"We need to find out what happened, aparently it lost power, I'm aware of that, and ended up aground on the reef" Objection: Speculation (We need to find out what happened = Dont know what happened) Objection: Leading (aparently it lost power) ((Aparently)) *A* *leading* *question* *or* *answer* *which* *suggest* *THE* *ANSWER*
@@tiefblau2780 Nonsense. She was plainly indicating that a full understanding of the causal factors was not available yet but it was known that a loss of power was a factor.
The NZ defence Minister has been savaging anybody critical of the woman captain and the NZ Navy's DEI hiring policies and she has already announced that the gender of the captain had nothing to do with the incident. Well, the minister is an experienced lawyer turned politician and technically she is correct, yes, innately a female could be as competent as a male, however, all the criticism that I've seen is directly pointing the finger not at the captain being a female but rather at the NZ navy's more than decade long focus on DEI and on hiring women which could have reduced the capability of the vessel's captain to deal with the whatever emergency situation arose i.e. lose of power or whatever. But hey, the Minister has spoken and she already knows that their desire to get more women into commander positions has nothing to do with it- now we must ignore that the Minister is likely to completely lie and deflect and gaslight to avoid taking any blame whatsoever and especially avoid any criticism of hiring and preparedness practices. I mean anybody who suggests that a female captain who has a degree in primary school teaching and 20 years as a "warfare office" in the UK isn't totally qualified to command a massive Navy survey vessel is clearly a mysoginyst. The Minister also attacked a critic from melbourne who was I quote "only a truck driver" and obviously an "armchair admiral" and had no business critising the captain or the Navy or the herself. Fancy truck drivers thinking they are entitled to criticise such educated people such as the Minister or the Admiral? How dare they?
"There are reports of some small leaks but these are very small amount, and they are from the pipes that take the fuel around the ship, not the storage tanks." Objection: Lack of Foundation In order to testify about a particular event, the witness must have a basis to do so. This basis often comes from personal observation. Objection: Hearsay : when the witness testifies about what he/she heard someone say, a hearsay objection may be made.
Yeah someone was saying this lawyer who somehow became the top boss of the military as Defence Minister, despite never being in the military or even working within or around it, let the mask slip as to her true feelings towards blue collar workers with her snide remarks about the trucker from Melbourne. It's interesting how she picked out his comment out of the millions that have been made around the world, including her own country of New Zealand. Just a cursory look on social media sites and you would find 1000's of comments from Kiwi's on this matter, many way more intense in what they said
"We need to find out what happened, aparently it lost power, I'm aware of that, and ended up aground on the reef" Objection: Speculation (We need to find out what happened = Dont know what happened) Objection: Leading (aparently it lost power) ((Aparently)) *A* *leading* *question* *or* *answer* *which* *suggest* *THE* *ANSWER*
Total power loss. Mmm... according to the RNZN website the ship was fitted with: 4 x diesel electric generators powering 2 x azimuth propulsion systems and 3 x bow thrusters. So without analysis of the VDR information having even been completed (as far as we know) the NZ Defence Minister is speculating about a probable cause of the grounding? Isn't this the same person who lashed out at armchair admirals & yet she is carrying-on like an armchair marine engineer/ship's captain. This on the same level of nonsense as the NZ admiral who declared there we no leaks. Interestingly enough, if you look at some pictures of the ship being abandoned you can see lights visible on the ship's deck. So there must have been some power? Also pictures of the sunken ship show it pointing toward the reef/coast. Does that means it was on that heading when it allegedly lost power? The navy doesn't need a bureaucratic Court Of Inquiry (COI), instead they could start with a root cause analysis covering events leading up to the collision & actions afterwards. This would also cover the fairly hasty decision to leave the ship which officials have speculated saved lives. Is there any evidence to support that? Could they have waited for example for more boats to come out to assist & in the mean time tried some further damage control efforts? (this ship did take more than 12 hours to sink) Might also be helpful if the COI had a few less lawyers involved and a few more subject matter experts. I have no idea what happened on that ship during this accident. There are only at the moment a lot of questions, but you would think NZ officials would do a lot less speculating & wait for the inquiry to provide answers. That would be the professional approach. So far the official narrative seems to be: the ship hit a reef, it sunk, but what a great job was done getting everybody off.
