Damaging a ship or losing a part of its cargo has always been a career wrecker, ever since the days of sail. Owners, shippers and underwriters have little sympathy for "accidents". Someone must swing for it.
It did not have to be gross negligence, if there is ANY POSSIBLE action that might have been taken to avoid the accident, and it wasn't, it usually means retirement at best. In the Navy, running a ship aground, even with no damage, is still usually enough to put an end to a skipper's advancement, even if it was entirely a subordinate's fault. Only unusual circumstances, like an uncharted shoal, will let him get off. The skipper is generally held responsible unless it can actually be shown to be an "act of God".
For example, in this case, the skipper will probably lose his command, even though a Port of San Francisco Pilot was at his side giving him "local knowledge". The skipper is always responsible even if he gets bad or even incompetent advice from the Pilot.
Look what happened to Captain Bucher of the Pueblo. His unarmed ship gets taken by N Korean pirates while legally operating on the high seas, he receives no help when he calls, undergoes a cruel imprisonment but maintains the respect of his crew, and he loses his career. The Navy is even worse than the merchant service in this respect.
Current Events » in reply to The SF Bay incident is what we used to call an "accident."
It's not just another liberal plot.
