Talk:SS El Faro

SS El Faro Updates 19-Oct.-2021
In my attempt to reach this page [SS El Faro talk page] I unintentionally created a new talk page with the same title. My apologies; please see content below for original intent. If you/one knows where to put the content below please add. Thank you.

Reference 17 is a deadlink.

I wish to include all of the information below to the wiki however, I am not sure where to include the information.

Add reference to NTSB Investigation Number: DCA16MM001

SS El Faro coordinates “latitude 23.38125N, longitude 073.9111W” (DMS: 23°22'52.5"N 73°54'40.0"W) SOURCE: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/ElFaro-NTSB-full.pdf; URL, PDF (Pg. 2)

Sroth0616 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Steam ship
Let's be clear: steam ships without sails, do not "sail." Saying they sailed is both incorrect and unencyclopedic. The Dissident Aggressor 02:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be CLEARER! Most Merchant Mariners I've encountered among the ranks of seamen working for American Flag vessels, and belonging to American Merchant Mariner Unions, have for decades referred to the trade as "Sailing."  It's been the terminology, regardless of steam engine or diesel motor propulsion.    Marc S.  206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a general encyclopedia, not a maritime industry encylopedia. I'm not gonna revert, but as a mariner I think trying to stick the verb "steam" in there looks more like an editor is just trying to show off instead of communicate in a clear way.  It is obvious that the ship was not using wind propulsion, so that is not going to be confused.  The verb "sail" is a universally-understood general term for when a ship of any kind travels.  The infobox and article make it clear what form of propulsion she has, so it's not necessary to specify that MV Wiki Glory motors, SS Wiki Patriot steams, and the sailing vessel Wiki Pioneer sails.  81.85.69.212 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Steam" is probably the only alternative to "sail" when it comes to describing a ship moving across water in general text. I think in this article it works well as El Faro was in fact a turbine-driven steam ship, so there's no need to revert, but generally I'm reluctant to use the verb for motor vessels because they, obviously, do not run on steam. However, I don't really know of any alternative to "sail". "The ship motored across the sea"? "Smoked"? "Internally combusted"? Tupsumato (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Let's change it back to "sail"  The Dissident Aggressor 18:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, neither steamships nor motor vessels run on steam. They run on coffee. ;) 81.85.69.212 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A steam engine does not have internal combustion, but they still have to burn fuel oil to heat boilers to make the steam.206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sailed is fine, and steamed is probably fine here as well. However, if we really wanted to show off we would use hove instead of steamed or sailed. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Another way to communicate it, is to say the Vessel "was underway" at "X knots"  and "heading X degrees." Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I spent thirty years in the U.S. Navy on a number of ships. We always "sailed" from port.Oldbubblehead (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

In case any other pedants swing by later and want to stir this up again, let me just re-emphasise that _all_ motor vessels both sail and steam. (Simultaneously, in fact.) At sea, "to sail" and "to steam" are both synonyms for "to go"; this is formal as well as informal usage. That neither term is an accurate reflection of their propulsive technology is utterly and entirely beside the point. While we're at it, it's been a few weeks since any of them had steering oars either, but they all still have a starboard rail. Laodah 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

FUTURE Emergency Response Capability
The second guessing and speculation might save some mariners in the future. It could be beneficial, and vital, for the Coast Guard And the Navy to implement some sort of Maritime rescue team at the military base Guantanamo, Cuba. Perhaps a Guantanamo based rescue team might have saved that crew. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free image in infobox
I noticed someone had uploaded a non-free photograph from the shipping company's press kit. I propose replacing this by a free alternative by contacting the photographers at ShipSpotting and asking if someone could release one of the 19 photographs there under a Creative Commons license. Tupsumato (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the phrase "Press Kit" infer an intention to freely distribute for mass exploitation?  Marc S.  206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In principle yes, but a photograph published under Creative Commons (or equivalent free) license is preferred in Wikipedia. Tupsumato (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which means that if a free image is available, it must be used. A fair-use image is fine here in the absence of a free-use image as it is now impossible for someone to take an image of the vessel afloat and licence it for free use. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ask around at some point. Tupsumato (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add year, within first mention of each date, within each paragraph.
Please add at least one mention of the year within the beginning sentence of each paragraph when citing dates. For example, if somebody ten years from now were to scan over the current SS El Faro article, they would have no idea what year the hurricane occurred unless they looked elsewhere within the article. Matter of fact, several paragraphs have no mention of the year within the dates cited.