The HMNZS Manwanui's propulsion system is diesel electric! Four Gen sets that drive drive two azimuth propulsion systems. This is highly reliable. It would be a very very unusual for such a system to completely fail! I would want to see an official report before I believe that to know this is not a "cover up"!!!!!
"We need to find out what happened, aparently it lost power, I'm aware of that, and ended up aground on the reef" Objection: Speculation (We need to find out what happened = Dont know what happened) Objection: Leading (aparently it lost power) ((Aparently)) *A* *leading* *question* *or* *answer* *which* *suggest* *THE* *ANSWER*
A full report usually takes at least a year. There is no suggestion of a cover up and it would be practically impossible anyway with so many witnesses and parties involved.
Diesel electric drives aren't as reliable as direct drive...all it takes is an electrical fault to lose control. And yes...electrical faults are reasonably common.
@@charlesharper2357 This one was. When purchased by NZ, the ship wasn't even fitted with an anchor, so reliable was the gps powered dynamic positioning system.
A local who saw the vessel before it grounded on the reef said as soon as he saw the vessel before anything happened he was questioning why it was motoring so close to the reef. He said it was unusual for a vessel to be motoring where the navy ship was because of the close proximity to the reef.
@@Antipodean33due north and at speed at time of impact. No surveying underway and possibly not under command but this will remain as scuttlebutt given the membership of the enquiry and Collins’ perview. Lies and disinformation is the currency of the day.
Why does this dude seemingly refuse to even debate this woman captain is purely a product of DEI hiring/promotion? He believes everything the woman Defence Minister says, who is a lawyer by profession and has never had anything to do with the military or defence, who also shows her contempt for blue collar workers, who she believes have no place in commenting on this incident. Now wouldn't you think the position of a Defence Minister should/would go to someone who has made being in the military their life long career, someone who is wise to how the military operates and who would know what the military itself and the personnel require. The way this dude dismisses the notion put forward by many (including some NZ military personnel) that the captain of the wrecked vessel is the epitome of a DEI hire, makes one wonder why he would be instantly dismissive of this makes me wonder about his integrity and lets not mince words, his cowardice when it comes to even have a discussion about it. Their very own charter the NZ Navy has online dedicates pages and pages on their commitment to hire LGBTTQIA2+ etc etc
Because the enquiry has not been completed and published it's results, you gronk. All you have is speculation based on your bias against women and LGBT people.
Ministers will say what they can get way with.Any sign of an attempt to drop anchor when the drift became apparent? Perhaps it is too deep. Strange combination of bad judgement and bad luck. Every reason to conduct a court marshall asap.
"We need to find out what happened, aparently it lost power, I'm aware of that, and ended up aground on the reef" Objection: Speculation (We need to find out what happened = Dont know what happened) Objection: Leading (aparently it lost power) ((Aparently)) *A* *leading* *question* *or* *answer* *which* *suggest* *THE* *ANSWER*
There are photos of the anchors on the reef in the Samoan Observer. They will be removed as a priority because of the damage the chains are doing. So yes. Obviously the anchors were deployed. The drop off on the ocean side of the reef is steep so possibly they did not hold before it was blown onto the reef itself. A court martial is something that would only happen if an investigation revealed an offence had been committed.
@@meofnz2320 Those photo's don't show any sign of the anchor dragging, and in looks to be in about the same depth as the vessel itself. I could be wrong, but I suspect they were set after the vessel was freed from the reef.
The good news I suppose is that due to the NZ government and it's commitment to the environment we should be able to get a detailed report of the pollution. Something that often enough gets swept under the rug in other similar incidents around the world.
I clicked because if there is a reason this happened other than captain's incompetence, something out of her control, I sincerely want to know rather than just blame her. However. The discrepancy between the Navy's report on fuel containment vs the report from external organization that dove to the wreck, leads me to believe the Navy is willing to mislead the public casting further doubts on their claims that it was not due to an incompetent DEI hire.
I didnt see the anchor's rigged for letting go in the photo go in the photograph. Areas of restricted navigation (such as entering harbours, inshore survey work)....the cable party rig the anchor's for instant use. Not to do so is poor seaman ship practices (ref The Admiralty Manual of Seamanship volume 2)
@@MichaelLaw-t1crunning smack into the vertical side of a reef ain’t gonna be managed with an anchor dropped into 120m of water. Ain’t gonna stop the boat! Unfortunately the truth won’t bob to the surface in an inquiry already compromised.
