Yes, it should, assuming that this ship is big enough to have an XO. Crew is a minimum of 39, though it sounds like they were carrying ~64 RNZN crew, 4 crew from other militaries and 7 scientists for a total of 75. I'm not sure where the RNZN would insist on having an XO to handle things when you're talking 40-60 crew.
I'd expect that RNZN crewing practice is along RN lines; I've been aboard RN ships with half that many crew that carried an XO.
No, it is the CO's fault. Her ship, her fault.
Her responsibility, but not necessarily her fault. I can imagine plenty of circumstances where perfectly reasonable operational decisions in a challenging environment lead to the loss of a ship.

Bear in mind that hydrographic survey ships are required to go into waters where the bottom topography is uncertain. That inherently brings a degree of risk. It can (and should) be mitigated by the design of the ship and the way it's operated. But sometimes you have a bad day at sea.
 
Too early to lay clear blame with so many unknowns (to us anyway), but I've never seen such a determined rush to defend the competency of the commanding officers of a ship that ran aground or struck any other stationary object, either.
I think the issue is as much that some people are attacking her competency and selection for command because she's a woman. Would these same people be attacking the selection of a well-bred white male's selection or competence after exactly the same accident?
 
Having experience of CoC, there are, incentives to risk taking that are essential to advancement. All levels of command want to see that daring as a good trait. What should be more than obvious is the detrimental effect of inflexible CoC which there are examples of throughout military history.

Risk is also, an essential part of military life and frankly, without the ability to accurately judge risk, you have a useless and pointless CO. Balance imho, is the key.

My problem with the CO is that she did not demonstrate a proper level of caution or use a two letter word to her CoC and do the job when the risk was appropriate.

At the end of the day THEY lost the nation a valuable asset which may never be replaced.
 
My problem with the CO is that she did not demonstrate a proper level of caution or use a two letter word to her CoC and do the job when the risk was appropriate.

You are very much assuming facts not in evidence here.

It is possible to exercise the reasonable level of precautions and still have things go very badly wrong through no fault of the CO or the crew. If the reporting of a power failure are true, and there was no past history suggesting a worrying mechanical condition, this could well be down to very bad luck. We simply don't know at this point.
 
Further discussion of why she was appointed to the job requires a discussion of New Zealand politics, which I'm not sure the moderators would welcome here. Suffice it to say that in the present day I could trust the New Zealand government (and many others) to ensure that such a promotion on demographic grounds would be one of their higher priorities and leave it at that.
 
Which is NOT a job you do in bad weather.

Storm blows over in a couple of days, if that, you steam out to deep water away from things that will put big damn holes in the people tank. And you apologize to the bosses that the job took a little longer, but that storm was too dangerous to be screwing around close to bigass rocks and shoals!
In other words, she can map the reef, but not from sufficient distance to keep her out of trouble if things get nasty? I would not be inclined to disagree with that.
 
I think the issue is as much that some people are attacking her competency and selection for command because she's a woman. Would these same people be attacking the selection of a well-bred white male's selection or competence after exactly the same accident?
Pretty sure when your ship runs aground, people will question your competence regardless of your skin colour or gender or bedroom preferences, yes. In fact, His Majesty's government in New Zealand is doing that just now with an inquiry. Cannot think of a single other example where a public rush has gone forth to clear the name of a captain in similar circumstances before facts are in evidence.

The rush to defend zhem says just as much about the defenders as anyone declaring without evidence that she was only awarded the command for DEI reasons.

Time will tell. Clutching pearls over people questioning your competence after an high-profile accident is hysterical.
 
Well, that's is what investigation for.
Without the assumption that the CO did in fact hazard the ship.

They may have done. But they may also have been placed in an impossible position by their chain of command. Or they may have managed risk appropriately and something happened which wasn't reasonably foreseeable.
Cannot think of a single other example where a public rush has gone forth to clear the name of a captain in similar circumstances before facts are in evidence.
Comparable threads on this forum that have come readily to hand are:
  • HNoMS HELGE INGSTAD - no rush to condemn the CO, despite their eventual criminal conviction over their actions
  • USS CONNECTICUT - no rush to condemn the CO, but plenty of attempts to blame China, despite the CO and XO being dismissed
  • MV DALI - no rush to condemn the Master, and in fact positive words said in favour of the crew's response to the emergency
It's not a matter of defending the CO. It's a matter of not preempting the conclusion of the investigation.
 
Further discussion of why she was appointed to the job requires a discussion of New Zealand politics, which I'm not sure the moderators would welcome here. Suffice it to say that in the present day I could trust the New Zealand government (and many others) to ensure that such a promotion on demographic grounds would be one of their higher priorities and leave it at that.

Where are you from?
 
