Dear editor,Re: Recent letters against increased tanker traffic on our coast.It angers me that all the ideology and rhetorical scare-mongering only mentions very little of the facts surrounding any of these previous tragedies.The best one in the 鈥渃omments letters鈥� was the sinking of the Titanic 100 years ago and what could that possible have to do with the tanker traffic?Let鈥檚 look at the facts 鈥� the captain ignored warnings of icebergs, only changing course slightly, not even slowing down after dark. The captain鈥檚 only objective was to establish a fast crossing record. The lookout had no binoculars, and as for not being unsinkable would only mean under normal circumstances, and not expected when running into solid rock or an iceberg that may be of a size heavier than the ships tonnage.Some of the factors hold true of the Exxon Valdez.The captain was an alcoholic and had gone to bed. The pilot had already been dropped off. The vessel was beyond Coast Guard radar coverage. A course change had been made from the regular route due to floating ice, no drug or alcohol testing of crew, and days of delay before containment was started.The other and next recent incident is the sinking of the Queen of the North, which was not unusual as no one was steering the ship, other than being on autopilot.The captain had gone to bed, the officer in charge had deserted his post, the next in charge was chatting with the quarter master who was supposed to be steering but didn鈥檛 know how to turn off the autopilot.This is unbelievable, as we have been told how highly trained BC Ferries crews are with all the navigation aids in the wheelhouse, several radars with range systems, GPS and a clear night. All the many lights, navigation markers would be clearly visible.To use the previous sinkings as an argument to not allow more tankers using our waterways doesn鈥檛 stack up against the colossal amount of safety factors that will be in place.There will be two pilots on duty at all times, pilots using their own laptops and not depending on ship's navigational equipment, tanker tethered to tugs, all the satellite navigation equipment, GPS accurate to within feet, satellite phones, radars, etc.As far as narrow passages are concerned, how about Seymour Narrows with its thousands of ship passages yearly going both ways without any problems?Twenty of my 80-odd years were spent running up and down this coast from Washington State to the Alaskan boundary, both summer and winter fishing, towing, firefighting and salmon packing, so I am not totally green to marine navigation on this coast.James R. Muckle,Courtenay
