Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Queen of the North Criminal Negligence Trial Underway


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:54 PM

I didn't see a thread specifically about this going to trial...
The Criminal Negligence trial of the Officer who was on the bridge when the Queen of the North hit Gil Island and sank is now underway. It is a jury trial and is expected to last six months according to CBC.
I'll certainly be interested in seeing where this goes. I'm amazed it has taken this long to go to trial.

http://www.theprovin...3763/story.html


Former B.C. Ferries deck officer Karl-Heinz Lilgert showed a “complete failure” to do his job navigating the Queen of the North on the night the ship sank nearly seven years ago, claiming two lives, a prosecutor said Thursday.
Lilgert, the former fourth officer on the vessel, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing the deaths of passengers Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette.
The ship sank off Gil Island in March 2006, part way through its voyage from Prince Rupert to Port Hardy.
In his opening statement, Crown Counsel Bob Wright told a B.C. Supreme Court jury that after entering Wright Sound, Lilgert was supposed to turn the vessel left, but did not make the turn.
He said the vessel went straight ahead, on the wrong course, for about 22 minutes before striking the island and sinking.
“The collision unfortunately was catastrophic,” Wright said.
Prior to the collision, Lilgert made no course changes, no evasive manoeuvres and took no emergency action on the bridge, said Wright, one of six prosecutors on the case.
There was no communication from the bridge to the engine room, to the master or captain of the ship, or to any other crew member, he said.
“It’s the theory of the Crown that this accused’s negligence caused the sinking and he thereby caused the deaths of Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette, two of the passengers on board the Queen of the North that night,” said Wright during a brief opening in a trial expected to run at least three months.
“We anticipate that the evidence will establish the complete failure on the part of Mr. Lilgert to perform his duty to the passengers and his fellow crew members, which was to navigate the ship according to the principles of sound maritime practices.”
Wright said Lilgert, who sat quietly in the courtroom near his lawyers, had “ample time” to alter his course and had the benefit of all sorts of navigational devices and aids, including radar and GPS.
The prosecutor told the jury that the Crown would be calling a number of other crew members who were aboard the vessel, including quartermaster Karen Bricker, who was alone with Lilgert at the time of the mishap.
He said Bricker was expected to say that she and Lilgert had been having an intimate affair, were in love and had talked about having children together, but that the affair had ended several weeks earlier.
Bricker had decided to stay with her husband and purchase a home with him, and on the night of the sinking she talked briefly with Lilgert about the home purchase but did not discuss it further, said Wright.
According to Bricker, everything was normal on the bridge and Lilgert appeared to be doing what he was supposed to be doing, but Lilgert suddenly ordered a significant course change, said Wright.
Bricker saw trees on the island and the vessel struck the island, and she asked and received permission to run to the captain’s cabin and alert him to the collision, Wright said.
In his opening, defence lawyer Glen Orris told the 14-member jury that determining who was responsible for the collision wasn’t the issue.
“We say the proper question is: What was responsible for this accident?”
Orris said his client was a qualified mariner and went about his job in a professional manner, not intending to cause injury or damage.
He blamed the collision on “troubles deep within” the ferry system that Lilgert was operating under.
Orris said some of the navigational equipment on the bridge was ineffective and argued that Lilgert should have had more help.
He said his client’s relationship with Bricker may have been a “big deal” to the news media, but insisted it had nothing to do with the collision.
“That was over, that was done,” Orris said.
The trial heard brief testimony from the first witness, an RCMP officer, and then adjourned until Monday.
kfraser@theprovince.com


  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#2 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:57 PM

Here is a link to the Transportation Safety Board findings from 2008:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca...52/m06w0052.pdf

The TSB report isn't meant to assign blame but it does examine the facts surrounding the incident.

Edited by YaK, 23 January 2013 - 11:59 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#3 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:51 PM

" his opening statement, Crown Counsel Bob Wright told a B.C. Supreme Court jury that after entering Wright Sound, Lilgert was supposed to turn the vessel left, but did not make the turn."

No Lilgert was supposed to turn the ship to port.


I'm wondering how they can charge him with negligence causing death when multiple witnesses have stated they saw the "missing " couple on shore in Hartley Bay after the sinking. Seems to be reasonable doubt.

From the TC report
"
QM1 was one of three quartermasters

50 who did not possess a bridge watchman certificate and


who could therefore not be included as part of the minimum deck watch required by the


Crewing Regulations


without supervision by another appropriately certified person.51 "


So the qm should not have been "at the wheel". This is one of those "swiss cheese' tragedies where all the holes lined up and disaster occurs.
  • 0

#4 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:44 PM

^^^
That more or less seems to be the Defense strategy, at least as they cross examine the Crown witnesses. They seem to be trying to build the case that the accident was a result of systemic problems in the way BC Ferries equipped and trained its crew.

http://www.theprovin...6289/story.html

VANCOUVER — A crucial navigation tool aboard a British Columbia passenger ferry that sank seven years ago was commonly referred to by the ship’s crew as a “box of lies,” a defence lawyer said Tuesday during the trial of a crew member charged with criminal negligence causing the deaths of two passengers.
Nancy Adams outlined a series of concerns with equipment and training aboard the Queen of the North, which sank in March 2006, to support Karl Lilgert’s contention that he was poorly trained and using unreliable gear.

Lilgert was the senior officer on the bridge when the ship struck an island off the province’s northern coast. Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette were missing and presumed drowned.

Adams singled out a number of complaints from crew regarding a device known as an electronic chart system, which would display the ferry’s position on digital marine charts.

While cross-examining Ross Bowen, a senior officer who has been sailing with BC Ferries for more than 30 years, she said the device had a reputation for being unreliable.

“Are you familiar with the expression used by some people on the bridge that it was a ‘box of lies?”’ asked Adams.

“No,” said Bowen. “I haven’t (heard that expression).”

The defence’s opening statement last week also referred to the electronic chart system, with lawyer Glen Orris telling the jury it was frequently inaccurate, at times placing the ship’s position over land as it was sailing along its route.

On Tuesday, Adams also described concerns among the crew that the device was too bright, especially at night when the glare made it difficult to see anything else in the darkness. That prompted some crew members to turn the brightness down on the screen to the point where it couldn’t be read at all, she said.