If I'm not mistaken from my high school English classes:
 * When using acronyms or abbreviations, always first initially define the acronym before usage throughout an article or story.
 * Same with the above, full dates should also likely be initially stated. Since current news Wikipedia articles rely heavily upon years changing throughout an article, I think it would be extremely appropriate to state the year alongside the date, at least once within each paragraph.

roger (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede clearly mentions the hurricane and sinking were in 2015, and this is reiterated at the start of the "Sinking" section appropriately: On September 30, 2015, at 2:00 a.m., El Faro left Jacksonville, Florida for San Juan, Puerto Rico... Unless another year is mentioned, it's assumed all events thereafter are in 2015. It's standard writing practice and addition of years in every paragraph would create unnecessary redundancy. All other mentions of years follow this same method: mention the year at the first usage of it and dates thereafter within said year are shown with just month/day. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Rescue Controversy
El Faro is in the news regarding the U.S. Coast Guard's failure to acknowledge that El Faro was in extremis.Oldbubblehead (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

NPV? The article clear levels blame on the master based on the say of the Coast Guard. This news feature paints a much more nuanced picture and make a strong case he was placed in a near impossible situation and let down at every turn.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/inside-el-faro-the-worst-us-maritime-disaster-in-decades — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Restoring a section
This comment was previously deleted without reason. I've edited it slightly for form:


 * I would like to note that the Title of the article is incorrect and should be changed. The "El Faro" was not a steamship (SS), but a motor vessel (M/V). A more appropriate title for this article would be "M/V El Faro," or "El Faro (ship)." In the maritime industry, including any US Coast Guard or American Bureau of Shipping database, the designation "SS" is only assigned to steamships, whereas motored vessel are designated "M/V." Other designations include "M/Y" (motor yacht), "USS" (united states ship), "HMS" (His/Her Majesty's Ship), "RMS" (Royal Mail Steamer), "SV" (Sailing Vessel), "SY" (Sailing Yacht), "R/V" (Research Vessel), etc. See Ship_prefix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.164 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's wrong please state that below here. Or make whatever other comments are appropriate. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the El Faro was steam powered and always had been. She was built at Sun Ship as a steamship as were all ships in her class. Not sure how M/V entered the discussion, but it is positively and completely wrong. Bob Frump Former Managing Editor of the Journal of Commerce. Author, Until the Sea Shall Free Them. Frumped.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrsaxton1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SS El Faro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220124652/http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/58000-58499/58116/598417.pdf to http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/58000-58499/58116/598417.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External link
This exists. It is an external link, and is not being used as a source. Some editor claims it is "not credible." Let the readers decide for themselves. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Bell thinks it isn't credible, but I explained why it shouldn't be there in my edit summary just now. VQuakr (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Added it as a reference. That should end the controversy.  WP:Dead horse.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Jones Act
The true root cause of the death of these 33 sailors is the protectionist Jones Act. I think a section of the article should discuss this. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/el-faro-tragedy-caused-by-bad-regulation-jones-act/ --Westwind273 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Voice Recorder
I don't think we should include as much of that harrowing audio log. It is way too much detail. We want to write articles and reference them, not reproduce conversation protocols or recordings and let them stand on their own. -- Theoprakt (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Article for Captain Davidson
Should we make an article for Michael Davidson, the El Faro's captain? -- Liesa Hicks

Source that TOTE "opted for the ship to continue"
The link for the source for this line is dead.

"TOTE could have vetoed the captain's sail plan into the area of a predicted hurricane, but chose not to and opted for the ship to continue. The company said there was no incentive for Davidson to maintain the ship's schedule, but that the schedule also appeared to be a safe one."

If there is in fact a good source for it should be easy to find as it directly contradicts the official findings. From the USCG report:

9.1.1.1. TOTE did not ensure the safety of marine operations and failed to provide shore side nautical operations supports to its vessels. 9.1.1.2. TOTE did not identify heavy weather as a risk in the Safety Management System (SMS) and the Coast Guard had not exercised its flag state authority to require identification of specific risks. 9.1.1.3. TOTE and the Master '''did not adequately identify the risk of heavy weather when preparing, evaluating, and approving the voyage plan prior to departure on the accident voyage.''' 9.1.1.4. TOTE and the Master and ship’s officers were not aware of vessel vulnerabilities and operating limitations in heavy weather conditions. 9.1.1.5. TOTE did not provide the tools and protocols for accurate weather observations. The Master and navigation crew did not adequately or accurately assess and report observed weather conditions. 9.1.1.6. TOTE did not provide adequate support and oversight to the crew of EL FARO during the accident voyage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptCarlsen (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's from the USCG report.

Oversight of Nautical Operations. TOTE regarded captains as the primary nautical experts. According to the director of marine safety and services, '''“There is no one in the company that formally provides oversight for nautical. We depend on the captains to take on that role.”CaptCarlsen (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC) '''

Deleted the line in question. The term "oversight" occurs in the USCG report 42 times and in the NTSB report 29 times. Nowhere do the reports support the claim that TOTE "opted for the ship to continue" however the fact that TOTE did not provide oversight is very well documented.CaptCarlsen (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Some references should be updated.
Several of the references in this article are news items from before the results of the investigations were known and should be replaced with more recent ones that are more accurate and up-to-date. Replacing the references with better ones may also require some editing of the article itself. CaptCarlsen (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"The ship's master, Captain Michael Davidson, charted a course that, according to TOTE Maritime, took the vessel a reasonably safe distance away from the hurricane"

Hurricane avoidance at sea requires recurring risk analysis but the statement from TOTE only refers to the ship's departure from Jacksonville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptCarlsen (talk • contribs) 11:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Propose change Voyage Data Recorder audio to a timeline
Without the context of a timeline the audio seems somewhat gratuitous. Propose replace most if not all of the VDR audio with a timeline.CaptCarlsen (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)