If you have had the pleasure or not of being sea going, you may have or not heard of how if the bridge make a monumental f up, they run down to the steering flat or engine room and attempt to do some damage, then blame the technical department (Engineers) for a technical failure. That might be an old Wives tale, But ! I would have to say, if they lost power so close to the reef the Master would have been summonsed asap, Pan Pan would have been broadcast, Muster to stations and the duty Engineers would have been on to it. Only a full incident report will provide the reality.
@@lynnedavies8056 yes sir. A briefing with the captain should have cleared up what happened in a couple of hours. By not telling us, they are telling us she fucked up bad.
@@antc5010 just for fun. Did a captain wreck her ship on a reef, back it off, have it catch fire, and sink causing an eco disaster? That we definitely without a doubt know. Is that acceptable for any captain? No. Due process? You don't think they will actually tell us the truth do you? Will they make the inquiry public? Will we see the crew testify? As soon as it isn't public, you will know its bullshit in the tradition of the British navy the NZ navy has its roots in. Ever see the 2 inquiries about why the titanic sunk? 1nis American, one is British. The British one is bullshit. Google it.
Straight on frontal impact under power. No excuses are acceptable. The inquiry is already voided by the Minister Collins commenting on issues which are utterly wrong.
The ship was fitted with 4 x diesel electric generators powering 2 x azimuth propulsion systems and 3 x bow thrusters. So maybe he means they lost the azimuth units?
Wasn't master, who was on watch, did they have DP tickets and electronic chart ticket? what was engine room Maning? Hit rock shaft moved engine ,fuel pipes shattered thus fire.
DEI navy: "There was no issue, this was a deliberate test program to see if the toxic male crew would follow the orders of their superior female lesbian leadership, under pressure."
Manawanui Power/Propulsion Loss? I my be wrong but it looked like the engines were running on the reef. Smoke from the stacks, but I guess the watertight doors do not work..
@@brianbarbarich1401 you are correct about being so near shore in any conditions. But... it's very well charted and she hit the reef at 645pm. We have videos from shore of the ship in the evening light. That's not nighttime. That's not hitting an uncharted reef. The reef is also clearly visible with the naked eye. She had power to back the ship off the reef. I can provide the link if you want it in which the NZ navy says as much. She fucked up badly.
@theodoresmith5272 OK your explanation well understood. I saw a video where they said the area around where the vessel ran aground was uncharted and apparently this vessel was surveying this area. The reef where the vessel ran aground on was known and charterd. As an ex seafarer I just wander why vessel was navigating so close to a reef and dangerous coastline because if anything went wrong with the vessel they were bound to hit a reef in that area. I did read they had engine problems, not sure if this was reason why they drifted onto the reef. I also saw another video saying the vessel was in this area because a member of the royal family was on the island, so not sure why vessel was in area. Agree with your last line of your comment. I do not know what happens with regards to a Navy Commander in this instance but I know as an ex Captain on commercial ship's I would be in big sh*t and most probably sitting in a jail awaiting trial. I would appreciate it if you could send me that link. I am interested in reading articles and watching videos about shipping accidents. Thank you. Cheers from Durban, South Africa.
@@brianbarbarich1401 I've heard they were chasing away illegal Chinese fisherman which is a huge problem. Who knows. Like I said it really doesn't matter. As far as the charting, the shallow water reef has been on charts since the 1800s. They do deep water surveys. Just remember to, if they are charting the bottom, you know how deep you are. The breaking waves on the reef can be seen.
@theodoresmith5272 we also have a huge problem with illegal fishing vessels along the South African Coast. Unfortunately Government does not have money to properly operate our inshore patrol vessels.
Oil contained by drifting away by currents😂😂. "Contained" was the wrong word for naval officials to use, when in fact fuel and other liquid is leaking into the sea.
You provide well balanced reporting, based on knowledge at the time. So it's hard to understand why this channel attracts such conspiracy filled, baseless, negative comments. We've seen it in relation to both the Bayesian and HMNZS Manawanui sinking.
The truth will never be revealed to protect the incompetent.
"We need to find out what happened, aparently it lost power, I'm aware of that, and ended up aground on the reef"
Objection: Speculation (We need to find out what happened = Dont know what happened)
Objection: Leading (aparently it lost power) ((Aparently)) *A* *leading* *question* *or* *answer* *which* *suggest* *THE* *ANSWER*
@@tiefblau2780
Nonsense. She was plainly indicating that a full understanding of the causal factors was not available yet but it was known that a loss of power was a factor.
