I think the thing that I disagree with is what i would call "Monday Morning Quarterbacking."
It is very easy to say someone should have seen something coming in hindsight - but how many of us can say we have never been blindsided by an unexpected event?
I was in a car accident where somebody pulled out in front of us - it was actually following another car that had crossed the highway in front of us about 30 seconds earlier.
When the first car went I said "that was the stupidest maneuver I have ever seen a driver do in my entire life."
I was wrong, the stupidest was yet to come, the second car that pulled out directly in front of us which we hit while going 65 miles per hour.
I have seen and heard cruise reporters saying they "know" Carnival went slack on their ship maintenance. I asked them how they know and the answer was "look at how badly they handled the PR
on the situation," and "Micky Arison tweeted from a basketball game during the Triumph crisis."
Yes, that was really bad handling of public relations, but how does that prove a completely separate division in Carnival slipped up and cheated on maintenance before the event. It doesn't. I personally disagree with people being negatively judgemental of the actions of others in one situation based on things they may have done in unaffiliated events. I call that prejudicial thinking.
John Heald said that his biggest fear was that the passengers on the ship would lose control. He did a great job of keeping them calm. Unfortunately, (as you said Mike) you cannot control what others decide to do, and the same was not true of the Triumph passengers. And after that Carnival took action by cutting off the alcohol, for example.
But there is no way anyone can predict everything a person will do. And based on what I heard, the famous "onion sandwich" situation only happened once. They adapted, but I don't think it is fair to expect people to be able to read minds and anticipate what people will do.