Singapore navy officers charged in fatal ship collision
-
hmm.....the most interesting thing i know is the fact that the RSN ship turned to PORT and not starboard....it's basic sea laws to turn starboard when you're head on with another ship....either that or the windward ship has to give way to leeward ship....but it doesnt matter as both those ships have no sails.....
Overall i agree with most of you people.....why are the junior officers the only one's being charged?Where were the senior officers?!?!i mean those 2 guys were pretty young to be entrusted the whole ship too!!That said i have a friend who was on that ship at that time and he is not saying anything so i guess they were told to keep quiet....
-
Originally posted by szehao:
Well ...
Gong says Gongs got reason ...
Po says Po got reason ...
agree!
I just think that the navy is not being transparent enuff with this situation ...
yup... agree with you.... but... thats SAF... and if you are Navy officer... you should know that we lost of XO on 1991 when a so call COLLISION was happen off east coast! COLLISON??? hahahhaha that was what our media said! but do you know that on that day... its was a mission/EX that require commando and us to have a silent transit through that area? why the news never mention about this??? why they never mention that we are all in that little sea boat and NO NAKE LIGHT IS ALLOW? dont u think that its again the ROR as well?? and the best part is.... we dont even have any PC or APC to guide us! just navigate on our nake eye!!! sigh sigh sigh...
To answer your question ... no ... i dunno whether the AO is the only one on watch at that time
and neither do you have the rite to judge the decision of the OOW at that time.(nonethless its against the ROR)
but thats what always happen in Navy... AO on watch was not something new! i've attach on most of the ship and when i'm a CPL an Sgt.... i was even asked to help up in the look out! imagin a trip to Australia... how many time must we perform as a look out on the wheel house? we all know that we are not train on that! but the chief PO will always request us to perform look out duty! i have even keep watch with AO before.... be it onboard LST, MCV or APV....
Sometimes, we infringe the ROR because we need to avoid collision, u think its fun to infringe the ROR ? It only impedes the safety of our ships.
.... errrr as for this, i know some of the ROR as well as during my 6/5 course... i did attend to it! and i have to agree with you that .... sometime we did break the rule or law! .... BUT!! if you wanna do it! u have to face the music!!! simple
And if i was the AO ... i sure wun take the responsibility of being the only one on watch! And if the OOW was dumb enuff to not realise that they are in such a bz shipping lane to go "slacking off", then i think he deserve to be dismmiss!
sad to say.... sometime is not up to us to say 'i dont want' in SAF when you have the right to say that... then u will not be holding the rank of AO
Watever the case is, our society have entrusted the responsibility of keeping our SLOC safe to the government and this responsibility is in turn entrusted to the Navy and her "big Brass" ... if someone up there doesn't like to take up his responsibility ... i wonder how to account to society ? -
I thought the reason why the ship turn to port is because the officers wanted to maintain a close distance frorm Pedra Branca.
Their mission was to "guard" Pedra Branca. How can you charge a serviceman for trying to perform his mission? What kind of message are you giving to all servicemen, officers, ORs, regulars, NSFs and NSmen.
Even if you are trying to accomplish your mission, don't screw up or you will be screwed.
It is obvious that the officers made some errors in judgement but who hasn't make mistakes. -
[quote]Originally posted by spencer99:
I thought the reason why the ship turn to port is because the officers wanted to maintain a close distance frorm Pedra Branca.
At all costs? I don't think so
Their mission was to "guard" Pedra Branca. How can you charge a serviceman for trying to perform his mission? What kind of message are you giving to all servicemen, officers, ORs, regulars, NSFs and NSmen.
That the laws of the sea are there to be adhered to. That they're not merely suggestions to be disregarded on a whim.
The RSN(or any governmental agency) is not above international maritime laws(or local laws for that matter), territorial waters or not, mission or not.
Even if you are trying to accomplish your mission, don't screw up or you will be screwed.
Is that so wrong?
It is obvious that the officers made some errors in judgement but who hasn't make mistakes.