In the first news, the bald guy said they hit the reef then tried to back off it. She did. That doomed her ship. What an idiot
@@tiefblau2780 It lost power. I've got a good mate in the Navy.
What a load of crap. You are a person who believes all the bullshit on UA-cam.
I suspect bullshit !
Truth will be hidden !
Captain will become a decorated hero !
Bloody disgusting
Probably will be nominated for a recognition of the highest order.
Well technically she can say she sunk a ship on a mission, so if we negate it being home goal, we got ourselves rear admiral material.
Protecting a fellow feminist and promoting to incompetence is no recipe for re election.
Cover-up in progress..
Conspiracy never holds back for the truth.
100% truth
The NZ defence Minister has been savaging anybody critical of the woman captain and the NZ Navy's DEI hiring policies and she has already announced that the gender of the captain had nothing to do with the incident. Well, the minister is an experienced lawyer turned politician and technically she is correct, yes, innately a female could be as competent as a male, however, all the criticism that I've seen is directly pointing the finger not at the captain being a female but rather at the NZ navy's more than decade long focus on DEI and on hiring women which could have reduced the capability of the vessel's captain to deal with the whatever emergency situation arose i.e. lose of power or whatever. But hey, the Minister has spoken and she already knows that their desire to get more women into commander positions has nothing to do with it- now we must ignore that the Minister is likely to completely lie and deflect and gaslight to avoid taking any blame whatsoever and especially avoid any criticism of hiring and preparedness practices. I mean anybody who suggests that a female captain who has a degree in primary school teaching and 20 years as a "warfare office" in the UK isn't totally qualified to command a massive Navy survey vessel is clearly a mysoginyst. The Minister also attacked a critic from melbourne who was I quote "only a truck driver" and obviously an "armchair admiral" and had no business critising the captain or the Navy or the herself. Fancy truck drivers thinking they are entitled to criticise such educated people such as the Minister or the Admiral? How dare they?
"There are reports of some small leaks but these are very small amount, and they are from the pipes that take the fuel around the ship, not the storage tanks."
Objection: Lack of Foundation
In order to testify about a particular event, the witness must have a basis to do so. This basis often comes from personal observation.
Objection: Hearsay : when the witness testifies about what he/she heard someone say, a hearsay objection may be made.
Yeah someone was saying this lawyer who somehow became the top boss of the military as Defence Minister, despite never being in the military or even working within or around it, let the mask slip as to her true feelings towards blue collar workers with her snide remarks about the trucker from Melbourne. It's interesting how she picked out his comment out of the millions that have been made around the world, including her own country of New Zealand. Just a cursory look on social media sites and you would find 1000's of comments from Kiwi's on this matter, many way more intense in what they said
Yeah right mate. Where's the photo of the 4 winners, 3 of who have banged up the boat a wee bit ,in their short career.
I heard it was because the tattooist was incapacitated.
Not the Gender is the issue only how they choose by creating criteria by Agenda
Lost power ... mmm. Should be easy to verify. Anything a politician, minister or lawyer says should be treated with total disbelief.
"We need to find out what happened, aparently it lost power, I'm aware of that, and ended up aground on the reef"
Objection: Speculation (We need to find out what happened = Dont know what happened)
Objection: Leading (aparently it lost power) ((Aparently)) *A* *leading* *question* *or* *answer* *which* *suggest* *THE* *ANSWER*
Total power loss. Mmm... according to the RNZN website the ship was fitted with:
4 x diesel electric generators powering 2 x azimuth propulsion systems and 3 x bow thrusters.
So without analysis of the VDR information having even been completed (as far as we know) the NZ Defence Minister is speculating about a probable cause of the grounding? Isn't this the same person who lashed out at armchair admirals & yet she is carrying-on like an armchair marine engineer/ship's captain. This on the same level of nonsense as the NZ admiral who declared there we no leaks. Interestingly enough, if you look at some pictures of the ship being abandoned you can see lights visible on the ship's deck. So there must have been some power? Also pictures of the sunken ship show it pointing toward the reef/coast. Does that means it was on that heading when it allegedly lost power?