Bowen agreed the brightness was a persistent problem with the chart system. It prompted BC Ferries to order a new screen that could be adjusted, as well as a sheet of tinted plastic that could be placed over the screen to dim it even further.

“You were aware that it was used differently in different ships, and many people on your crew turned it almost off?” asked Adams.

“I’m aware of that,” replied Bowen.

The electronic chart system will also form a key piece of evidence later on in the trial, as data recovered from the device will be used to plot the ship’s route the night of the sinking.

The Crown has said the data will show Lilgert missed a course correction shortly after midnight on March. 22, 2006, and then took no evasive action as the ship sailed towards Gil Island.

Bowen said the device is no longer used on BC Ferries’ northern routes and has since been replaced with a newer system.

Adams noted the ship had just returned from five months of upgrades.

That work involved the installation of a new radar system and changes to the bridge that included a different switch to activate and deactivate the autopilot system.

Bowen told the jury there was no formal training to ensure crew members knew how to use the new equipment or testing to ensure they understood the new procedures for that equipment.

He said senior officers that were familiar with the new equipment would teach crew members, and those crew members would, in turn, show their colleagues. He also pointed out that a memo detailing the new autopilot procedures was posted on a wall in the bridge.

“It wasn’t really much of a different stretch from what we had before, so we wouldn’t be doing any testing,” he said.

“But if I talked to somebody or whoever the officer was talking to somebody and they felt they were comfortable with what they were provided, then you carried on.”

The trial has already heard that Lilgert was on the bridge with quartermaster Karen Bricker when the ship failed to make a left turn in a body of water known as Wright Sound. It was their first shift working along together since they ended an intimate affair a couple of weeks earlier.

The ferry sailed in a straight line for more than 20 minutes without changing course or taking evasive actions to avoid Gil Island, the Crown has said.

The collision prompted a nighttime evacuation and rescue at sea. While 99 passengers and crew were saved, Foisy and Rosette were never seen again.

Lilgert pleaded not guilty and he is standing trial before a jury.


Here's my problem with that...
While many things did go wrong that contributed to the accident it was still the responsibility of the Officer of the Watch to keep a safe watch. Whether or not he was "properly trained" on some of the specific equipment used on the Queen of the North does not relieve him of the fact that he did not do so.
He has a certificate of competency from Transport Canada stating that he is fit to stand watch and that means that he is responsible for knowing how to safely navigate the vessel. That means he should be familiar with the equipment and if he isn't then he needs to ask before taking the watch. Some of that responsibility does lie with the Captain and with the Officer he was relieving but ultimately Lilgert felt he was familiar enough to take responsibility for the boat that night. What his lawyer seems to be keying on is that he was not trained to properly use the ECS (Electronic Chart Display) and that he turned the brightness down to the point where it was not usable due to glare. I actually understand this point to a small degree since he was using raster charts (essentially scans of paper charts with white backgrounds) and it would have been distractingly bright on the bridge.
However, it hasn't been mentioned that this is ultimately irrelevant. Any Navigation Officer worth his salt does not rely on an ECS and an ECS wasn't even a required piece of equipment on the bridge. He still had two RADARs... GPS... a window etc. Yet the recorded course shows that he continued on the same track for 14 minutes after he was supposed to make his turn.
That's 14 minutes during which he had time to correct his action. That's 14 minutes during which he clearly did not know the position of his vessel (that is basically rule 1 when navigating). That's 14 minutes during which he was not maintaining "a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means"(Rule 5 of the International Collision Regulations). A cursory look at either one of his RADARs (assuming he bothered setting them up properly) would have immediately told him he was off course. There were also several navigational lights available to him had he looked out the window, though there was a squall that reduced visibility.
Which brings up another point...
If he was unable to see out the windows that is when he should have been particularly vigilant. He even knew there was a fishing boat in the area - he had been tracking it on RADAR. Yet, somehow he (apparently) did not look at his RADAR again after the presumed course change. Theoretically if he was operating in reduced visibility he should have done a number of things such as posting an extra lookout and reducing speed to maintain a "safe speed" as well as advising the Master (Captain). These are things he would know to do whether or not he'd received specific training from BC Ferries.

Ultimately he was negligent in performing his duties. Like I say, it will be interesting to watch and see if he is deemed criminally negligent.
  • 1
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#5 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:35 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...orth-trial.html

A dramatic radio exchange between the crew of a B.C. ferry that sank off the West Coast in 2006 and a marine radio operator was played in court in Vancouver today.
The recording was played at the trial of Karl Lilgert, the officer in charge of the ship's bridge at the time of the sinking. Lilgert has pleaded not guilty to a charge of criminal negligence causing the death of two passengers.
Marine traffic radio operator Kim Bissell told the court she received the distress message at 12:22 a.m. PT the night the ship sank near Gil Island.
"Traffic. Traffic. We have run aground south of Sainty Point," said the first emergency calls from the crew on the Queen of the North.
The ship's position was then reported, but the location given was wrong, the court heard on Wednesday morning.
"We are taking on water. We are listing," the crew said in subsequent messages.
Eleven minutes after the first call was received, a mayday sent out on behalf of the stricken ship called for the assistance of any vessels in the area.
"We need assistance immediately ... Requesting immediate assistance. Taking on water. Any vessels … We have 101 persons on board … Boarding lifeboats and life rafts," said the crew.
Ship failed make left turn

The trial has already heard last week that Lilgert was on the bridge with quartermaster Karen Bricker when the ship failed to make a left turn in a body of water known as Wright Sound.
It was their first shift working alone together since they ended an intimate affair a couple of weeks earlier.
The ferry sailed in a straight line for more than 20 minutes without changing course or taking evasive actions to avoid Gil Island, the Crown has said.
The collision prompted a nighttime evacuation and rescue at sea. While 99 passengers and crew were saved, Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette were never seen again.


That would be a pretty chilling thing for the MCTS centre to hear from a ship. I've heard MADAY calls before but never one that involved so many lives at stake; I think there would have been a moment of disbelief.