In heavy seas and high winds, working around a reef that hasn't been mapped in 37 years.

Ask any sailor if they want to be poking around reefs in those conditions, they'll tell you hell no.
Then would you go to a shooting war with a crew that is scared of reefs...
 
That's irrelevant, but for a taste of what the West is prepared to do:

So yes, if Canada can do this, I'm completely on board with the possibility of the RNZN bringing a minority demographic into a position of responsibility based solely on their demographic. I do not think that suspicion is unreasonable.
That's one of the big problems with the whole DEI craze. It further undermines trust in all of government, or corporate leadership, or just about anything. The CO was probably competent enough, it was probably error made through the mistakes and poor judgement of multiple individuals. But when you've got a society where so many obsessed with race/gender/sexuality/whatever are pushing ill-conceived notions of "equity" and forming government policy based around it, there is that much more reason to have doubts that merit and competence is what is being valued in any organization. It seems like pointing out the problems inherent in such policies will get you called all sorts of things. And the same people who push these things will wonder why faith in government is at all-time lows? It's an age of absurdity.
 
Obviously the sinking was the result of the DEI hire's lady parts causing the engineering plant to break down because, y'know, women are all by nature incapable of competent leadership.
 
Hang on I thought she was female I never thought she was a woman, this changes everything.

Regards,
 
Captains don't man the helm 24 hours a day, first officers are numerous and rotate.

Enough speculation, always best to wait for the actual details which I am sure will be forthcoming.
It is ALWAYS the Captain's responsibility.

Even if they're asleep in bed. Hell, even if they were not onboard the ship at all.



Without the assumption that the CO did in fact hazard the ship.

They may have done. But they may also have been placed in an impossible position by their chain of command. Or they may have managed risk appropriately and something happened which wasn't reasonably foreseeable.

Comparable threads on this forum that have come readily to hand are:
  • HNoMS HELGE INGSTAD - no rush to condemn the CO, despite their eventual criminal conviction over their actions
  • USS CONNECTICUT - no rush to condemn the CO, but plenty of attempts to blame China, despite the CO and XO being dismissed
  • MV DALI - no rush to condemn the Master, and in fact positive words said in favour of the crew's response to the emergency
It's not a matter of defending the CO. It's a matter of not preempting the conclusion of the investigation.
If a USN vessel runs aground or into another vessel, the CO will be dismissed. And likely the XO, Navigator, and an enlisted Assistant Navigator.



Then would you go to a shooting war with a crew that is scared of reefs...
Are you a Sailor? I was.

Every naval officer I know is scared of reefs. If the reef doesn't kill them personally, it will kill their career. You keep MAXIMUM possible distance from a reef.
 
How can you survey a reef if you keep the keep MAXIMUM possible distance from a reef?

Regards,
Side-scan sonar exists, and is quite accurate at distances of a couple of miles.

More to the point, you just take a distance for a couple of days while the storm passes.
 
Would have thought they would have had multibeam as a survey ship, nevertheless sidescan works best for objects on the seafloor at depth.

For sidescan use in shallow waters the range is not miles not even 100s of meters, also works best in calm waters.

Still pointless commentary as the facts are not fully known.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Would have thought they would have had multibeam as a survey ship, nevertheless sidescan works best for objects on the seafloor at depth.

For shallow waters the range is not miles not even 100s of meters, also works best in calm waters.
Whichever.

Sonars exist for this job, at least for the gross location information. Once you have that, you can get closer and do things with other techniques. There was zero reason for the ship to be close to a reef in nasty weather.
 
Where is it stated that the weather was a factor? Most images of the vessel show somewhat calm seas and the vessel listing before she capsized.

Hit the reef, caught fire and sank.......


Regards,
 
Where is it stated that the weather was a factor? Most images of the vessel show somewhat calm seas and the vessel listing before she capsized.

Hit the reef, caught fire and sank.......


Regards,
 

Judith Collins, who is New Zealand's first female defence minister, said she was appalled to see a "deeply concerning misogynistic narrative" online from "armchair admirals, people who will never have to make decisions which mean life or death for their subordinates".
 
Pretty sure when your ship runs aground, people will question your competence regardless of your skin colour or gender or bedroom preferences, yes. In fact, His Majesty's government in New Zealand is doing that just now with an inquiry. Cannot think of a single other example where a public rush has gone forth to clear the name of a captain in similar circumstances before facts are in evidence.

The rush to defend zhem says just as much about the defenders as anyone declaring without evidence that she was only awarded the command for DEI reasons.

Time will tell. Clutching pearls over people questioning your competence after an high-profile accident is hysterical.

I have no problem with questioning her competence on that particular day; the issue is the assumption that she was chosen over intrinsically better qualified males who would obviously never make the same mistake. The other is the assumption that it's only modern concerns with equity have politicized appointments to high-value command positions.