The navy doesn't need a bureaucratic Court Of Inquiry (COI), instead they could start with a root cause analysis covering events leading up to the collision & actions afterwards. This would also cover the fairly hasty decision to leave the ship which officials have speculated saved lives. Is there any evidence to support that? Could they have waited for example for more boats to come out to assist & in the mean time tried some further damage control efforts? (this ship did take more than 12 hours to sink) Might also be helpful if the COI had a few less lawyers involved and a few more subject matter experts.
I have no idea what happened on that ship during this accident. There are only at the moment a lot of questions, but you would think NZ officials would do a lot less speculating & wait for the inquiry to provide answers. That would be the professional approach.
So far the official narrative seems to be: the ship hit a reef, it sunk, but what a great job was done getting everybody off.
The HMNZS Manwanui's propulsion system is diesel electric! Four Gen sets that drive drive two azimuth propulsion systems. This is highly reliable. It would be a very very unusual for such a system to completely fail! I would want to see an official report before I believe that to know this is not a "cover up"!!!!!
"We need to find out what happened, aparently it lost power, I'm aware of that, and ended up aground on the reef"
Objection: Speculation (We need to find out what happened = Dont know what happened)
Objection: Leading (aparently it lost power) ((Aparently)) *A* *leading* *question* *or* *answer* *which* *suggest* *THE* *ANSWER*
A full report usually takes at least a year. There is no suggestion of a cover up and it would be practically impossible anyway with so many witnesses and parties involved.
Diesel electric drives aren't as reliable as direct drive...all it takes is an electrical fault to lose control.
And yes...electrical faults are reasonably common.
@@charlesharper2357 This one was. When purchased by NZ, the ship wasn't even fitted with an anchor, so reliable was the gps powered dynamic positioning system.
@@Motumatai3The ship was bought 2nd hand for(approxs) NZD100 million, then had a NZD47 million refit.
Apparently lost power does not definitely mean that the vessel lost power. The seeds of deception are being sown.
A local who saw the vessel before it grounded on the reef said as soon as he saw the vessel before anything happened he was questioning why it was motoring so close to the reef. He said it was unusual for a vessel to be motoring where the navy ship was because of the close proximity to the reef.
@@Antipodean33due north and at speed at time of impact. No surveying underway and possibly not under command but this will remain as scuttlebutt given the membership of the enquiry and Collins’ perview. Lies and disinformation is the currency of the day.
Why does this dude seemingly refuse to even debate this woman captain is purely a product of DEI hiring/promotion? He believes everything the woman Defence Minister says, who is a lawyer by profession and has never had anything to do with the military or defence, who also shows her contempt for blue collar workers, who she believes have no place in commenting on this incident. Now wouldn't you think the position of a Defence Minister should/would go to someone who has made being in the military their life long career, someone who is wise to how the military operates and who would know what the military itself and the personnel require. The way this dude dismisses the notion put forward by many (including some NZ military personnel) that the captain of the wrecked vessel is the epitome of a DEI hire, makes one wonder why he would be instantly dismissive of this makes me wonder about his integrity and lets not mince words, his cowardice when it comes to even have a discussion about it. Their very own charter the NZ Navy has online dedicates pages and pages on their commitment to hire LGBTTQIA2+ etc etc
Because the enquiry has not been completed and published it's results, you gronk. All you have is speculation based on your bias against women and LGBT people.
collins is a nightmare of a human
Everyone is entitled to their opinions
What’s worse is a whole electorate voted for her.
What makes you say that?
@@antc5010 you make me say that,🌈🫰
@@fisher-y6c You hand me that power?
Plenty of weapons grade Kevlar being ordered for the weapons grade cover-up. 😂
Get Woke go Broke ...
Ministers will say what they can get way with.Any sign of an attempt to drop anchor when the drift became apparent? Perhaps it is too deep. Strange combination of bad judgement and bad luck. Every reason to conduct a court marshall asap.
"We need to find out what happened, aparently it lost power, I'm aware of that, and ended up aground on the reef"
Objection: Speculation (We need to find out what happened = Dont know what happened)
Objection: Leading (aparently it lost power) ((Aparently)) *A* *leading* *question* *or* *answer* *which* *suggest* *THE* *ANSWER*
There are photos of the anchors on the reef in the Samoan Observer. They will be removed as a priority because of the damage the chains are doing. So yes. Obviously the anchors were deployed. The drop off on the ocean side of the reef is steep so possibly they did not hold before it was blown onto the reef itself.
A court martial is something that would only happen if an investigation revealed an offence had been committed.