Edited by YaK, 30 January 2013 - 02:46 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#6 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 30 January 2013 - 08:29 PM

Here is the recording of the communication between the Queen of the North and MCTS. It seems to encompass everything after they left the dock in Prince Rupert. The emergency happens around the 7:55 mark


  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#7 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 12 February 2013 - 07:03 PM

‘Monstrous’ amount of water poured into engine room, Queen of the North engineer tells jury
BY KEITH FRASER, THE PROVINCE FEBRUARY 12, 2013 3:04 PM

Engineer Roger Tew described the actual sinking of the Queen of the North as a ‘spectacular’ sight, as the lights went out, the ship stood upright, then accelerated into the ocean. — Ferry images sent by Becky Verbruggen/Global BC Graphics

An engineer aboard the Queen of the North described a “monstrous” amount of water pouring into the engine room after the vessel struck Gil Island.
Roger Tew testified that he was working as the second engineer when there was a ringing noise on the hull and the ship hit the island.
“It was like a big hammer hitting,” he told a B.C. Supreme Court jury hearing the criminal negligence trial of former deck officer Karl Lilgert.
“The ship lurched, rolled over to the port side, rolled back again.”
The vessel started to “buck and jump” quite violently, violently enough that he had to grab hold of a hand console, said Tew.
The noises aboard the vessel drifted off and it went quiet as the ship went free of the land and started to list, he said.
Tew said he and another crew member began inspecting the engine room and, looking through a watertight door, he could see water spraying in from fairly high up.
The water was coming up through the deck plates, up to a metre above the deck plates, said the Crown witness.
“That was a monstrous amount of water.”
Tew said he told the ship’s bridge that they were taking on water and that they couldn’t manage it and were closing up the engine room.
The water had risen about a metre in probably a minute and a half in the engine room, which he described as being as large as the courtroom.
Tew couldn’t close one watertight door that led aft because water was cascading in, but was able to shut the watertight door off the control room.
He went above deck, grabbed a couple of coats from his cabin and went out to the boat deck, where passengers were being assembled to the life rafts and life boats.
Tew, who began working for B.C. Ferries in 1993, said he assisted other crew members getting the passengers into the boats, then got into a life raft with others.
The engineer described the actual sinking of the vessel as a “spectacular” sight, as the lights went out, the ship stood upright and then accelerated down into the ocean.
Under questioning from Crown counsel Dianne Wiedemann, Tew said that until the B.C. Ferries vessel hit Gil Island, it was running smoothly and there were no problems in the engine room.
Bruce Boughey, the ship’s electrical engineer, said he was in his cabin when he felt the Queen of the North lurch, then lurch again.
He could hear a commotion in the hallway, got up, put on his “cruiser” suit and went out to the boat stations.
“The ship was listing. I thought the ship was going to roll over.”
Boughey, who has worked at B.C. Ferries since 1999, said passengers were coming out in all forms of dress before being assisted into the life boats.
He got into one of the life rafts along with several passengers and other crew members, including quartermaster Karen Briker, who was on the bridge with Lilgert at the time of the sinking.
“Everybody was scared. One of the crew members was sick.”
Attempts were made to get a head count of the passengers and crew.
“Karen was in a fetal position ... Initially I didn’t know she was on the bridge.”
Rescue boats from nearby Hartley Bay began arriving and taking on board passengers, he said.
Boughey said the vessel went down just like the Titanic, sliding below the surface of the water.
Under questioning from Crown counsel Mike Huot, he said he’d always been friends with Lilgert and sometimes had a drink with him.
He said Lilgert was a fisherman for many years who knew the coast well.
Lilgert has pleaded not guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing death in connection with two passengers, Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette, who went missing from the vessel after it sank in March 2006. The vessel was on route from Prince Rupert to Port Hardy when it hit the island.



Read more:http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2KjxypTNf


If a ship were sinking the engine room is probably one of the last places I'd like to be.

It will be interesting to hear Bricker's testimony.

Edited by YaK, 12 February 2013 - 07:04 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#8 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,077 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:46 PM

I remember this incident quite well, as does everyone here in Prince Rupert. I stood above the cruise ship dock and watched as a coast guard vessel arrived with passengers from the QoTN, along with two of it's life boats.

There are several stories which have been circulating through the town since the sinking and although I can't verify any of them, there are a few that have become "accepted" amongst locals.I will also mention that I personally know many BC Ferries staff, including some who were on duty that night. I also have several friends from Hartley Bay who were part of the rescue operation.The romantic relationship between Bricker and Lilgert is key. Most people believe that it was not "over" and the two were in fact, engaged in activities other than work-related when the ship hit Gil Island. (Gil Island is not just a dot on the map, BTW. It is a large island and could not have been "missed" had someone been looking ahead)

I admit that I don't know either Bricker or Lilgert, but their relationship seems to be well established by Ferry workers that I do know.

The "too bright" complaint is accurate. This is a common complaint from all types of mariners. In fact, when I worked in the computer business, I used to receive may requests from fisherman for a way to cut down the glare of monitors at night.

I believe (and so do many of the Ferry workers I've talked to) that the complaints about faulty equipment and inadequate training are a smokescreen by the defense. The fact is, the Pr. Rupert to Port Hardy run has been made successfully, hundreds of times, both before and after the sinking of the QoTN. There is nothing to indicate that Bricker and Lilgert being alone on the bridge was anything out of the ordinary.

Finally, I have never heard of anyone seeing the two missing passengers in Hartley Bay. As I said earlier, I have several friends from Hartley Bay, but none of them has ever mentioned this to me.

To me, this is exactly what the crown says it is. Negligence on the part of the BC Ferry employees.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#9 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:57 PM

I remember this incident quite well, as does everyone here in Prince Rupert. I stood above the cruise ship dock and watched as a coast guard vessel arrived with passengers from the QoTN, along with two of it's life boats.

There are several stories which have been circulating through the town since the sinking and although I can't verify any of them, there are a few that have become "accepted" amongst locals.I will also mention that I personally know many BC Ferries staff, including some who were on duty that night. I also have several friends from Hartley Bay who were part of the rescue operation.The romantic relationship between Bricker and Lilgert is key. Most people believe that it was not "over" and the two were in fact, engaged in activities other than work-related when the ship hit Gil Island. (Gil Island is not just a dot on the map, BTW. It is a large island and could not have been "missed" had someone been looking ahead)

I admit that I don't know either Bricker or Lilgert, but their relationship seems to be well established by Ferry workers that I do know.

The "too bright" complaint is accurate. This is a common complaint from all types of mariners. In fact, when I worked in the computer business, I used to receive may requests from fisherman for a way to cut down the glare of monitors at night.

