[ 05-20-2006: Message edited by: Atlcruiser ]

Geth flashback of the Exxon Valdez dissaster where the captain was actually drunk whene they grounded.

To sobber theme 1 houre on a rope behind the ship on full speed. Or is that to hard.............

Ben.
ps. sorry fore the strong words.

[ 05-20-2006: Message edited by: Maasdam ]

quote:

---

Lt. Cmdr. Rick Rodriguez of the Coast Guard said the captain was being investigated for operating a commercial vessel under the influence of alcohol, which is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison. Federal law considers someone operating a vessel on the waters of the United States legally intoxicated if his blood alcohol concentration level exceeds .040.

---

I thought the captain's dont usually 'drive' the ship though...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beezo:

I thought the captain's dont usually 'drive' the ship though...

~Brian

---

Often not at Sea, but they are still 'responsible' and take an active role in berthing and entering/leaving port.

Do we the Captains name?

[ 05-20-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

More report of the incident with video.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/43535.htm

[ 05-20-2006: Message edited by: Humancookie ]

It also says Celebrity fired the Captain immediately... with no investigation on their side? he may be suspended impeding inquiry I expect. That news video is so over dramatic it's yukky.

I am not standing up for the Captain, but there are always 2 sides to any story and with just over dramatic media spouting forth, and the trash they come up with at times, makes me sceptical.

Pam

[ 05-20-2006: Message edited by: PamM ]

I would imagine that it is difficult to be a Captain on a cruise ship not to drink. You are expected to go to so many onboard parties and entertain guests at your table. Are thet ever really 'off' duty?

Of course this is no excuse.

[ 05-20-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:
...more to the point was is the anchorman and the reporter talking to the audience as if we are all dumb and hard of hearing?

---

You can turn the volume down but he was speaking as if all viewers were thick twits; I think that's what irritated more than anything.

That said, none of this excuses the incident, the legal blood limit (per USCHG regs) is .040 which is half of what the legal limit for driving in most states is. You can easily hit this with one glass of wine depending on your weight, tolerance and metabolism.

The fact of the matter is that RCCL's policy is that officers can not consume alcohol within 8 hours of duty and this is the most blatant violation.

Kudos to RCCL for adhering to the zero-tolerance policy. As they say, "think before you drink". It's not worth losing your job over a drink.

Tim

[ 05-20-2006: Message edited by: Tim in 'Lauderdale ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
I am not standing up for the Captain, but there are always 2 sides to any story and with just over dramatic media spouting forth, and the trash they come up with at times, makes me sceptical.

---

We'll have to wait and see an official report, if we can get our hands on one. I do agree though that there are two sides to any story, but for the moment Capt. Petridis seems to have lost his job and could face jail. I wonder whether he should have called in sick, maybe he wouldn’t have got himself into this mess.

******

quote:

---

mrblanche wrote:
The .040 limit is applied to all those in the transportation industry...

---

In the USA. This limit is no quite the same in all countries. Can someone explain what this measurement is? Imperial or metric? In the following topic in Ferry Travel: Volvo offers breathalysers to Nordic ferries. Europeans use mg/ml (milligrams/millilitre) or grams/litre.

quote:

---

But, as someone mentioned, a truck driver or pilot is in actual control of the vehicle; a ship's captain is rarely in such a position.

---

This is irrelevant. A Captain of a vessel (especially a cruise ship) is responsible for many other decisions not just that of navigation. What if there is an emergency and the Captain is drunk. Can he or she be expected to be in control?

******

.040 blood/alcohol % is LESS that one beer, glass of wine or mixed drink and is defacto a ZERO TOLERANCE policy imposed by the USCG after the EXXON VALDEZ grounding.

The grounding of the EXXON VALDEZ was caused by an incompetent third mate and NOT by the Captain being drunk. After the grounding, Joe Hazelwood may have had a drink (and I cannot think of a time when a drink may be more needed!) and the USCG as well as the American media turned that into the equivalent to his being drunk at the time of the accident and thus its cause.

Having a .040 blood/alcohol % is NOT equivalent to being drunk nor unable to perform one's duties.

When leaving a berth, a harbor pilot is in effective control of the vessel and in the case of the MERURY, would have been under the pilot's conn all the way to Port Angeles.

In my own opinion, Capt. Petridis was treated in a hamfisted way by both the USCG, the Seattle Police and Celebrity Cruises. Yes, drinking by officers is a serious matter. They need to be able to respond to an emergency at anytime, but then again ships have been operated for many hundred years by men who took a drink from time to time and those ships seemed to make it to port safely all the same. I have to ask if there is anyone who can cite a genuine accident aboard a cruise or other merchant ship caused or worstened by a captain enjoying a drink?

Didn't think you could!