@@meofnz2320 Those photo's don't show any sign of the anchor dragging, and in looks to be in about the same depth as the vessel itself. I could be wrong, but I suspect they were set after the vessel was freed from the reef.
Thats a brilliant quick excuse, will get pride of place in the pool room, alongside," my dog ate my homework",
The good news I suppose is that due to the NZ government and it's commitment to the environment we should be able to get a detailed report of the pollution.
Something that often enough gets swept under the rug in other similar incidents around the world.
I clicked because if there is a reason this happened other than captain's incompetence, something out of her control, I sincerely want to know rather than just blame her.
However. The discrepancy between the Navy's report on fuel containment vs the report from external organization that dove to the wreck, leads me to believe the Navy is willing to mislead the public casting further doubts on their claims that it was not due to an incompetent DEI hire.
But the bridge had a lovely and valuable new collection of rugs on deck, shame as they sank with the ship
Why are NO ANCHORS OUT.
Hydraulic winches don't work without power.
@@louisavondart9178 Gravity still does though.
I didnt see the anchor's rigged for letting go in the photo go in the photograph. Areas of restricted navigation (such as entering harbours, inshore survey work)....the cable party rig the anchor's for instant use. Not to do so is poor seaman ship practices (ref The Admiralty Manual of Seamanship volume 2)
@@MichaelLaw-t1crunning smack into the vertical side of a reef ain’t gonna be managed with an anchor dropped into 120m of water. Ain’t gonna stop the boat! Unfortunately the truth won’t bob to the surface in an inquiry already compromised.
If you have had the pleasure or not of being sea going, you may have or not heard of how if the bridge make a monumental f up, they run down to the steering flat or engine room and attempt to do some damage, then blame the technical department (Engineers) for a technical failure. That might be an old Wives tale, But ! I would have to say, if they lost power so close to the reef the Master would have been summonsed asap, Pan Pan would have been broadcast, Muster to stations and the duty Engineers would have been on to it. Only a full incident report will provide the reality.
Don't believe anything that comes out of her mouth she should not be in politics
They know exactly what happened -- and why
@@lynnedavies8056 yes sir. A briefing with the captain should have cleared up what happened in a couple of hours. By not telling us, they are telling us she fucked up bad.
@@theodoresmith5272 Man your logic is screwed! Ever heard of due process. What's your right to demand answers know?
@@antc5010 what up bot. I checked your channel. How much do they pay?
@@antc5010 just for fun. Did a captain wreck her ship on a reef, back it off, have it catch fire, and sink causing an eco disaster? That we definitely without a doubt know. Is that acceptable for any captain? No. Due process? You don't think they will actually tell us the truth do you? Will they make the inquiry public? Will we see the crew testify? As soon as it isn't public, you will know its bullshit in the tradition of the British navy the NZ navy has its roots in.
Ever see the 2 inquiries about why the titanic sunk? 1nis American, one is British. The British one is bullshit. Google it.
Madness it took this long to tell us this. Judith has also decided not take on the woke cancer infesting our Navy. Disgusted but unsuprised!
DEI types cover for each other.
Straight on frontal impact under power. No excuses are acceptable. The inquiry is already voided by the Minister Collins commenting on issues which are utterly wrong.
Well technically she can say she sunk a ship on a mission, so if we negate it being home goal, we got ourselves rear admiral material.
I think it doubtful that the ship used petrol for its engines? Maybe therein lies the reason it lost power.
I wouldn’t believe anything the Navy or government say. Total cover up. Samoa should be doing an independent review
You can smell the pungent odor of BS from them.
DEI hires all around including the captain of that vessel
Loss of 2 of the 4 bow thrusters is what I’ve heard from my navy mates.
The ship was fitted with 4 x diesel electric generators powering 2 x azimuth propulsion systems and 3 x bow thrusters. So maybe he means they lost the azimuth units?
@@alangrant5278 how? Also they could have used the rudder for control.
Bollocks. Collins wouldn't know the meaning of the word truth.
Wasn't master, who was on watch, did they have DP tickets and electronic chart ticket?
what was engine room Maning?
Hit rock shaft moved engine ,fuel pipes shattered thus fire.
@@elaynewhite069 ships have many fuel cut offs.
I've got a good friend in the Navy. Within hours of it happening I heard that it lost power. They were surveying fault lines. (They found the fault).
