Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
Cite please.
And trust me on this one. They aren't goint to risk a billion dollar vessel over a bill to NOAA.
|
Why should they spend the money to update charts when the need to do so has not been previously demonstrated? I cannot remember if the original source of that was the BBC World Service or the NY Times. But the fact was reported within two days of the collision - weeks ago. Evidence of the underwater mountain existance was (if I remember) from magnetic observations from satellites (not necessarily NOAA satellites. And they did not report details of a previously unknown technology). Navy charts for that region about 300 miles off Guam stated possible obstructions may exist in that region - but showed no specific example. Picture of that chart was from a TV new report. Depth numbers on that chart were quite few.
Trust nothing. Even in WWII, the army moved through Europe without sufficient maps. Patton was using Michelin road maps. Why would you expect humans today to be any more responsible? Ever try to get things fixed when a failure has never happened? Every engineer said not to launch Challenger - and seven people died predictably. When decisions are being made only using money as the principle, then it would be impossible to justify the expense - especially if not demonstrated necessary by previous example. (In the FAA, its called a graveyard mentality.) Today, it would be real easy to get those maps updated now that the cost can be measured accurately on the spread sheets.