There is also a rish to judgement that she was an incompetent appointed only because she's a woman.
 
Catamaran design better for this type of mission?

Sad Sack’s brother in the Navy couldn’t flip that over.
 
YN2(SS), USN. Qualified helmsman, lookout, and a bunch of others.

I'd ask the captain himself if we absolutely HAD to be close to a marginally-known reef in heavy seas and high winds, or if we could wait a day or two till the weather got better before we got close to the rocks.
 
Then would you go to a shooting war with a crew that is scared of reefs...
Arguably, that asset is too big for the risk. Much smaller vessels can do the job more cheaply and with a reduced risk. Quite apart from the gross detail mapping (By drones or aircraft) which would have given enough detail to keep that asset out of harms way.

Risk assessment and mitigation of risk should be a mantra come peace OR war.
 
None of us were present when Mawanui went down. There is not much point in speculating, so I wait for what investigations will reveal.
Speculations about 'diversity hires' are irrelevant for now, premature, and several other adjectives that come to mind.
 
This DEI knocking is completely out of line and is to be honest bigoted.

Wait until the investigation, initial reports are a loss of power, this has caused issues for much larger more expensive ships, I know a few naval officers who have had very serious near misses due to unexpected loss of power.

On the DEI side, bigotry shits me to tears. In my personal experience, pushback against DEI is actually eroding defence capability.

Previously neurologically diverse in particular used to slip under the radar, as did many homosexuals, even women. Basically their competence allowed them to fill critical, but often not sexy roles the privileged lads had little interest in. You know, the jobs that required intellect, hard work, competence, skills etc. not just being tall, white and male.

These days with the DEI pushback those who used to be accepted on the quiet are now labelled and under the spotlight. They are being mobbed, othered, micro-managed, subjected to micro aggressions, and have to justify everything they do. Fault is always found and the pressure is constant.

I'm involved in DEI as a sideline to my core duties and some of the stories are shocking, there are some really self-intitled privileged nutters out there. They are undermining processes, even projects and capabilities because they don't like the people in certain roles.

Of the dozens of nutters I have come across that defence would be better off without, only three are women and one is gay, all are white and self-entitled, all are delusionally confident in their feelings of superiority to those who they deem undesirably different, all feel threatened by competition from highly competent, capable people who are diverse.
 
I'm involved in DEI as a sideline to my core duties and some of the stories are shocking, there are some really self-intitled privileged nutters out there. They are undermining processes, even projects and capabilities because they don't like the people in certain roles.

Of the dozens of nutters I have come across that defence would be better off without, only three are women and one is gay, all are white and self-entitled, all are delusionally confident in their feelings of superiority to those who they deem undesirably different, all feel threatened by competition from highly competent, capable people who are diverse.
The problem is that too many times the DEI hiring is decided on "This person checks X census category" BEFORE you ask questions about are they actually competent enough to do the job.

I do not give a fuck about your skin color, who or what you screw, or even who you vote for. "Can you do the job" is the ONLY criteria that matters to me.

Had an E6 in the Navy that could not be sent to work unsupervised, when an E4 straight out of school could be sent to do that job unsupervised. "We can't kick him out, he's black." No, he's a fucking hazard to the ship and everyone onboard.
 
These days with the DEI pushback those who used to be accepted on the quiet are now labelled and under the spotlight. They are being mobbed, othered, micro-managed, subjected to micro aggressions, and have to justify everything they do. Fault is always found and the pressure is constant.
Been there, faced that, can't discuss the details because of the gagging clause.

But in one-on-one discussion he was absolutely open that it was deliberate and conscious discrimination.
 
Too early to lay clear blame with so many unknowns (to us anyway), but I've never seen such a determined rush to defend the competency of the commanding officers of a ship that ran aground or struck any other stationary object, either.
It's not a rush to defend her over what happened, it's a rush to point out that she was clearly qualified for the job and counter those who think that a woman can't possibly be qualified to run a ship. (Have they noticed who's running the USN nowadays?)
 
When I was industry, one of my car pool companions was an HR manager. One of the lab supervisors said in an official meeting that he would never hire a woman or person of color for his lab regardless of competence. The HR manager said he should have been fired on the spot. He wasn't; fairness in hiring is more a marketing slogan than a reality.

Affirmative action for the right people has long been practiced: legacy admissions and athletes never have to meet the "rigorous" admission standards applied to everyone else. In any case, hierarchies have long valued fitting-in very highly. The entire point of DEI is to decrease subjective or irrelevant criteria: does the candidate play a good game of golf or look good in the uniform or go to the right church or graduate the right school or is the skin tone right or are the sex chromosomes correct in favor of those that aren't stupid.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom