If you look at the article, they do not use his name. Even after there is a final judgment against him. He only got 60 days of probationary prison, while I personally found it weird he was the only one that got punished. I'm sure the punishment could be a lot worse.

On the name side, the names of the people involved where sparingly if at all mentioned in the press. The did use the names of ministers and top military and navy officers of course. But not the crew. I'm sure their peers knew who they where, and that some careers got hurt. But if you left the navy and did something else, it probably wouldn't follow you though.

▲

barrkel 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think it's a little bit perverse to pile a lot of punishment on the OOW when it seems pretty clear that it's a training and experience problem, combined with years of efforts to cut crew sizes.

The ship is lean crewed and relies on automation. When that fails, the lack of slack in the system - too few people responsible for too much, suddenly, in a situation they've never been in before - the cliff is much worse.

	▲	closewith 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> The ship is lean crewed and relies on automation. That is true in general and may be a reason for the lacklustre damage control efforts, but not on the bridge. Commercial vessels of any size usually have a bridge watch of two (OOW and lookout) to three (if a helmsman is needed). 7 is on the high-end for peacetime transits for a destroyer in friendly waters. 5 would be normal (OOW, quartermaster, helmsman and two lookouts). Only below that could be considered lean and the ship could be safely commanded with a watch of 2-3. The fact is that the watch and especially the OOW were negligent, in a manner you would not expect from a junior sea scout.