Unfortunately, in this case the error of judgement
a) Was brought about by disregarding of maritime laws.
b) Cost the lives of 4 subordinates/colleagues/people
I hope you're not suggesting they get away scot-free or get slapped on the wrist with 3 extra duties. -
Well ...Originally posted by NDU:
I guess you are riteto ...
hit the nail rite on its head ...
hai ... sumtimes it isn't for junior officers to say yes or no ... esp if u are an AO ... u are told to do wat you are supposed to do ...
I still remember there was once when sailing to jakarta i was on understudy watch wif my XO ... he wanted to go 4 toilet break or sumthing ... but it was in the middle of the nite so he din want to wake the other officers up so he asked me to tahan on the bridge for 2mikes ...
wah kao ... i can't say no ... can I ?
Lucky we were in the middle of the ocean wif little/NO ships and one of the most experienced PO was on watch (CRP)
but den again ... this an exception
well ... for your case tat AO very inexperienced ...
I draw an analogy ... imagine you learning driving ... everytime you go take Practical Test you fail ... at least fail 3 times liao ...
I'm sure u quite steady at driving car liao .. but somehow luck eludes u everytime u take the test and u fail ..
Similarily for AO ... I juz wanna say not alll AOs are f... UPED ...but of course there are some that are Fu.. uped lah but i'm sure there are some AOs wifout their qualification who can con the ship as well as any officer onboard the ship ...
And i'm sure there are SPECS onboard who can do it better than the officers as well ...
Its juz a matter of opinion ... tat the NAVY authorities think u are suitable for the COnn of the ship that they award u the qualifications to CONN the ship ...
so tolong tolong ... please not be so fast to judge the AOs in future ... VMT !!! ... haha ...
-
The reason they gave when they turned PORT is damn lame ... that they have to keep close to the Lt house ...Originally posted by |-|05|:hmm.....the most interesting thing i know is the fact that the RSN ship turned to PORT and not starboard....it's basic sea laws to turn starboard when you're head on with another ship....either that or the windward ship has to give way to leeward ship....but it doesnt matter as both those ships have no sails.....
Overall i agree with most of you people.....why are the junior officers the only one's being charged?Where were the senior officers?!?!i mean those 2 guys were pretty young to be entrusted the whole ship too!!That said i have a friend who was on that ship at that time and he is not saying anything so i guess they were told to keep quiet....
Din they consider tat if they go to near the lt house they mite go aground esp if its high tides and the rocks around the lt house are masked by the sea ?
Altering to starboard probably would bring them to head on collision with the LINER ...
Wat choice are they left with ? hai ...
Risk turning stbd and outrun the LINER ?
This close quaters situation shouldn't even have been encountered ... the officers shld have known better! -
I also wonder why the Naval accident is on crime watch? Is it to show the bravery of the rescue team or to imply the accident was a crime?
-
hmm...yea pretty lame....haha dunno the tide nor the depth of the area around but turning the port was really lame leh....when see head on liao should alter to starboard....thats the rule mah....haiz~ but then running aground better then hitting a ship....but both ways the guy in charge will get screwed unless he had turned starboard in the 1st place.Oh wellOriginally posted by szehao:The reason they gave when they turned PORT is damn lame ... that they have to keep close to the Lt house ...
Din they consider tat if they go to near the lt house they mite go aground esp if its high tides and the rocks around the lt house are masked by the sea ?
Altering to starboard probably would bring them to head on collision with the LINER ...
Wat choice are they left with ? hai ...
Risk turning stbd and outrun the LINER ?
This close quaters situation shouldn't even have been encountered ... the officers shld have known better! -
Question again, why are the two Singapore Navy Officers charged and prosecuted in a Civilian Court, and not in a Military Court Martial ?Originally posted by kschaw:I also wonder why the Naval accident is on crime watch? Is it to show the bravery of the rescue team or to imply the accident was a crime?
Under similar circumstances, the Captain of the US Submarine that sank a Japanese Fishery Research Vessel, off the Hawaiin coast, was court martialled by a US Navy Military Tribunal.
Surprisingly, the US Captain was not jailed, but dishonorably discharged from the US Navy - despite the sinking of the Japanese Ship and the loss of at least five Japanese lives.
Will the same happen here to two relatively inexperienced Singaporean Officers, or will they be sentenced to jail ?