I believe (and so do many of the Ferry workers I've talked to) that the complaints about faulty equipment and inadequate training are a smokescreen by the defense. The fact is, the Pr. Rupert to Port Hardy run has been made successfully, hundreds of times, both before and after the sinking of the QoTN. There is nothing to indicate that Bricker and Lilgert being alone on the bridge was anything out of the ordinary.

Finally, I have never heard of anyone seeing the two missing passengers in Hartley Bay. As I said earlier, I have several friends from Hartley Bay, but none of them has ever mentioned this to me.

To me, this is exactly what the crown says it is. Negligence on the part of the BC Ferry employees.

And not just negligence in the civil sense but criminal negligence causing death (two counts as charged).
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#10 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:15 PM

http://www.prpeak.co...05-archive9.txt

"Two passengers, Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette, have never been found and are presumed dead.





But Shore says he saw Rosette leave one of the rafts and get into a small boat from Hartley Bay. "Absolutely guarantee you I saw her get into one of those little tin boats."





Shore was holding onto a lifeboat with his left hand, he says, and with his right hand he was holding onto another raft. "She came out of the raft I was holding with my right hand."


That's one person saying that, and other crew members are alleged to have seen both the man and woman.(according to my crew mate that used to work on that vessel though not on that night.)
  • 0

#11 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:33 PM

I remember this incident quite well, as does everyone here in Prince Rupert. I stood above the cruise ship dock and watched as a coast guard vessel arrived with passengers from the QoTN, along with two of it's life boats.

There are several stories which have been circulating through the town since the sinking and although I can't verify any of them, there are a few that have become "accepted" amongst locals.I will also mention that I personally know many BC Ferries staff, including some who were on duty that night. I also have several friends from Hartley Bay who were part of the rescue operation.The romantic relationship between Bricker and Lilgert is key. Most people believe that it was not "over" and the two were in fact, engaged in activities other than work-related when the ship hit Gil Island. (Gil Island is not just a dot on the map, BTW. It is a large island and could not have been "missed" had someone been looking ahead)

I admit that I don't know either Bricker or Lilgert, but their relationship seems to be well established by Ferry workers that I do know.

The "too bright" complaint is accurate. This is a common complaint from all types of mariners. In fact, when I worked in the computer business, I used to receive may requests from fisherman for a way to cut down the glare of monitors at night.

I believe (and so do many of the Ferry workers I've talked to) that the complaints about faulty equipment and inadequate training are a smokescreen by the defense. The fact is, the Pr. Rupert to Port Hardy run has been made successfully, hundreds of times, both before and after the sinking of the QoTN. There is nothing to indicate that Bricker and Lilgert being alone on the bridge was anything out of the ordinary.

Finally, I have never heard of anyone seeing the two missing passengers in Hartley Bay. As I said earlier, I have several friends from Hartley Bay, but none of them has ever mentioned this to me.

To me, this is exactly what the crown says it is. Negligence on the part of the BC Ferry employees.

Absolutely a smoke screen, I agree with you. I agree that some of the equipment may have been less than optimal but that doesn't excuse anything - like I said before with nothing more than RADAR and a chart he could have safely navigated that vessel. All of the other pieces of equipment were essentially luxuries - especially his ECS.
I really am looking forward to hearing some testimony from the bridge crew, and I actually do feel bad for Lilgert in one sense. I can't imagine much worse than being responsible for loss of life and loss of the vessel as a Bridge Officer. That being said, I am pretty appalled at some of what has emerged, especially from the TSB report.


And not just negligence in the civil sense but criminal negligence causing death (two counts as charged).


Actually, I was curious about the legal reasons for this exact charge. It seems like the length of the trial is largely based around the Crown calling a significant number of witnesses.

I don't particularly know why they'd need to talk to engineers or various other people who were not on the bridge who don't understand the Officer's responsibilities or even how to navigate a ship. The stories coming out are interesting to be sure but they seem more or less irrelevant to building a case of "Negligence".

I was racking my brain to try to figure this out and I wondered about the "causing death" part. Since these are presumably Crown witnesses are they being called to build a case that the negligence on the part of Lilgert was directly related to the deaths of two people.
Are they trying to demonstrate that any defense of "the system was broken" or "I wasn't properly trained" are not relevant? Are they trying to eliminate any other cause?

To me it seems like a pretty direct link: Negligence in performing duties on bridge -> Vessel strikes Gil Island -> Striking causes sinking -> Sinking causes two deaths.

Are they anticipating a defense of "despite the ship slamming into Gil Island as a result of Lilgert's actions the two people who died could have been saved if it were not for factors not in his control"?

http://www.prpeak.co...05-archive9.txt

"Two passengers, Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette, have never been found and are presumed dead.





But Shore says he saw Rosette leave one of the rafts and get into a small boat from Hartley Bay. "Absolutely guarantee you I saw her get into one of those little tin boats."





Shore was holding onto a lifeboat with his left hand, he says, and with his right hand he was holding onto another raft. "She came out of the raft I was holding with my right hand."


That's one person saying that, and other crew members are alleged to have seen both the man and woman.(according to my crew mate that used to work on that vessel though not on that night.)

This is a weird part of the case since it seems much more likely that the two missing people did in fact die and have not been hiding out for seven years. What measure of proof is required though? "Reasonable Doubt"?
  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#12 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:36 PM

Ferry worker was trapped in flooded cabin as ship began sinking
Lynn Cloutier said at trial she prayed for strength, and had to swim out of her cabin
CBC News
Posted: Feb 13, 2013 12:32 PM PT


A ferry worker who was on the Queen of the North as it began sinking told the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver that she thought she would drown after becoming trapped in her cabin.
Lynn Cloutier was a BC Ferries caterer who almost didn't make it off the ship alive when it struck land and began sinking off Gil Island on March 22, 2006.
Karl Lilgert, the officer in charge that night, is on trial. Lilgert was charged with criminal negligence in the deaths of two passengers.
Jurors at Lilgert's trial have already heard horrific eyewitness accounts of the Queen of the North sinking: how the boat shuddered and skidded as it struck land; how sea water flooded the engine room; how the boat rolled and pitched as it took on water; and how when the lights went out and it slipped beneath the waves, it reminded them of the film Titanic.
Wednesday, Lynn Cloutier dabbed tears from her eyes and told the jury that as the water level rose around her, she prepared herself to drown.
Cloutier was off-shift and sleeping when the ferry boat ran aground, just after midnight.


