Change my location 
|
|
Article History There are updates to this article.
)
The pilot of the Cosco Busan, the ship that struck the Bay Bridge tower and dumped 58,000 gallons of oil into the Bay, voluntarily turned in his federal merchant marine officers license today
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The pilot of the Cosco Busan voluntarily turned in his federal merchant marine officers license today, the U.S. Coast Guard reported.
Capt. John Cota was piloting the 900-foot container ship in dense fog early the morning of Nov. 7 when it struck the fendering system of a Bay Bridge tower, opening a gash in the ship's side and spilling 58,000 gallons
of oil into San Francisco Bay.
Coast Guard officials requested he give up the license because they believe Cota is not physically competent to maintain the federal license.
"Upon review of Cota's federal license files following the (Cosco Busan) incident the Coast Guard discovered competency issues which cause concern about his ability to safely serve under his federal license," a statement from the Coast Guard read.
The administrative procedure requesting Cota surrender the federal license is used "where there is evidence of mental or physical incompetence," according to the Coast Guard.
The license can be returned if the Coast Guard is satisfied Cota is "fit for full duty without qualification."
 Not ranked |
 EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY 
Comments from Examiner Readers
6:17 AM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007 re: "Cosco Busan owners pay $80M to leave"
Report as inappropriate
6:12 AM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007
re: "Tests show Bay water is clean"
Report as inappropriate
11:56 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "Cosco Busan owners pay $80M to leave"
Report as inappropriate
1:23 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "Group turns oil into food for ’shrooms"
Report as inappropriate
10:30 AM MST on Tue., Dec. 11, 2007
re: "Bay spill lawsuits pour in"
Report as inappropriate
1:50 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
12:40 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
12:00 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
9:34 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 29, 2007
re: "Waters now safe, fishing to resume"
Report as inappropriate
9:32 AM MST on Thu., Nov. 29, 2007
re: "Bay Bridge bumper bits lost"
Report as inappropriate
11:34 AM MST on Mon., Nov. 26, 2007
re: "Birds death toll continues climb following oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Examiner Reader said: The ship's destination was QINQDAO (Tsingtao), China, not Korea as reported above. 7 agree | 6 disagree Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree How does one disagree with a statement of provable fact?
148 agree | 139 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"Additionally, state officials said that tests conducted by a California Department of Fish and Game biologist last week that found what seemed to be oil found in local herring fisheries were “inclusive,” according to Lt. Rob Roberts of the Department of Fish and Game’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response." Perhaps "inconclusive" was intended
122 agree | 101 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The ship's destination was QINQDAO (Tsingtao), China, not Korea as reported above.
158 agree | 163 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The Coast Guard did not turn away the Fire Department boat that came to investigate. That is false. The Coast Guard did, inform them of the 100 yard safey zoen around the Cosco Busan after the incident occurred. The statement implies that the Coast Guard is covering up this incident, which is ridiculous.
193 agree | 147 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Hey, SFoff, I live in SF and yes my county did fail miserably in their response. I just wonder if Dennis Herrera is really going to believe that he will get 25K for each day of the spill from Captain Cota.
137 agree | 141 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
SFoff said:
Dear Examiner reader (first grade level, apparently)12:40pm. There was no mention of S.F. being the only county affected by the spill. The article was from a San Francisco Newspaper, regarding San Francisco's response to the oil spill. Not very obscure. It's all clear in context. Nobody was wondering why SF. "was not kept in the loop". He is questioning why S.F. did not enter the loop of it's own accord, considering how much "training and partnership" had been established. Are we supposed to be happy with our particular cities response because your county also failed miserably to do anything in time to prevent this problem? And BTW, S.F. is not the center of the Universe, just the Solar System, but thanks for the exaggeration!
157 agree | 167 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
... and San Francisco was the only city, the only county affected by this spill. It seems that SF is to self-centered in this incident, wondering why it was not kept in teh loop. It seems that many other cities and counties were affected by this incident. way to go SF. Show you true colors. If ross Mirkirami wants to be mayor in 2012 then he should just come out and proclaim that San Francisco is in fact, the center of the universe. Then he will get my vote
160 agree | 146 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Seems strange that we would be knocking ourselves up for something we had little control over and had misleading info about. One would think you can rely on the Coast Guard to provide accurate info, since this IS their jurisdiction, but to get the info wrong hours later and even when others are pointing out that it's a LARGE spill (and to ignore this emergency) seems unconscionable. This, to me, should be about the ship crashing into the bridge tower and the bungled response of the Coast Guard, their effect on the greater Bay Area and effective preventive measures.
159 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Its my understanding two-thirds of the 58,000 gallons of oil is unaccounted for and will remain so. The water quality of San Francisco Bay was questionable before this event. Some sort of blanket statement regarding the "safeness" of the bay water seems a bit dubious to me.
318 agree | 168 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Having said that black made it harder to find the missing pieces of plastic lumber, they're going to use black again for the replacement?!! Foolish.
391 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Very self indulgent of you to equate an oil spill dead birds and your situation. Get over it already.
245 agree | 185 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree