AP Enterprise: Crew blames capt. for pirate attack

Billings Gazette ^ | December 3, 2009 | JOHN CURRAN

[This_far]

Richard Phillips, the ship captain toasted as a hero after he was taken captive by Somali pirates, ignored repeated warnings last spring to keep his freighter at least 600 miles off the African coast because of the heightened risk of attack, some members of his crew now allege.

Records obtained by The Associated Press show that maritime safety groups issued at least seven such warnings in the days before outlaws boarded the Maersk Alabama about 380 miles off the shore of Somalia.

A piracy expert and the captain's second-in-command say Phillips had the prerogative to heed the warnings or not. But some crew members _ including the chief engineer, the helmsman and the navigator _ say he was negligent not to change course after learning of the pirate activity.

[This_far]

more at link, interesting turn of events (although some may be attributed to lawsuits brought against the company by the crew?)

[Fast Moving Angel]

Geez, the next thing you know, they’ll be blaming Capt. Sullenberger for their feet getting wet.

[This_far]

Some HAVE said that it was more the plane rather than Capt Sully’s capabilities that prevented a calamity.

[BradyLS]

Everybody wants a piece of the action.

[Kirkwood]

Who said that?

[This_far]

It was from a post here (past couple of weeks I think).

I don’t recall who said it (whether they were associated with the plane’s manufacturer or flight ‘aficionados’).

I do remember that they believed the plane could almost have landed itself due to its advanced makeup and that any pilot would have been able to accomplish what Capt Sully did.

[Cold Heart]

The smell of money in the water.

[OldDeckHand]

"Some HAVE said that it was more the plane rather than Capt Sully’s capabilities that prevented a calamity."

I'm guessing none of those "some people" have ever piloted a dead-stick, a fully loaded passenger plane onto a body of water, and escorted all of their passengers to safety, with nothing more than a few cuts and scratches. It wasn't just his piloting that was spectacular, it was his split-second decision to ditch in the Hudson, that saved so many lives - in the aircraft and on the ground.

[This_far]

it was his split-second decision to ditch in the Hudson

Which, as you're alluding, was made with and due to his prior experience.

You won't get an argument out of me as to which was more beneficial.

[Greysard]

the chief engineer, the helmsman and the navigator _ say he was negligent not to change course after learning of the pirate activity

Easy for them to say, since it's not them who would be explaining why the ship is a week late and why the fuel bill ate most of the profit.

Today, after the events, it may be understandable to spend time and money for safety. But back then no US ship was ever attacked; ship's owners could be quite unhappy about the delays and extra costs.

And it's not like he "learned about the pirate activity" overnight and ignored it. Pirates were active in the area for years, and they took many ships. Warnings were probably issued by the dozen, much like State Department's international travel warnings. If you heed them you must stay at home, preferrably in bed. If the ship owners sent the ship to its destination through these waters they understood the risk.

[This_far]

I would also think that unless one has been through a boarding or gone through ‘anti boarding training’ (if there is such an animal), know someone who has been boarded, one might think that they are not susceptible to being boarded?