The first three bangs

She said the first crash woke her up. The second impact threw her from her bed, and her feet landed in water.
The third bang loosened a heavy locker from the wall, and fell across her cabin door, trapping her inside as water rose to her knees. Cloutier said she sat on her bed and the wet blankets, praying and crying for help.
Then she saw pictures of her grandchildren floating in the room and felt that they were somehow calling out to her, pleading for her to get out.
The five-foot-one woman pushed with all her might, and dislodged the locker as the water made it up to her neck. She swam out, through waves in the hallway. A fellow crew member helped her get up the stairs.
Once out of the water, Cloutier's training kicked in. She was determined to make it off the boat, and her first concern was getting the passengers off as well.
She first checked the lounge to make sure no one was there. Then, on deck, she started barking orders: "C'mon, lower the lifeboats! We don't have much time."


All the 101 crew and all passengers — save two — made it into life rafts and off the sinking boat. Those two passengers, Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette were on the register for the ferry, but their bodies were never found, and they are presumed to have gone down with the ship.
Fishing boats in the area and residents of nearby Hartley Bay scrambled to mount a rescue effort, and transported the lifeboat passengers back to Hartley Bay.
Cloutier told the courtroom that when BC Ferries officials made contact with her after the sinking, the first they told her was: "Don't say anything. Don't talk about what happened."
In 2009, Cloutier told CBC News that she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, which often left her shaking and unable to sleep.

She said she had a recurring nightmare of hearing the ship's three bangs as it ran aground: She wakes up, confused, thinking she's back on the ship, trapped again in her cabin.


Again, I'm not exactly sure what all of this has to do with convicting Lilgert, but it is interesting to hear some of the stories that are emerging from that night.
  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#13 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:21 AM

"She said the first crash woke her up. The second impact threw her from her bed, and her feet landed in water.
The third bang loosened a heavy locker from the wall, and fell across her cabin door, trapping her inside as water rose to her knees. Cloutier said she sat on her bed and the wet blankets, praying and crying for help.
Then she saw pictures of her grandchildren floating in the room and felt that they were somehow calling out to her, pleading for her to get out.
The five-foot-one woman pushed with all her might, and dislodged the locker as the water made it up to her neck. She swam out, through waves in the hallway. "



So if it wasn't for the water that almost drowned her, making the locker easier to move she would have died?

I am also curious that Captain Henthorne was woken up prior to the ship running aground-if I read that right? Is so by whom? IIRC Bricker had testified that after the ship ran aground Lillgert gave her permission to wake the cpt. Seems a bit of a disconnect there.
  • 0

#14 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

Roused from sleep, Queen of the North captain felt ship strike land

Former skipper testifies at trial of deck officer charged with criminal negligence

BY KEITH FRASER, THE PROVINCE FEBRUARY 13, 2013

Former Queen of the North Capt. Colin Henthorne was awakened from a deep sleep by somebody banging on his door and shouting urgently for him to get up and come to the ship’s bridge.
The banging and shouting by a female voice kept up until he said he was coming, Henthorne told a B.C. Supreme Court jury Wednesday.
“I started to get dressed and before I got my shoes on the ship struck the ground. I recognized immediately what it was. There was no mistaking it. We’d struck ground.”
Henthorne was testifying at the trial of Karl Lilgert, a former deck officer on the B.C. ferry, who has pleaded not guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing death in connection with the March 2006 tragedy.
Henthorne said all of the bridge’s equipment was working and it was a normal departure from Prince Rupert before the vessel struck Gil Island.
After being woken up, he headed for the bridge, noticing that all of the alarm bells were ringing and officers were coming out of every cabin to proceed to their stations.
Taking a look outside, he noticed that they were close to land and could see a light several kilometres away.
Henthorne said that over the public address system, he ordered all passengers and crew to lifeboat stations,repeating that message twice.
The former captain, who was fired from B.C. Ferries after the accident, ordered water-tight doors in the engine room closed and ordered flares to be fired.
Going outside, he noticed that the water level was up above a steel band around the ship, indicating the water was above the car deck.
“In the simplest terms it means we’re sinking and there’s no saving the ship.”
The ship was listing to starboard and he ordered everyone to proceed to the port side and rafts to be rigged and prepared for boarding.
Asked by Crown counsel Dianne Wiedemann whether Lilgert was on the bridge when he arrived, Henthorne said he didn’t remember.
The evacuation was continued to the point where all of the passengers were in a life-raft or lifeboat, he said.
An initial head count of passengers came to 85 and he decided to run down the length of the deck and check two blocks of passenger cabins, he said.
When he returned to the life-raft station, there were only a few crew left to be lowered down to the ocean.
One crew member resisted the abandon-ship order and had to be physically picked up and taken to a lifeboat, he said.
Asked by Wiedemann whether he was the last person off the vessel, he replied that he was.
Once in the water, all of the life-rafts and lifeboats gathered together and another count was done, but it was “very difficult” to get an accurate number, said Henthorne, who now works as a rescue co-ordinator for the Canadian Coast Guard.
“Mistakes were made. We had to restart every time a mistake was made,” he said, adding there was “doubt” every time a count was made.
Earlier Wednesday, a former cleaner described how, despite being trapped in her cabin for up to 20 minutes, she was able to recover enough to help get passengers off the vessel.


