CASE STUDY: COSCO BUSAN

On November $7,2007,$ the $901$ foot, $65,000-$ton cargo vessel Cosco Busan collided with the San Francisco$-$Oakland Bay Bridge while departing the docks in Oakland in an unprecedented dense fog. Although no one was injured and the vessel did not sink, the vessel$$s side caved in causing a spill of $200$ tons $(53,569$gallons$)$ of heavy fuel oil into the bay. The resulting damage to the environment $($bay$,$ shoreline, birds, fish, commercial and recreational businesses dependent on the bay$)$ was huge. The oil cleanup alone cost $$70,000,000.$

As with all maritime accidents, the incident was fully investigated by the U$.$S$.$ government. Its National Transportation Safety Board $($NTSB$)$ had the responsibility for determining the fault for the accident and spill. $($This is the same agency that investigates airline and plane crashes.$)$ After investigation, the NTSB determined the following:

$--$In harbors all over the world, ships are controlled by $$ship$$s pilots$$; these pilots are mandatory because they are more familiar with the navigational dangers in their waters than the vessels$$ captains. Pilots are not employees of the ship but rather independent. The Cosco Busan$$s pilot, John Cota, was very experienced but also was a frequent user $($not abuser$)$ of prescription medications that might impair his faculties. As a result of his history of prescription drug use, the NTSB found Cota fully responsible for the accident despite a clean drug test shortly after the collision. He was fined and sentenced to a prison term for environmental crimes.

$--$the vessel$$s Captain, Mao Cai Sun, was always in command of the ship and could if he believed it necessary, overrule the pilot$$s navigation decisions. After all, the Captain is always responsible for the ship, crew, and cargo. The NTSB found that Captain Sun failed to communicate with Cota about a proper and safe course and failed to oversee Cota. As a result, Fleet Management, as the vessel owner which employed the Captain was fined $$20,000,000$ for criminal violations of environmental rules. The Captain was not disciplined by NTSB$.$

NTSB investigated several other factors that contributed to the accident:

$$ Inadequate training of vessel crew especially regarding failure to stand watch at the bow during dense fog.

$$ Caltrans$$ failure to maintain and operate its foghorns affixed to the bridge. They were silent during the fog.

$$ The U$.$S$.$ Coast Guard$$s $($USCG$)$ failure to verbally warn the pilot and Captain that USCG radar showed the ship$$s course was taking it directly into the bridge $($

$$ note this radar and warning system $($VTS$)$ functions like air traffic control equipment$).$

$$ Malfunctioning radar aboard Cosco Busan.

$$ Captain$$s errors in reading the ship$$s electronic navigation charts.

$$ USCG$$s failure to oversee and evaluate pilot Cota$$s medical records and prescriptions, all of which must be filed with their offices for pilots to be licensed and sent out on ships.

$$ Although the above $6$ factors did contribute to the accident, the NTSB found no basis for blaming the accident on these contributing factors, and instead blamed the accident primarily on pilot Cota and secondarily on Fleet Management. Remember the NTSB and the USCG are both departments of the Federal government.

Please answer in this format on how this case effects each role:

SIMAC $($Stakeholders$,$ Issues, Models, Application, Conclusion$)$

Step $1$: Summarize the facts and identify the ethical questions.

Step $2$: Perform SIMAC analysis:

A$.$ SHAREHOLDERS$/$OWNERS

B$.$ EMPLOYEES

C$.$ CUSTOMERS

D$.$ MANAGEMENT

E$.$ COMMUNITY $($local$/$regional$/$country$)$

F$.$ FUTURE GENERATIONS

G$.$ OTHER STAKEHOLDERS?

ISSUES

H$.$ INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

I. CORPORATE FACTORS

J$.$ SYSTEMIC FACTORS

MODELS

K$.$ UTILITARIANISM

L$.$ HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION

O$.$ ANALYZE THE ISSUES FROM A UTILITARIANISM PERSPECTIVE

P$.$ ANALYZE THE ISSUES FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE

CONCLUSION

MAKE A WELL$-$INFORMED BUSINESS DECISION BASED ON A UTILITARIANISM $,$ HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE $,$ AND$/$OR CARING ANALYSES. IF YOU AGREE WITH HOW THE ISSUES WERE HANDLED, EXPLAIN WHY. IF YOU DISAGREE, EXPLAIN WHY. IF YOU HAVE HANDLED THIS DIFFERENTLY, EXPLAIN HOW AND WHY?