Taken together with the other claims in the report - ignoring multiple communications attempts from the Mauritian Coast Guard, and improperly configuring/using their electronic navigational systems, it's not clear why a more charitable reading than incompetence and dereliction of duty in a licensed mariner would be merited.

"Incompetence and dereliction of duty" are cop-outs, in the case that there are underlying causes.

If, say, reduced staffing and increasing demand leads to worsened worker conditions, and that in turn affects their ability to do their work, or impairs their judgment, then it's crucial to uncover those issues.

I'm sure the shipping companies etc. would love to run with the explanation that the workers caused this by being stupid, and nothing else, though.

Unless you have personally unexpectedly spent six months on a tanker, cut off from contact with family and friends, knowing that there's a pandemic which could be affecting any of them, I think a charitable reading is the appropriate one.

Some people have harder lives than you, and when not set up for success, make bad choices.

I think the personal attack is why you’re being downvoted, but fwiw, I agree with the first part. From being in Afghanistan, I have first hand experience of some of the shenanigans some people will go through to make a phone call.

He's being down-voted because it's a personal attack that could apply to 99% of people here and people just gotta defend the tribe.

If it had been the lines of "clearly you've never worked for a business that wrote software" or some other thing that applies to some small minority here nobody would have thought twice about it.

I think it is bizarre and unreasonable to attribute the root cause of failure to the birthday party itself. It detracts from the real causes which you mention.

You can have a birthday party safely. You can seek internet safely.

Incompetence and dereliction of duty are the faults and headlining with the birthday bit obscures this.

No, that’s no excuse. It would be like a cargo airliner dipping low to get signal (before in flight internet was available) for whatever reason. You don’t endanger the crew and ship, etc., out of convenience to you. It’s extremely irresponsible.

I never said it was a valid excuse. In fact, I literally said it was still wrong.

Having said that, your comparison would only be apt if airliners stayed in the air for months at a time.

> You don’t endanger the crew and ship, etc., out of convenience to you

The captain did it for the crew, not himself.

Dipping low enough to get signal isn't abnormally dangerous, it's just expensive in terms of time and fuel, just like the captain's decision.

That's not a headline that's a paragraph.

Well there are things called satellite phones...

"Laissez-les appeler avec un téléphone satellite" - Marie Antoinette