[ 05-22-2006: Message edited by: Marlowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marlowe:
Having a .040 blood/alcohol % is NOT equivalent to being drunk nor unable to perform one's duties.owe

---

quote:

---

Am I right in thinking we DO NOT know how much alcohol the Mercury Captain had in his blood? He may of had 20x the 0.04?

---

Trouble is, we don't know. Nor do we know if the breathtest was followed up by a blood analysis.

This is one the problems with these threshold things, isn't it? - .041%, and you've been sacked and probably prosecuted; .039% and nothing happens. Yet what practical difference is there between .041% and .039%?

I know, you've got to put a threshold somewhere. But those boundary events are strange.

A blood test would have to have been taken, as there are many reasons why someone's breath may smell of alcohol, even if they haven't touched the stuff, and breathalysers can be very erroneous, even depending on what food one has eaten, or if you have been near paint fumes etc.. The results of that have not been forthcoming.

The Capt may have had a one off drink, he may not. He may be a closet drinker.. I doubt it, but other staff aboard may know.. there are so many reasons.. we know nothing apart from the fact he was slung in jail without bail, which to me seems way OTT from the details in the media.

Marlowe, see here. There are oddities here too, if the pilot knew the guy had been drinking whilst at anchor, why did he hand back command? He could have just reported the fact and seen to berthing himself.. another story though, there are some more incidents this year.

Pam

[ 05-22-2006: Message edited by: PamM ]

quote:

---

The grounding of the EXXON VALDEZ was caused by an incompetent third mate and NOT by the Captain being drunk. After the grounding, Joe Hazelwood may have had a drink (and I cannot think of a time when a drink may be more needed!) and the USCG as well as the American media turned that into the equivalent to his being drunk at the time of the accident and thus its cause.

---

Yes he was drunk at the time whene his vessel run aground and ripped open. Tapes of the radio conversation between him and shore proofed that. But also his behavor that night and blood test proofed he drunk to much. There is an verry wel made docu about this case and showed on Discovery Channel.

quote:

---

In my own opinion, Capt. Petridis was treated in a hamfisted way by both the USCG, the Seattle Police and Celebrity Cruises. Yes, drinking by officers is a serious matter. They need to be able to respond to an emergency at anytime, but then again ships have been operated for many hundred years by men who took a drink from time to time and those ships seemed to make it to port safely all the same.

---

But we are not thene we are now in 2006 and ships are bigger and have less crew a/b. And there is more ships traffic. Also there are more purpose build ships. Therfore there are special laws to make shipping safer. And to run such vessels in safety we have to aplay to theme. Even (cruise) ships captains.

quote:

---

Didn't think you could!

---

No simply have no licence to sail an ship. At least on the alahol matter, would run the ship safe, because i drink no alcahol.

Greetings Ben.

[ 05-22-2006: Message edited by: Maasdam ]

All you would need is a passenger to stub his toe, then claim that the ship swerved because the captain had been drinking, and before you know it you'd have m'learned friends climbing all over each other to snap up the "no win no fee" compensation claims. So zero tolerance is the safest option.

The times we live in, etc...

quote:

---

Yes he was drunk at the time whene his vessel run aground and ripped open. Tapes of the radio conversation between him and shore proofed that. But also his behavor that night and blood test proofed he drunk to much. There is an verry wel made docu about this case and showed on Discovery Channel.

---

The direct cause of the accident was that the third mate failed to continuously plot the vessel's position as is expected of a good officer conning a ship. Ultimately, he lost track of exactly where he was and the ship grounded. Joe Hazelwood was not on the bridge at the time and was not conning the ship when it went aground either sober or under the influence. If he was below drinking off the bridge, it has never been proven and the Captain was acquitted of both State and Federal charges of operating a commercial vessel with a blood alcohol level over 0.04%. How much he had been drinking ashore before the ship left port and how soon before the ship sailed was also not ever fully determined. What we do know is that the crew of the ship did not believe him to be drunk or impaired and that is how they testified.

There were many reasons the EXXON VALDEZ grounded that morning and many parties to blame but that doesn't change things for Captain Petridis and what happened on the MERCURY here in Seattle this past weekend. Here he was presumed guilty without trial nor offered any way to defend himself. Rather he faced a summary tribunal which found him guilty as charged and swiftly sent to face a firing squad composed of the USCG, the Seattle Police Dept., Celebrity Cruises and the media.

[ 05-23-2006: Message edited by: Marlowe ]

quote:

---

mrblanche wrote:
The ".040" is a percentage, so it's neither imperial nor metric. It is a measurement of the percentage of alcohol in the blood.

---

Thanks mrblanche. Here in OZ we use the same system. Currently .05 is the limit here on our roads for full license holders. It used to be .08. I think the .05 limit also applies to recreational boating.

******