On the second day of her testimony, Lynn Cloutier said that after she escaped from the cabin, she made her way up to the purser’s office and then to the life-raft station.
“It looked like a disaster. The lifeboat was sitting sideways, almost upside down. The ship was listed pretty bad.”
Cloutier, who has not worked as a cleaner for B.C. Ferries since the vessel sank, told the jury that she was cold and shaking “really bad.”
A fellow crew member and friend put a life-jacket on her, and after noticing that the ship’s shepherd boat — a powered inflatable vessel — wasn’t down in the water, Cloutier rallied crew members.
“I went close by and said, ‘Come on, guys. Let’s get the shepherd boat in the water. We’re going to need it,’” she told the jury.
“I wasn’t panicking, but I wasn’t going to stay on the ship after I got out of my room.”
With the ship listing so badly, there were difficulties getting one of the life-rafts prepared for lowering into the water, and Cloutier assisted other crew members getting it ready.
Then she helped load passengers into the life-raft.
Cloutier said she started to proceed to another life-raft to help more passengers, but another crew member interceded, told her she was too cold and wet and said she should get into a lifeboat that was being lowered to the water.
She got into the boat with a number of passengers, including some children “in their PJs, just like me,” she said.
“I was very cold and I thought I was going to pass out,” she added. “Some passengers, a couple of women, they hugged me and tried to keep me warm.”
The other life-rafts and lifeboats had gathered together and she heard the captain saying that they should do a head count of the passengers and crew.
Cloutier was taken to nearby Hartley Bay, and along with a number of others airlifted by helicopter to Prince Rupert.
Under cross examination by defence lawyer Nancy Adams, Cloutier said she was proud of the work she did for the passengers aboard the ferry.
She said on the day the vessel left Prince Rupert, she had asked to be taken on a tour of the engine room because she liked to be familiar with other departments on board.
Cloutier said that while she was being lowered into the water in the lifeboat, she was telling other crew members to ensure that everybody got off the vessel safely.
Lilgert has pleaded not guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing death in connection with passengers Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette, who went missing and are presumed dead.
The trial continues.
kfraser@theprovince.com
twitter.com/keithrfraser

© Copyright © The Province



Read more:http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2KvQKf9BS]


I am also curious that Captain Henthorne was woken up prior to the ship running aground-if I read that right? Is so by whom? IIRC Bricker had testified that after the ship ran aground Lillgert gave her permission to wake the cpt. Seems a bit of a disconnect there.

If it wasn't striking the bottom that caused the Captain to rise then it will be interesting to see what prompted the bridge crew to wake him. That said, I'm not sure it will make any difference regarding Lilgert's guilt or innocence.
  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#15 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:40 PM

More on the Captain's testimony...

Accused crew member appeared suicidal after fatal ferry sinking: trial
BY JAMES KELLER, THE CANADIAN PRESS FEBRUARY 14, 2013 4:20 PM

http://www.theprovin...ews/7966641.bin

VANCOUVER - The crew member who was navigating the Queen of the North passenger ferry when it sank, leaving two passengers missing, appeared distraught and possibly suicidal in the hours after the disaster, the captain of the ship testified Thursday.
Karl Lilgert was on the bridge when the ferry struck Gil Island on March 22, 2006.
A B.C. Supreme Court jury is hearing accusations against Lilgert of criminal negligence causing the deaths of two passengers who disappeared and were presumed drowned.
Colin Henthorne, who was asleep in his cabin when the ship struck Gil Island, testified about the evacuation and what happened after the crew and passengers left the ship in a flotilla of life rafts and life boats. Roughly two-thirds were taken to the nearby First Nations community of Hartley Bay, while the rest, including himself, Lilgert and several senior officers, were transported to the coast guard ship Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
It was on the Sir Wilfrid Laurier that Henthorne grew concerned about Lilgert, who until then had been an essential part of the evacuation, said Henthorne.
"You thought he was suicidal or might do some damage to himself?" asked Glen Orris, Lilgert's lawyer.
"Yes," replied Henthorne.
Henthorne later told police he became so concerned about Lilgert's mental state that he asked another crew member to keep an eye on him.
"He was looking really distressed, terribly distressed — I was worried about him," Henthorne said in a statement to police investigators, a transcript of which was read in court.
"When we first got to the ship and we were waiting to see where we were going, he was standing by the door looking deathly ill, and one of my crew said to me, 'Should I look out for Karl?'"
Henthorne told police the chief officer of the coast guard ship expressed a similar concern, and they initially considered having Lilgert transported to hospital immediately. Instead, Lilgert was eventually transported to Hartley Bay, where he was picked up by a helicopter and flown to Prince Rupert with several other crew members and passengers.
The trial has heard Lilgert was on the bridge with quartermaster Karen Bricker, his former lover, when the ferry missed a critical turn as it sailed down B.C.'s Inside Passage. It was their first time working alone together since their affair ended.
The trial has already heard from another crew member, electrical engineer Bruce Boughey, who found himself on a life raft with Bricker. Boughey told the court Bricker was curled up in the "fetal position" and was unresponsive.
Bricker is expected to testify in the coming weeks.
The Crown claims Lilgert failed in his responsibilities to keep the ship and its passengers safe when he missed the turn and sailed the ship into an island.
The defence has said the crash was instead caused by a combination of poor training, shoddy BC Ferries policies and unreliable equipment.
Henthorne also testified about his own career at BC Ferries, which ended with his dismissal less than a year after the sinking. He said he believed he was fired because he raised safety concerns about the company's operations.
Henthorne said his work troubles began after he appeared before an internal investigation several weeks after the sinking and was questioned by a panel largely made up of BC Ferries executives.
Henthorne said he was asked whether he had ever identified any safety issues to his superiors, and he replied there was a long list of safety concerns that he had reported but they were not fixed.
"They became irate over that and I believe that's why they fired me," recalled Henthorne, who now works as a rescue co-ordinator for the coast guard.
He was asked to detail those concerns in writing before returning to the panel for a second appearance, he said.
"There was some expressions of disbelief — they suggested my way of presenting them must have been ineffective in order for them not to be dealt with," said Henthorne.
"Then they pledged they would correct all of them and deal with them. But the mood at that meeting was much more hostile than the previous one."
Soon after, he was placed on paid leave, and in January 2007, he was formally dismissed.
At first, Henthorne said he and his lawyer were told his dismissal was for "operational requirements."
When they pointed out the company was actively recruiting new captains at the time, BC Ferries offered a different explanation.
"Eventually, they claimed that they had lost confidence in me," Henthorne said.
There were 101 passengers and crew on the ship that night, but two passengers, Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette, were never seen again and were presumed drowned.
Lilgert pleaded not guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing death.
His trial is expected to last up to six months.



Read more:http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2KvZ4nvDT


  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#16 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,077 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 15 February 2013 - 11:31 AM

   If it wasn't striking the bottom that caused the Captain to rise then it will be interesting to see what prompted the bridge crew to wake him. That said, I'm not sure it will make any difference regarding Lilgert's guilt or innocence.


