Former El Faro crewman highlights alternate routes, Captain's attorney fights back

Since the first day of the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation hearing on the El Faro sinking, one of the big questions has been how substantially the Captain altered the ship’s route on the fatal voyage, and why it wasn’t changed more.

During the third day of the hearing, we’re starting to get those answers.

Investigators have specifically been looking at a voyage the El Faro took just a few weeks prior to sinking, where it altered its route because of Tropical Storm Erika. Instead of the most efficient route between Jacksonville and San Juan, the ship moved to the west side of the Bahamas- adding about 160 nautical miles and six hours to their journey, but diminishing the impact of the storm.

“The Islands are our savior,” says former El Faro Second Mate Charles Baird.

In the El Faro’s voyage when it encountered Hurricane Joaquin, the Captain mostly stayed with the normal route, moving some to the south in an effort to skirt the storm.

GALLERY: El Faro wreckage

Baird- who now serves on the El Faro’s sister ship El Yunque- was called in front of the MBOI Thursday. He told investigators he recommended to Captain Michael Davidson that they take an alternate route to get around Erika, and Davidson agreed within the hour. He wasn’t able to say whether Davidson reached out to TOTE Services- the El Faro’s operator- in the time it took him to approve the plan.

On the voyage where El Faro encountered Joaquin, Baird says he was on vacation, but texted Davidson when he saw news about the storm. Baird says he pointed out alternate routes to Davidson, and Davidson said he intended to stay on the general route he was on, but move enough in order to stay on the fringe. Baird says there were two possible alternate routes, one including doubling back and one including cutting through a channel to join the route which they had taken during Erika.

“If the weather forecast for the entire voyage was incorrect, that would be a significant factor, correct?” Asked William Bennett, the attorney for Davidson’s widow.

“That’s affirmative, yes,” answered Baird.

Bennet pointed out the forecasting for Joaquin was erratic, and in many cases wrong.

“You don’t know what the Captain was seeing do you?”

“No,” Baird responded.

“You don’t know what the wave condition was, correct?” asked Bennett.

“I don’t know anything about what was going on,” Baird responded.

Given that, Bennett said comparing the response to Erika and the response to Joaquin is “apples and oranges”.

Additionally, when questioning Baird, Bennett pointed out- and Baird agreed- that Davidson had previously shown he would carefully consider the current weather circumstance, the forecasting, and other factors in order to determine the best route. In fact, Baird was the second witness to describe Davidson as “meticulous”. Bennett pointed out if the Captain had done that in the past, it was easy to imagine he did it again- taking full account of all factor when considering what path he put the vessel on- and there was no proof otherwise because there were no survivors on board.

Additionally, Bennett answered to questions of Davidson not being involved enough with deck operations. He asked Baird whether the crew morale could benefit from a Captain that wasn't micro-managing, to which Baird says that could be effective.

WOKV is at the Coast Guard hearings and will continue to bring you instant updates on Twitter.