are treating this captain differently to male captains who did the same thing are proving that sexism and bias about sexuality are a problem for women and gays. While pretending that there is no bigotry they are showing that they (and that seems to include you) are in fact bigots.
It really does take an extraordinary amount of bigotry against women when you imply that the only reason that over 50% of Kiwis can rise to the rank of captain is because of DEI. The only logical explanation is that you actually think that women are too stupid to make it to that position on their own merits, and that is bigotry of a massive degree.
The captain of the Costa Concordia was bonking a passenger when his ship hit a rock so sexuality was an issue!
:-)
Select to expand quoteJolene said..Chris 249 said..Jolene said..
It's no hard to see why one may question the ability of a person when their gender or what they want to screw is often first and foremost.
The captain of the ship in question doesn't seem to have put their gender or sexuality first and foremost so why the hell do you imply that they have anything to do with her being given the job?
YOU are the people who are putting this captain's gender and sexuality first and foremost - not her or the "woke crowd". YOU are the guys who have seen fit to raise the factors - not her. It's sickeningly hypcritical and dishonest when she gets blamed for putting those factors "first and foremost" when it's the bigots who are doing that, not her.
When the Royal Navy captain ran Nottingham aground, no one said raised his gender or sexuality. When the captain of the Costa Concordia sank, no one raised his gender or sexuality. When the Bayesian went down, no one mentioned the gender and sexuality of the captain.
The guys who are treating this captain differently to male captains who did the same thing are proving that sexism and bias about sexuality are a problem for women and gays. While pretending that there is no bigotry they are showing that they (and that seems to include you) are in fact bigots.
It really does take an extraordinary amount of bigotry against women when you imply that the only reason that over 50% of Kiwis can rise to the rank of captain is because of DEI. The only logical explanation is that you actually think that women are too stupid to make it to that position on their own merits, and that is bigotry of a massive degree.
Never said anything about the case in question,,
Simply showed a tolerant view as to why some may view it as dei in play.
The gender and sexuality of all the senior straight male naval officers I've known is "first and foremost", so does that mean we should question their ability too?
I don't need to know the gender or sexualalty, does the public really need to Know?? I would just want to know their ability , why would they want you to know or who wants you to know ?
So whilst the peanut gallery attempt to ape the idiocy of American culture of classifying humanity by political leanings, I'd like to give a shout out to the locals that upheld the finest traditions of seamanship in selflessly going to the assistance of their fellow mariners in pretty crappy conditions and at night to boot. Extract from coverage by Radio Nuku'alofa.....
After speaking with our contacts in Samoa, we learned more about the rescue mission. Two names emerged as the silent heroes: Trevor Meredith, owner of Ark Marine in Samoa, and Doug Ahne, owner of the rescue boat. These two men led a fleet of rescue boats, venturing out all night and into the early morning after receiving a distress call from the HMNZS Manawanui. Despite facing very rough conditions, with 25-knot winds and 2.5-meter swells, they bravely set out to rescue the crew and passengers. We have not yet spoken with anyone from the Royal New Zealand Navy, but if any members are reading this or viewing the footage and photos of the successful rescue mission, they should know that these men and others risked their lives in harsh weather to carry out this mission successfully. A true hero is often described as an ordinary person doing good for others. In this case, these two men, along with others, have gone beyond merely doing good; they have performed an amazingly inspirational and life-risking act to save lives. Their actions will always be remembered as acts of bravery and selflessness. Through their determination and courage, they saved lives, proving that extraordinary feats can be accomplished by those with a strong will to help others. Such heroism serves as a testament to the power of compassion and its impact in times of crisis.
Select to expand quoteJolene said..
I don't need to know the gender or sexualalty, does the public really need to Know?? I would just want to know their ability , why would they want you to know or who wants you to know ?
You completely missed the point. You said "it's not hard to see why one may question the ability of a person when their gender or what they want to screw is often first and foremost." But no one has given ANY evidence that the RNZN captain's sexuality is "first and foremost". Her gender is no more "first and foremost" than any guy who is a captain. No one said that she wants the public to know about her sexuality, any more than a straight male captain wants the public to know about their sexuality.
You keep on implying that this captain put her gender and sexuality "first and foremost" and that she wants the public to know about them - but there is zero evidence that she has done so. Her sexuality was only brought up here by Jules, for example, who then made insinuations against her.
The only people who seem to think her gender and sexuality should be a deal are the people who are insinuating she was a DEI appointment, apparently because they believe that women can't run a ship on their own merits.
