Great Barrier Reef Attacks and Sinks New Zealand Frigate HMNZS Manawanui

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KrustyKrab

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: worldstarcountry

If we were to look up mysogyny in the dictionary that zerohedge post would be there next to it. It's already been debunked in this thread that she's an experienced sailor. The zerohedge article is an obvious hack job with zero journalism. Just propaganda.

A ship designed to map the sea floor runs a ground. Obviously a error of the ship and not user error right? Nope, nothing to see here. 🤣

What happens if a ship's engines stop unexpectedly, or its rudder jams?

Could it run aground, if there are strong currents or tides?

Is that what happened? She wasn’t near a reef at night during inclement weather in a vessel of dubious seaworthiness, what a relief 🤗

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: network dude

The captain of the Exxon Valdez was a dude. So yeah.... no ship could ever run aground if a man was the captain.

that ship was part of the NZ navy? do tell.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

news.usni.org...

Update. Helmsman/Crew Error led to grounding and subsequent fire and sinking.

A New Zealand Defence Force Court of Inquiry found that crew error caused the Royal New Zealand Navy hydrographic dive and survey ship HMNZS Manawanui (A09) to run aground and sink in October.

An NZDF release on Friday cited RNZN head Rear Adm. Garin Golding saying the COI’s interim report found the ship’s autopilot was not disengaged when it should have been. The crew did not realize Manawanui’s autopilot was still on, so they believed its failure to respond to direction changes was due to a failure in thruster controls.

Golding added that having assessed a thruster control failure, the crew did not check that the ship was under manual control rather than autopilot, as per standard procedures. Instead, the autopilot stayed on and Manawanui maintained a course toward land, running aground and becoming stranded.

The crew tried and failed to maneuver the ship off the reef, according to a timeline provided with the press release. While no damage or flooding was detected inside the ship, stability assessments made after the grounding indicated Manawanui was no longer stable. About 30 minutes after the initial grounding, the ship was abandoned. All personnel were successfully evacuated with no serious injuries. The ship then caught fire before capsizing and sinking on the morning of Oct.6.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: worldstarcountry

news.usni.org...

Update. Helmsman/Crew Error led to grounding and subsequent fire and sinking.

A New Zealand Defence Force Court of Inquiry found that crew error caused the Royal New Zealand Navy hydrographic dive and survey ship HMNZS Manawanui (A09) to run aground and sink in October.

An NZDF release on Friday cited RNZN head Rear Adm. Garin Golding saying the COI’s interim report found the ship’s autopilot was not disengaged when it should have been. The crew did not realize Manawanui’s autopilot was still on, so they believed its failure to respond to direction changes was due to a failure in thruster controls.

Golding added that having assessed a thruster control failure, the crew did not check that the ship was under manual control rather than autopilot, as per standard procedures. Instead, the autopilot stayed on and Manawanui maintained a course toward land, running aground and becoming stranded.
…
The crew tried and failed to maneuver the ship off the reef, according to a timeline provided with the press release. While no damage or flooding was detected inside the ship, stability assessments made after the grounding indicated Manawanui was no longer stable. About 30 minutes after the initial grounding, the ship was abandoned. All personnel were successfully evacuated with no serious injuries. The ship then caught fire before capsizing and sinking on the morning of Oct.6.

Thx for the 411. Sounds to me there’s a shared responsibility within the crew that failed miserably. Ultimately we know who’s responsible….

originally posted by: KrustyKrab

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: worldstarcountry

news.usni.org...

Update. Helmsman/Crew Error led to grounding and subsequent fire and sinking.

A New Zealand Defence Force Court of Inquiry found that crew error caused the Royal New Zealand Navy hydrographic dive and survey ship HMNZS Manawanui (A09) to run aground and sink in October.

An NZDF release on Friday cited RNZN head Rear Adm. Garin Golding saying the COI’s interim report found the ship’s autopilot was not disengaged when it should have been. The crew did not realize Manawanui’s autopilot was still on, so they believed its failure to respond to direction changes was due to a failure in thruster controls.

Golding added that having assessed a thruster control failure, the crew did not check that the ship was under manual control rather than autopilot, as per standard procedures. Instead, the autopilot stayed on and Manawanui maintained a course toward land, running aground and becoming stranded.
…
The crew tried and failed to maneuver the ship off the reef, according to a timeline provided with the press release. While no damage or flooding was detected inside the ship, stability assessments made after the grounding indicated Manawanui was no longer stable. About 30 minutes after the initial grounding, the ship was abandoned. All personnel were successfully evacuated with no serious injuries. The ship then caught fire before capsizing and sinking on the morning of Oct.6.

Thx for the 411. Sounds to me there’s a shared responsibility within the crew that failed miserably. Ultimately we know who’s responsible….

