As I stated earlier, I consider an incident like the RULE 62 tragedy to be a “GPS-enabled” event, no way would that guy have attempted that move 30 years ago- JonEisenburg
I dont agree that this was the reason. I am suprised that you arent consistant in your thinking here and dont blame the Captain of the Rule62 as you did the one on the Bounty fully for not excercising good judgement in staying at sea. Its a huge leap to say that he went there because of a chartplotter. Do you even know if it was functioning? He should have stayed in deep water as there was no danger of his vessels sinking there. He lacked the experience to sail the 1500 in the conditions he was in or he erred in judgement...just like the other Captain. He is to blame for ther death of the passanger....just like the other Captain. He placed the ship in the dangerous position...just like the other Captain. He gave into the pleadings of his crew...bad jusgement again. He would have attempted to go in where he did wether he had a chartplotter or charts.
Sorry, but I'm really mystified by my apparent inability to make myself understood by you on this point... (grin)
There is no 'inconsistency' in my assigning responsibility for both these tragedies to either captain... Let me try one more time to make it clear: THEY ARE BOTH SOLELY, AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS(ES) OF THEIR VESSELS AND CREW...
I'm only surmising that the skipper of RULE 62 thought such a transit of the North Bar Channel was do-able, due to his undue confidence in the accuracy of his means to navigate that cut, at night, in a rage... One more time: IT WAS LIKELY A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN HIS DECISION, NOTHING MORE...It's possible, of course, that he might have attempted to do so without such means at his disposal - but I simply find that possibility highly unlikely...
So, then, how do YOU know that he WOULD have attempted to enter that cut that night, nevertheless? Whether he had a functioning plotter, Explorer Charts, or not?