Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

>>> Allen’s communication team shows the billionaire is not taking responsibility and implicated the Port Authority, saying the crew followed officials’ instructions on where to place the vessel.

Don't care. Captains are always 100% responsible for the movement of their ship. Though rare in practice, captains are expected to override anyone, including pilots, to ensure safe and lawful operation of their vessels. The captain works for the owner. The owner is financially responsible for mistakes of his employee. Allen should pay up.

View on HN

The official who gave these instructions should also be fired. I find it interesting that the discussion centers around Allen. I'd argue that the official who supposedly gave the instructions is the person most responsible and yet I see less pitchforks for him/her than for Allen.

Doesn't mean Allen/the captain is innocent but it's odd how the focus of the debate is centered around them. Guess the "evil rich dude" narrative is more fun than the "incompetent official" one. I guess the headline "Incompetent official instructs ship to destroy reef." gets less clicks.

Because Allen, not the captain, is the on refusing responsibility for the damage done by his boat.

Do you think every captain has an onboard and up to date map of all the coral reefs in the area? cause I don't think they have those.

In fact, I think what a responsible captain should do is to ask the harbor master where the safest place to park their boat is, because he should know, it's his harbor.

It doesn't matter. It is the captain's job to not sink his ship. It is the captain's job to not damage the pier, the reefs, etc.

The same rules apply when flying a plane. It is the pilot's responsibility to not be in a collision -- no matter what else is happening, or what someone else is doing.

Always? Even when under controlled areas of water like a Canal?

Also, the issue was not the safety and lawful operation of the vessel - the ship was safe, and the captain was following the law by anchoring in the designated area.

Yes. Where a pilot has directed a ship into danger or illegality, it is the captain's responsibility to disobey. It's professional judgement. Obeying law A (mouring) doesn't grant any immunity from law B (not ripping up a reef). Responsibility comes in layers.

What was the captain supposed to do; be so skeptical that he sent divers to the bottom of the ocean to check for possible coral reefs?

you are unfairly pacing the burden and blame on the captain here.

Blame on captain, burden is on the ship owner.

That coral reef was exactly in the same point since the last 800 years. It is supossed that a such expensive yacht would exit the factory including a decent updated map at least.

Or maybe with several complex electronic devices able to scan the sea bottom that are common in this century and can be found even in much smaller boats.

If not, maybe a quick look at google maps at least could have helped. Divers are optional.

The buck stops with the captain. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It is the captain's job to train his crew and keep his ship safe -- no matter what.

How does one ensure lawful operation if parking where the lawman tells you to park is unlawful. That's quite the conundrum!

You don't park. You go elsewhere. You recognize that lawman is telling you to do something dangerous and ignore him, as you would ignore a cop directing traffic if obeying him will obviously cause a crash.

Paul is a ship owner not a captain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com