Yes dear very little fuel & oil leakage isn't it. Well it would be wouldn't it.
Any time in history when a ship ran aground, it always fell on the master of the ship ie Captain... no she seems immune from being responsible.
DEI navy: "There was no issue, this was a deliberate test program to see if the toxic male crew would follow the orders of their superior female lesbian leadership, under pressure."
Pathetic!
The skipper swapped her battery powered toy for a diesel powered toy ... and look at the results !!!🥴😵💫😱
Sad thing.
Bullshit it hit at 10 knot's incompetent watch on bridge
Yes , also I would assume a ship would slow right down well before attempting to cross a well charted reef.
Manawanui Power/Propulsion Loss? I my be wrong but it looked like the engines were running on the reef. Smoke from the stacks, but I guess the watertight doors do not work..
Why so close to shore in uncharted waters during night time?
It's a bleeding survey vessel. It's supposed to be there, charting the bleeding reef. Cor blimey !
@@brianbarbarich1401 you are correct about being so near shore in any conditions. But...
it's very well charted and she hit the reef at 645pm. We have videos from shore of the ship in the evening light. That's not nighttime. That's not hitting an uncharted reef. The reef is also clearly visible with the naked eye. She had power to back the ship off the reef. I can provide the link if you want it in which the NZ navy says as much.
She fucked up badly.
@theodoresmith5272 OK your explanation well understood. I saw a video where they said the area around where the vessel ran aground was uncharted and apparently this vessel was surveying this area. The reef where the vessel ran aground on was known and charterd. As an ex seafarer I just wander why vessel was navigating so close to a reef and dangerous coastline because if anything went wrong with the vessel they were bound to hit a reef in that area. I did read they had engine problems, not sure if this was reason why they drifted onto the reef. I also saw another video saying the vessel was in this area because a member of the royal family was on the island, so not sure why vessel was in area. Agree with your last line of your comment. I do not know what happens with regards to a Navy Commander in this instance but I know as an ex Captain on commercial ship's I would be in big sh*t and most probably sitting in a jail awaiting trial. I would appreciate it if you could send me that link. I am interested in reading articles and watching videos about shipping accidents. Thank you. Cheers from Durban, South Africa.
@@brianbarbarich1401 I've heard they were chasing away illegal Chinese fisherman which is a huge problem. Who knows. Like I said it really doesn't matter. As far as the charting, the shallow water reef has been on charts since the 1800s. They do deep water surveys. Just remember to, if they are charting the bottom, you know how deep you are. The breaking waves on the reef can be seen.
@theodoresmith5272 we also have a huge problem with illegal fishing vessels along the South African Coast. Unfortunately Government does not have money to properly operate our inshore patrol vessels.
Oil contained by drifting away by currents😂😂.
"Contained" was the wrong word for naval officials to use, when in fact fuel and other liquid is leaking into the sea.
Blame the ship...of course.
Maybe the same software problem that is affecting the Ferries.
So, per NZ leadership, No leak and the sinking not the crew or captains fault. But Samoa, don’t provide food for your families until further notice.
Was any attempt made to save vessel and aviod environmental damage,or did they just give up at the first challenge.
Well, she’s a politician, so if she’s speaking the odds are she’s lying.
SURE THATS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED
At least The Dali can prove it lost Power, before it it the Bridge in Baltimore. These liars cannot even lie good.
How can a ship like that involved in ops like it is be powered by a single engine, disaster waiting to happen.
Its not. It has 4 engines driving 4 props in pods. Multiple diesel generators running everything. Power failure....NOT!
Load of cobblers, we will never really know the truth on why this vessel ran aground and caught fire, could it have been an insurance claim 🤣🤣
4 engines on that thig 🙄
Really smells like CYA operation not honest dealing with the environmental issues. Need much more info on the ship sinking events.
Had to resubscribe to your new named Chanel?
DEI is what happened
Lost power ,would have SLOWED DOWN , BASIC PHYSICS. Not even smart enough to say THROTTLE JAMED FULL POWER
😂😂😂😂
Rainbow Warrior
You provide well balanced reporting, based on knowledge at the time. So it's hard to understand why this channel attracts such conspiracy filled, baseless, negative comments. We've seen it in relation to both the Bayesian and HMNZS Manawanui sinking.
Yes, power loss.
Not fault of DEI.
It would not have happened if it was a man in charge.
Bull Crap.