Insurance does not absolve blame
It was some time ago that the Minister of Transport was on the national news telling us that the expensive accident suffered by the pilot boat when it hit a reef at high speed was covered by insurance and therefore no one was “to blame”. We still do not know if there was an internal inquiry into this accident and whether anyone was disciplined, but to suggest that because the damage was covered by insurance, ergo no one was at fault, is disingenuous at best.
If you are driving a car and hit a wall, it is usually as a result of accidental behaviour and the resultant damage is quite likely to be covered by your insurance policy. However, that does not mean you were not at fault. If there had been no fault, the car would not have hit the wall. It would have continued on the road. The driver erred and as a result the car hit the wall.
Whoever was at the helm of the pilot boat made an error. A grave and expensive error, as it turned out. Just because the expense fell on someone else’s bill (the insurance company, not the taxpayer - this time) does not mean that no one was at fault. If there had been no fault, the boat would not have struck the reef.
It also begs the question: if this was a training exercise, it was an abject failure and where was the trainer?