Yea, we know. If you're interested there is a nice discussion here. I get a laugh when I read some of the defensive remarks.
yea, we know who's responsible

a reply to: KrustyKrab

What I want to know is who is the idiot that built a ship without a clear indicator that the autopilot is still on? Or builds a ship where the manual input doesn't override the autopilot?

Ultimately the Captain is responsible. But it's clear that there were multiple failures up and down the chain of command. Along with insufficient organizational training to make it clear that it's a necessary need to check the freaking autopilot. Total cluster.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: KrustyKrab

What I want to know is who is the idiot that built a ship without a clear indicator that the autopilot is still on? Or builds a ship where the manual input doesn't override the autopilot?

Ultimately the Captain is responsible. But it's clear that there were multiple failures up and down the chain of command. Along with insufficient organizational training to make it clear that it's a necessary need to check the freaking autopilot. Total cluster.

The DEI hire was one of the three. It was a schittfest, all three couldn't figure out the auto-pilot was on.
Good grief

Three crew members who were on the bridge as the disaster unfolded are likely to face such a process, Golding added. They were the officer in control of the ship, an officer supervising that person, and the ship's commanding officer. The navy chief would not name them.

The crew "mistakenly believed its failure to respond to direction changes was the result of a thruster control failure,” he said. A number of contributing factors were identified, Golding said, including training, planning, supervision, readiness and risk assessment.

DEI is a shipwreck

a reply to: worldstarcountry

The issue is NOT women in a particular role. The issue isn't lesbians or some other gender identity in a particular role. The issue isn't a certain race in a particular role.

The issue IS UNQUALIFIED persons of ANY sex, gender identity, or race, in a particular role.

I've flown with women pilots who were more qualified and skilled than many male pilots. I had not a single problem getting into either the left or right seat with any of them. They got in those positions because they were subjected to the same rules, regulations and requirements as every other pilot. They did NOT get there because they were women, or because they were lesbians, or because they were of a certain race. They DID get the job because they worked hard and were qualified for it. In other words, they paid their dues and they EARNED it.

BIG difference! HUGE difference!

Of course this was long before DEI was ever a thing.

And one other thing...

There are psychological differences between some women and some men. (notice the word "some") There are also psychological differences between some men and some other men. Ditto for some women and some other women. (And no, this is not some Kamala Harris philosophical pontification about the passage of time!). There's an important point here.

Society forms people psychologically; it molds them. Some women are molded by the society which surrounds them to be much more emotional and impulsive than some men. The same can be said for men.

In my post above I said that I had no issue flying with a properly qualified female pilot, and I don't. That said, without exception (i.e. every single one of those women) were psychologically different than the societal norm for a female in the society I live in. This is a key point. Simply put, they were different, and you could tell it right away by their mannerisms and their actions. Herein lies one of the big problems with DEI; it doesn't take this into consideration. In fact, in many cases DEI policies intentionally and consciously ignore this fact.

The subject dujour is about a female captain of a particular naval vessel, but it could equally be about a selected race, or a selected gender identity, and it doesn't have to be about a naval vessel; it could be any job.

Equal opportunity is just that, equal. Equal opportunities for equal abilities and skill sets. It's not that hard.

It takes a certain mental make up and mind set to perform certain skills. This mental make up and mind set are baked into a person's psychological characteristics and being. Intentionally ignoring or discounting these psychological differences is a recipe for disaster. When this happens both sides of the equation about opportunity being balanced against skills, knowledge and ability are unbalanced. This is when bad things happen.

For my part, I don't see race, or gender, or even gender identity. To me, there are no differences. Where I do see a difference is when a gender, a race, or an identity is substituted for a skill, knowledge or ability. I don't care what so much about the appearance of a person (within reason with respect to the role), but I do very much see the skill and ability of a person.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

You keep claiming DEI hire. But she's been in the Royal Navy since 1993. She's served aboard multiple ships. She took the Principal Warfare Officer. Served aboard more ships. Moved to New Zealand. Joined the RNZN in 2012.

Notable appointments include being the Fleet Warfare Officer and later the Fleet Seamanship and Executive Officer in the Maritime Operational Evaluation Team (MOET), working up nearly every ship in the RNZN at least once. She has also been the Commanding Officer of the Mine Counter Measures Team, participating in activities in the United States, South East Asia and New Zealand.

She has the experience to be appointed. She's not just some random DEI hire. But believe what you like, it's a free country.

You keep claiming DEI hire. But she's been in the Royal Navy since 1993

a reply to: grey580

She wasn't a commander before, this was Gray's first-ever ship command. She was a DEI hire.

Commander Yvonne Gray moved to New Zealand in 2012 after traveling to the country with her lesbian wife for a vacation. Gray had previously served in the British Navy since 1993 before joining NZ forces, according to her Royal NZ bio. This was Gray's first-ever ship command.

she was a DEI hire

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

What is a DEI hire?
A DEI hire refers to an individual who was hired through a process that emphasizes diversity, equity and inclusion principles.