There does seem to be a discrepancy in the stories told be Henthorne and Bricker/Lilgert and I doubt if we'll ever know the truth.

From what I have been told, there should have been a proximity alarm sounding, well before the collision with Gil Island. If this is what prompted the crew member to wake the Captain, it begs the question: Why didn't the bridge crew make the course adjustment upon hearing the alarm?

I don't know how valid an opinion it is, but it's been suggested by some here in Prince Rupert that the bridge crew turned it off, in addition to dimming the monitor showing the plot of the ship's course.

It's hard to imagine how they intended to navigate the ship if that were true. It may be that they were relying on time and lost track until it was too late...
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#17 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:04 PM

Most radar sets(on the big ships anyway) allow you to "tag" a target. This will give you the course and speed of the approaching vessel. It will also give you how close you will get to the vessel and how long till you get as close as you are going to get. CPA and TCPA. Occasionaly you will tag a ship and if it is close enough to land the tag will jump to the shore line. the CPA alarm can be made to be audible/visual, both or none.
  • 0

#18 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 16 February 2013 - 11:25 PM

There does seem to be a discrepancy in the stories told be Henthorne and Bricker/Lilgert and I doubt if we'll ever know the truth.

From what I have been told, there should have been a proximity alarm sounding, well before the collision with Gil Island. If this is what prompted the crew member to wake the Captain, it begs the question: Why didn't the bridge crew make the course adjustment upon hearing the alarm?

I don't know how valid an opinion it is, but it's been suggested by some here in Prince Rupert that the bridge crew turned it off, in addition to dimming the monitor showing the plot of the ship's course.

It's hard to imagine how they intended to navigate the ship if that were true. It may be that they were relying on time and lost track until it was too late...

I can't say for certain without seeing the specific ECS they were using that night, but it is unlikely that it was capable of giving a proximity alarm. The reason for this is that it was operating in "raster mode" and was essentially displaying a copy of the paper chart. This is the same reason they would have dimmed the display since a white chart would have been blinding at night. An ECDIS, on the other hand, which is the technology replacing these displays is capable of giving a proximity alarm. The reason being that the charts displayed by ECDIS are in a vector format and can provide far more data (and in a night-friendly format).
However, the radar they were using could have provided the proximity alarm you are talking about. That being said, it is pretty rare in my experience that you'd set up such an alarm on a regular route (poor practice, but often the norm nonetheless). I'd be more surprised if they had set it up. In actuality, you are more likely to use it when in open waters since the damn thing would be going off constantly in confined waters.
In terms of "how they were going to navigate the ship" the first choice would have been the radar if there was a loss of visibility. They also had other means at their disposal but assuming that it was a routine watch they'd have set up the radars to indicate when to turn - no proximity alarms required. The easiest way is to set up an expected range and bearing off of a point when they should be making a turn - they could have then checked their action with what is called "parallel indexing".
The ECS is basically a smokescreen - the watch could have been safely conducted even in its absence. Even just looking at the course display should have told the Officer that something was wrong since he'd done this route before and would have been familiar with many of the courses.

Most radar sets(on the big ships anyway) allow you to "tag" a target. This will give you the course and speed of the approaching vessel. It will also give you how close you will get to the vessel and how long till you get as close as you are going to get. CPA and TCPA. Occasionaly you will tag a ship and if it is close enough to land the tag will jump to the shore line. the CPA alarm can be made to be audible/visual, both or none.

This system is called ARPA and it isn't generally used to track stationary objects (the exception being when you select something isolated like a buoy or lighthouse). Though the RADAR could have given the CPA alarm for the shoreline it was unlikely to have been set up for this. The "proximity alarm" RUPERTKBD was referring to would require setting up a "guard zone" of a set distance and when a contact was detected within that zone it would have set off the alarm. That being said, usually such alarms are for approaching vessels rather than shorelines. A much more appropriate watch would have required some of the basic techniques I mentioned above.
  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#19 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,077 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:24 PM

I can't say for certain without seeing the specific ECS they were using that night, but it is unlikely that it was capable of giving a proximity alarm. The reason for this is that it was operating in "raster mode" and was essentially displaying a copy of the paper chart. This is the same reason they would have dimmed the display since a white chart would have been blinding at night. An ECDIS, on the other hand, which is the technology replacing these displays is capable of giving a proximity alarm. The reason being that the charts displayed by ECDIS are in a vector format and can provide far more data (and in a night-friendly format).
However, the radar they were using could have provided the proximity alarm you are talking about. That being said, it is pretty rare in my experience that you'd set up such an alarm on a regular route (poor practice, but often the norm nonetheless). I'd be more surprised if they had set it up. In actuality, you are more likely to use it when in open waters since the damn thing would be going off constantly in confined waters.
In terms of "how they were going to navigate the ship" the first choice would have been the radar if there was a loss of visibility. They also had other means at their disposal but assuming that it was a routine watch they'd have set up the radars to indicate when to turn - no proximity alarms required. The easiest way is to set up an expected range and bearing off of a point when they should be making a turn - they could have then checked their action with what is called "parallel indexing".
The ECS is basically a smokescreen - the watch could have been safely conducted even in its absence. Even just looking at the course display should have told the Officer that something was wrong since he'd done this route before and would have been familiar with many of the courses.

This system is called ARPA and it isn't generally used to track stationary objects (the exception being when you select something isolated like a buoy or lighthouse). Though the RADAR could have given the CPA alarm for the shoreline it was unlikely to have been set up for this. The "proximity alarm" RUPERTKBD was referring to would require setting up a "guard zone" of a set distance and when a contact was detected within that zone it would have set off the alarm. That being said, usually such alarms are for approaching vessels rather than shorelines. A much more appropriate watch would have required some of the basic techniques I mentioned above.

I'm aware of the Vector vs. Raster difference, as I used to sell them when I worked in the computer business. I would have thought that BC Ferries would have been running vector charts by now, but who knows?

Anyway, great insight. Thanks for the info.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#20 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:09 PM

I'm aware of the Vector vs. Raster difference, as I used to sell them when I worked in the computer business. I would have thought that BC Ferries would have been running vector charts by now, but who knows?

Anyway, great insight. Thanks for the info.

