[Owen]

The phrasing of the release sounds like the procedures that were not being followed were NOT the cause of the incident. The seamount was probably not on the charts and the procedures in question were probably not utterly mandatory, and had they been followed there was no guarantee that they would have prevented the accident.

But.

He was the guy in charge when it happened. If he'd been following those procedures he might have gotten lucky and not hit the seamount. It's not about justice for him; it's about maintaining precedent that the commander is responsible for accidents in his command. If someone does not like this rule, they need not become a commander.

I'm ex Air Force. The equivalent event in the AF is refueling accidents. Every once in a long while an enlisted troop will splash himself with fuel and a static spark will fry him. The guy who is blamed for it is the commander of his squadron. Some rule or procedure will be found that was not included in training of the troops. That will be declared the commander's fault.

If you do not like this, then don't become a commander.

[null and void]

[mc6809e]

It's not about justice for him; it's about maintaining precedent that the commander is responsible for accidents in his command. If someone does not like this rule, they need not become a commander.

So when a design flaw causes an accident, is it still the commander that gets the blame?

Suppose food is contaminated before being loaded on to a ship. Hundreds of sailors are poisoned and an accident results.

Still the commanders fault?

Suppose a commander orders that his sub be turned but because of a design flaw the sub goes straight and crashes. Should the commander be blamed?

These charts are part of the ship provided to the commander. He should be able to depend on them.

Outdated maps amount to a design flaw.

The responsibility for seeing that technology is applied to the creation of current maps lies with those higher in the chain.

Instead they pass the buck back down.

[William Tell]

Owen said: "The phrasing of the release sounds like the procedures that were not being followed were NOT the cause of the incident. "

That's how I read it, too.

There is nothing qutie like the bright light of an investigation to reveal any flaws in the operating procedures whatever. The true cause of the accident may be classified for good reason or ill. That unexpected problems will occur to the most powerful armed forces in the world is to be expected. That every problem will be aired in public is probably not reasonable.

[Sloth]

It's not about justice for him; it's about maintaining precedent that the commander is responsible for accidents in his command. If someone does not like this rule, they need not become a commander.

By this (very stupid) standard, Bush should impeached.