This process ensures that all candidates, regardless of their background, have an equal opportunity to compete for a job. It aims to create a diverse workforce by actively seeking to include people from different demographics, and ensuring that hiring decisions are fair and free from bias. The goal is to foster an inclusive work environment where all employees can thrive.

The phrase DEI hire has also become an insult of sorts, with some using it to suggest that someone was hired solely based on their demographic characteristics, rather than their qualifications and experience.

Please provide proof that she was hired solely because she's a woman. And not someone with the necessary qualifications to be a Captain.

Please provide proof that she was hired solely because she's a woman. And not someone with the necessary qualifications to be a Captain.

a reply to: grey580

See if this works for ya.

Attracting and retaining a more diverse workforce in terms of gender and ethnicity is part of the NZDF Strategic Plan 2019–2025. In 2020, it formally adopted the United Nations Women’s Empowerment Principles (the UN WEPs) - becoming the first military in the world to do so. NZDF is also part of the Gender Tick's Gender at Work Community.

pull your head out of the sand

a reply to: grey580

You won't get that proof, and the reason is because of DEI. The rules surrounding DEI specifically prohibit the notation of DEI being the reason for doing anything. The only proof you will find is in policies which may be in place; you won't find it for hiring / promoting specific individuals.

Secondly, all the proof you need is sitting on the ocean floor off the coast off the coast of Samoa. The bottom line is this...the crew, under the command of the Captain, made a series of navigational and operational errors which caused the ship to ground, founder, catch fire and then sink. These were the findings of the review board for the New Zealand Navy and their final disposition was crew error. As the Captain is responsible for every thing, and every one, aboard a vessel, then this finding is blame direction on the Captain of the vessel. Given the nature and severity of the resultant damage, the findings clearly place the blame on the Captain of the vessel.

Therefore, the Captain was not qualified to operate the vessel in question. The only thing up for debate would be whether this lack of qualification was permanent, or whether it was only temporary.

So, there's your proof, and it has been documented accordingly.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Not so fast. Did she or did she not have the necessary qualifications for that post?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, I don't disagree with the crew error portion. Nor do I disagree that the Captain is always responsible. My point is that this could of happened with a male captain as well. Discriminating solely because of gender is well, discrimination.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: KrustyKrab

What I want to know is who is the idiot that built a ship without a clear indicator that the autopilot is still on? Or builds a ship where the manual input doesn't override the autopilot?

Ultimately the Captain is responsible. But it's clear that there were multiple failures up and down the chain of command. Along with insufficient organizational training to make it clear that it's a necessary need to check the freaking autopilot. Total cluster.

Know, know, know your boat.

If you can’t remember the autopilot is on or figure out where it is located don’t have one onboard.

The vessel was a Navy ship, not a gentlemans launch or recreational fishing boat. What was an autopilot doing in the wheelhouse to begin with?

That helm should have been manned every moment whilst underway and steered by human hands. Heaven help them if AI ever gets installed.

Gross professional negligence.

Not so fast. Did she or did she not have the necessary qualifications for that post?

a reply to: grey580

Well, the necessary qualifications was to be a women so I guess she was qualified. Bonus qualifications for being a lesbian. When DEI is your priority the qualifications become perverted. Did you read the link?

Despite the growth in gender representation over the past 10 years, the NZDF recognises the challenges it faces in increasing the participation of women across its trades and roles, particularly in senior leadership roles.

hiring women was the priority-the qualification

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, I don't disagree with the crew error portion. Nor do I disagree that the Captain is always responsible. My point is that this could of happened with a male captain as well. Discriminating solely because of gender is well, discrimination.

What gender discrimination? The captain was a woman. The captain was found to be at fault. That particular woman was at fault. These are the facts.

It is you that equates because a woman is at fault then the system is against women in general. If she had been properly qualified without the DEI stuff, there would be no argent because the ship would not have ran aground.

Take up your argument with those that put her in that position. DEI is at fault for the situation. The captain is at fault for the sinking.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, I don't disagree with the crew error portion. Nor do I disagree that the Captain is always responsible. My point is that this could of happened with a male captain as well. Discriminating solely because of gender is well, discrimination.

being angry that the one who caused the accident happened to be a woman is weaksauce. If it was a dude who did it, he would be equally at fault. But it wasn't a dude, because they weren't looking to put a dude in that position, due to DEI. They specifically wanted a woman. They got one, just not a very good one. And now they have one less ship.

I really don't grasp the will to cling to this failed experiment. Meritocracy is how you staff positions of authority and importance. Choosing the hottest hooters waitress might be a good choice for who you want under your desk, but who runs things needs to be qualified, and there BECUASE they are the best for that job. If it happens to be a woman, no worries. But not because she is a woman.