Report Points at Human Error in Queen of the North Sinking

Monday, March 26, 2007 12:58 PM

BC Ferries has released the findings of its internal investigation into the March 22, 2006 sinking of the Queen of the North.

The report concludes that the Queen of the North failed to make the required or any course changes at Sainty Point, and that the ship proceeded straight on an incorrect course for four nautical miles over 14 minutes until its grounding on Gil Island.

The Divisional Inquiry received information from the Transportation Safety Board, which successfully recovered the main computer and hard drive from the vessel’s Electronic Chart System ("ECS") and enabled their investigators to reconstruct the actual course and speed of the ship on March 22, 2006.

There was no evidence of alterations of speed at any time during the transit of Wright Sound, and the Queen of the North impacted Gil Island at 17.5 knots.

The Divisional Inquiry Panel concluded that human factors were the primary cause of the sinking of the Queen of the North.

The purpose of a Divisional Inquiry is to gather information regarding contributing factors and generate safety recommendations that can be applied fleetwide if necessary, to educate the fleet and prevent reoccurrence of a similar type of incident.

The report also makes 31 recommendations on equipment, bridge team, and emergency and evacuation procedures.

Some of the recommendations have already been implemented and the rest will be acted upon.

To view the full report, visit http://www.bcferries.com/about/qnorthdivisionalinquiry.html

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 12:58 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Ben Meisner on March 26 2007 1:36 PM

You will notice the comment by Don has been removed. Let me say again, if you can't absolutely prove what took place in any event, you cannot make statements that you do not know are true. The comment is pure speculation without any basis of fact. If the tables were turned would you accept someone saying things about you that may not be true ?

Posted by: Mcfly on March 26 2007 3:33 PM

Ben,

do you know if the bodies of the two that perished were ever recovered?
I never did hear one way or the other, and have always wondered.
Thanks

Posted by: editor on March 26 2007 3:40 PM

Mcfly:
No, the bodies were never found, or recovered.
-Elaine Macdonald

Posted by: Ben Meisner on March 26 2007 4:06 PM

Had anyone from Opinion 250. seen this comment it most assuredly would have been removed. Again making statements that are unsupported are not only wrong but they are libel. We make our best efforts to try and police fairly Opinion250. There are times when we cannot be here 24-7 to do just that and we rely on your good judgment not to cross the line. If you point us in direction of the comment, it will be removed, thanks

Posted by: editor on March 26 2007 4:20 PM

trollunderthebridge:

Ben's comments are in reference to the question you posed about a comment that was not removed.

I am sorry, but the law also requires us to remove your comment because by including the "quote" you have repeated the libel.

Thank you for pointing out the problem.

-elaine macdonald

Posted by: metalman on March 26 2007 5:34 PM

I hope this does not fall under censorship, but as far as I know (what the media feeds us, anyway) it seems obvious that it was human error that led to the ship striking the reef. In other words, the crew was not watching where they were going. Tragically, Gerald and his lady lost their lives. That should not have happened, in my view. Did they not have a passenger manifest, with which they could have conducted a roll call? Or was the emergency so immediate that there was no time to search the ship? Big ship, lots of places to search I know. So many questions but not many answers.
metalman.

Posted by: diplomat on March 26 2007 6:28 PM

I hope that this does not fall under censorship as well, but the radio, TV and newspaper media have been expressing all kinds of opinions and suggestions as far as the sinking goes.

Some of it has been very speculative and some of it has now been confirmed by the report.

The suggestion emerges in the report that not all the crew was familiar on how to switch from Autopilot to Manual.

See the CBC report accessible from this very site on the right hand side bar.