Yeah, it would be the standard nowadays. If BC Ferries isn't using true ECDIS on board (which uses vector based charts as a default) they would be using a similar ECS that also uses vector based "S-57" charts.
However, when the accident happened the ECS was only capable of using raster charts for the area (a lot has changed in even just 7 years). This was an issue explored in the TSB report that came out and was a reason given for dimming the monitors among other things.
Anyway it is interesting to hear what people up in PR think about the whole mess.
  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#21 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

http://www.timescolo...l-rules-1.78103

"The Queen of the North's former first officer, Richard St. Pierre, is under cross-examination at the trial for fourth officer Karl Lilgert, who is charged with criminal negligence causing the deaths of two passengers in March 2006.

St. Pierre has been shown a BC Ferries document that indicates three people were required to be on the ferry's bridge, though he says not all officers interpretated those rules in the same way.

St. Pierre says he routinely staffed the bridge with only two people navigating and steering the ship at night, because if a third person staffed the bridge, then other work wouldn't get done.

On the night of the sinking, only Lilgert, who was in charge of navigation, and quartermaster Karen Bricker, whose role was to steer the ship, were on the bridge when it crashed.

St. Pierre has told court that BC Ferries now has more clear requirements requiring at least three people on the bridge, as the defence makes a case that inadequate policies and poor equipment led to the fatal crash."



Get 5 captains to read a set of rules and you can end up with anywhere between 1 and 6 interpretations.
  • 0

#22 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,077 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:07 PM

http://www.timescolo...l-rules-1.78103

"The Queen of the North's former first officer, Richard St. Pierre, is under cross-examination at the trial for fourth officer Karl Lilgert, who is charged with criminal negligence causing the deaths of two passengers in March 2006.

St. Pierre has been shown a BC Ferries document that indicates three people were required to be on the ferry's bridge, though he says not all officers interpretated those rules in the same way.

St. Pierre says he routinely staffed the bridge with only two people navigating and steering the ship at night, because if a third person staffed the bridge, then other work wouldn't get done.

On the night of the sinking, only Lilgert, who was in charge of navigation, and quartermaster Karen Bricker, whose role was to steer the ship, were on the bridge when it crashed.

St. Pierre has told court that BC Ferries now has more clear requirements requiring at least three people on the bridge, as the defence makes a case that inadequate policies and poor equipment led to the fatal crash."



Get 5 captains to read a set of rules and you can end up with anywhere between 1 and 6 interpretations.


I know Richard and I think his comment of "routinely staffing the bridge with two people" is important.

The fact is, the Prince Rupert to Port Hardy run had been made several times without incident, using this same amount of people. It's only because of the massive screw-up by Bricker and Lilgert that staffing (and training, or lack thereof) is now an issue.

By all means, the three person rule should be followed from here on in, but it does not exhonerate either lilgert or Bricker, IMO.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#23 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:59 PM

I know Richard and I think his comment of "routinely staffing the bridge with two people" is important.

The fact is, the Prince Rupert to Port Hardy run had been made several times without incident, using this same amount of people. It's only because of the massive screw-up by Bricker and Lilgert that staffing (and training, or lack thereof) is now an issue.

By all means, the three person rule should be followed from here on in, but it does not exhonerate either lilgert or Bricker, IMO.

That written policy might be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to Lilgert's criminal negligence.

The argument would go that since this was the policy, for the Captain and/or First Officer to have disregarded they were sufficiently negligent to negate the criminal liability for Lilgert.

As I understand it there is also some question as to leaving Lilgert on the bridge as senior officer in that he may not have been fully qualified.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#24 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:03 PM

Well the quatermaster did not have the proper "bridgewatchman" certificate. I hadn't heard a concern regards Lilgert's ticket but maintain an open mind.
  • 0

#25 YaK

YaK

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,902 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:09 PM

Guilty...

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...th-verdict.html
  • 0
Posted Image
"It felt almost like it was a dream," Burrows said of his game-winner.
"But guys jumped on me and I couldn't breathe, so I knew it was right."

#26 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,063 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:06 PM

Karl Lilgart was found guilty on 2 counts of criminal negligence.

Maximum sentence is life in prison. Though that is doubful.

The prosecution said the officer was distracted by either an argument or sex with his former female partner.
  • 0

#27 icecreamdaily

icecreamdaily

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 13

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:25 PM

I just did a presentation on this topic, and she is definitely guilty. I'm still wondering as to how those two passengers can be claimed as missing. I mean where else could they be, unless hate to say it, but eaten.

The story to what caused the captain to be negligent, is too inconsistent. BC Ferries is lucky that it has monopoly.
  • 0

#28 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,063 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:39 PM

I just did a presentation on this topic, and she is definitely guilty. I'm still wondering as to how those two passengers can be claimed as missing. I mean where else could they be, unless hate to say it, but eaten.

The story to what caused the captain to be negligent, is too inconsistent. BC Ferries is lucky that it has monopoly.


It is perplexing how the prosecutuon can make the case the officer was distracted by either an argument or sex when they have no physical proof. It is only a theory. Neither of the two people on the bridge admitted to an argument or sex. So why did the jury buy into the prosecution argument? It is circumstantial evidence at most.
  • 0

#29 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,683 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:30 AM

I just did a presentation on this topic, and she is definitely guilty. I'm still wondering as to how those two passengers can be claimed as missing. I mean where else could they be, unless hate to say it, but eaten.

The story to what caused the captain to be negligent, is too inconsistent. BC Ferries is lucky that it has monopoly.


And what of the rumour they died because they went below deck to try to rescue a pet instead of getting on a lifeboat? In that situation wouldn't they have helped contribute to their own deaths?
  • 0

#30 DonLever

DonLever

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,063 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 08

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:08 PM

The officer in charge of the bridge was sentenced to 4 years in jail by the judge today.

"The man who was on the bridge when the Queen of the North crashed into Gill Island will serve time in a federal prison.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sunni Stromberg-Stein has sentenced Karl Lilgert to four years in jail after he was convicted of criminal negligence causing death.
The judge concluded that Lilgert's relationship with quartermaster Karen Briker played a role in the accident, which led to the disappearance and presumed death of passengers Gerald Foisy and Shirley Rosette in 2006.
The Crown sought a six-year sentence, whereas defence lawyer Glen Orris asked for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, which Ligert could serve at home."

Edited by DonLever, 24 June 2013 - 06:09 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.