Posted by: Ben Meisner on March 26 2007 8:46 PM

We have removed comments about the sinking of the Queen of Prince Rupert because they were not legally correct. The comments suggested how the ship ran aground and the conduct of the two of the crew at the time. The report does not suggest, even the slightest hint, of that conduct. It does say human error on the part of two crew members. Some years ago I was found guilty of libel for repeating, not writing, a libel made by a leading newspaper. If anyone feels that they are being censored for remarks they make, then simply agree to publish your name and those remarks, while at the same time holding Opinion250 free of any cost of the libel. As strange as some people might find it, we at Opinion 250 are trying to protect your freedom of speech. May I repeat you cannot hide under the guise that you are being censored for something that you say, that is not correct. That should be, the very basic of Freedom of speech, getting it correct.

Posted by: snappi on March 26 2007 8:55 PM

Yikes! Regardless of what happened, how unfortunate it is that 2 people lost their lives in this tragedy. I also have read all the info, as well as listening to the speculation. We are all entitled to our opinions but sometimes I guess we have to bite our tongues so not to end up not only destroying this website but also risk winding up in the middle of a law suit.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on March 26 2007 9:43 PM

Thank you for adressing my concern regarding speculative comments. I understand why my post was removed and hope that other folks who peruse the website will adhere to Mr Meisner's above comments regarding inappropriate postings.

Posted by: Runner46 on March 26 2007 11:40 PM

Snappi,

I agree with you we are all entitled to our own opinions to be aired in the public domain. I think the only "real" place we should be doing it is of course when we are not jepordizing anyone else`s livelihood. In thinking this through, I guess the old fashioned soap box on the corner or in the park is still the place to be. Come to think of it, is not this site the closest thing to the soap box, but with some caveats like Ben and Elaine have said?

Posted by: diplomat on March 27 2007 8:40 AM

The owners of the site have the right to set the standards and must make sure that they are adhered to. No problem.

Even though laws may be applied rigorously and strictly it doesn't always mean, in my humble opinion, that justice has been done.

But, that is just my personal opinion from a common sense point of view.

I am not sure that one can say anything one wants to say while standing on a soap box in a public park, either. It is probably o.k. to stand on that soap box and rant in the privacy of one's home, though.

Posted by: Mcfly on March 27 2007 8:43 AM

I would like to make a few comments myself.
Firstly, thanks Elaine for answering my question, I sure feel for those poor families.

And about this news website.
Except when I am away for work or play, I read 250 daily.
It is my main news source along with listening to CBC radio as I do a lot of driving.
I am amazed that they are so often far ahead of the story compared to the papers in town etc.
I barely ever even open a paper any more.
And its so easy to sign up here, and be able to toss out your own thoughts and comments....and I like others have to be mindful of what I say.
Yes, it requires thought to sometimes bite my tongue when typing, but at least I and the rest of you have been offered a venue that you can respond to.
My worry as well is that if its abused they may take away our priveledge to post comments altogether....and I am here to read the comments as much I find, as the articles by the 250 staff.
It must be hard for Ben, Elaine, etc. on staff to have to censor "US" !
And i doubt its easy for them to have to say this ones gone, this one can stay.

I just thanks them for giving me a place to have input.
A few of my posts have gone "missing" over time.
I emailed ben about the one that i could not see why it was MIA...and he wrote me back telling me why.
Lets see the newspapers take the time to do that.

Cheers

Marty

Posted by: diplomat on March 27 2007 9:47 AM

I agree with the last post! Once I sent a letter to a local newspaper in respect to democracy and referenda (referendums) and by the time it was published it had been edited so severely that it didn't make any sense any more; in fact it would have been better had it remained unpublished,i.e. I'd prefer to have a post removed or not posted all for whatever reason than have it mutilated beyond recognition.

Posted by: snappi on March 27 2007 4:09 PM

I hear that diplomat, and for that very reason I no longer subscribe to the local newspapers. Not to mention the prices and how they keep raising them. I get more out of the free ones.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on March 28 2007 9:37 AM

I no longer subscribe to the local news papers either.Much too expensive for what they are and too political.If something is not to their political standards,it either get's chopped up or left out.I don't trust them anymore than I trust politicians.This is a much better medium for news and I appreciate having it even if I don't always agree with the editors.I respect their opinions as well which is more than I can say for most newspapers!