MorganMars

Good Morning,

I came across a paper that some may find interesting and others may find a bit dry, but here it is.

Costa Concordia: Anatomy of an organisational accident by Capt. Antonio Di Lieto

http://www.enav-international.com/wosmedia/273/costaconcordiaanatomyofanorganisationalaccident.pdf

Regards,

MorganMars

My pleasure, Micki,

I knew right where to find it based on research I had done earlier on the anchors.

Regards,

MorganMars

Thanks Morgan Mars. I had an errand to run and then was going to look for the video.

 

I had forgotten about that rock coming up on the 4 minute mark. It was pretty wide.

Here is one of the videos http://news.discovery.com/earth/video-exclusive-underwater-damage-concordia-120218.html

Regards,

MorganMars

"the report confirmed that the two pieces of rock on which the ship balances have worrisome cracks."

 

 

CT, I remember something about cracks in the rocks the ship is resting on. The talk was that the Bridge wing is balanced on a rock at the front and the aft on another but much of what's between is not resting on anything.

 

Seem to recall some video showing that too. At the time video was made, the cracks were not wide but you could clearly see them.

 

As to when, it's been more than a few months ago. May have been one of the specials on Concordia.

Max,

There is a huge difference between a defense of Schettino and a defense of critical thinking and reasoned judgement.

Regards,

MorganMars

I am amazed that some of you continue to "try" to make excuses for this man, for whatever reason. Maybe bleeding hearts, maybe it's just ''every body's fault, there are no winners or losers, we don't keep score and we don't want to make schettino feel bad"

Lighten up, get crunchetized

To get back on topic and away from the cartoonish stuff:

Here are a couple of links to articles that were published shortly after the accident that may have been overlooked, or even, disregarded.

http://gcaptain.com/costa-concordia-3-fatal-flaws-that-led-to-disaster/

http://gcaptain.com/in-defense-of-captain-schettino-the-lives-he-did-save/?37994

Regards,

MorganMars

Thank you, Lyn,

I fell off a bike in Cambridge some time ago and injured my ankle. I found this ankle support at the local Boots and have been buying them ever since as both of my ankles give me problems now. Even bought one for my grandson when he injured his ankle in a fall.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Futuro-FUTURO-ADJUSTABLE-ANKLE-SUPPORT/dp/B0057D867O/ref=sr_1_70?s=drugstore&ie=UTF8&qid=1345409769&sr=1-70

Regards,

Mary

the one we have opens out to a 3 leg stool .When folded it looks a little odd with the round seat part half way up the column but it works well as a cane.

The seat is a little low-he found it difficult to lever out of prior to hip replacement but manages fine now his ankle is the dodgy joint

 

Lyn

I understand your point, CostaSmurfette. My point is that this is par for the course and that ultimately the Concordia disaster could very well have a similar outcome. Unlike, Uniall, I don't believe that the court of public opinion is ever satisfied, and probably rightfully so in a civilized society. There are too many monuments to martyrs to think otherwise IMHO.

Regards,

MorganMars

The point is that those who were ultimately responsible...Rogers & his crew, who were actually filmed live during the entire events leading to the shooting down of Iran Air 655, were NEVER prosecuted. A Court Martial was heard but it got fogged by the authorities, no-one was actually punished.

I must admit, somewhat ashamedly, to being totally unaware of this incident, probably due to being involved in personal life tragedies at the time. It has been interesting, and rather enlightening, to read about this 24 years after the incident in that it provides a more historical perspective, which may give some indication of the ultimate outcome of the current Concordia investigations. Good ol' Wikipedia says:

In February 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident,[27] together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.[4] US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner). In total 290 civilians on board (including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children) were killed. It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned, though it appears a close approximation of the value of a used A300 jet at the time. Further compensation was paid for the 38 non-Iranian deaths. The payment of compensation was explicitly characterized by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for what happened.

So, evidently compensation was paid, but I believe it is fairly typical in most settlement agreements for parties to not admit liability. I also note that it took 8 years to reach a settlement. How many of us are still going to be posting on this forum in 8 years?

For the legalists, the settlement agreement can be found at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/79/11131.pdf

Regards,

MorganMars

All the Iranian's wanted was an open investigation, fair punishment for those ultimately responsible and a sincere apology by way of compensation towards the families of the 290 who died as a result of commander Roger's and his crew making fatal mistakes.

 

Just as those left behind from Concordia want an open investigation, fair punishment for those ultimately responsible and a sincere apology by way of compensation towards the families of the 32 who died as a result of captain Schettino and his crew making fatal mistakes.

Lyn,

Enjoying your posts as I am preparing to take the Jade in December and have mobility issues, too.

I am interested in knowing more about the seat canes as I am often just looking around for some place to sit for a bit. I've browsed online, but am concerned that the seat canes I've seen may not function well as a cane. What have you found that works best?

Regards,

Mary

yes a shame we missed each other-Ian now has quite a collection of canes-seat ones,ergometric ones to fit the curve of your hand,collapsable ones,ones with grab handles and magenets on -who knows if the traders in the Grand Bazaar had just left us alone to browes and actually displayed the prices may even have bought one in Istanbul!

 

glad to see this is relevant to people with similar mobility problems-please let me know if you have any specific questions

 

Lyn

VP,

Wish CC had a like button.;) That was great! I love it when you talk nautical!:D

MorganMars

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A properly planned and executed sail-by is safe. It does not increase the risk harm to the safe conduct of the sailing.

 

For example, consider the following. The data is from a GPS log of a ship nearly 1000 feet long. The comments are mine.

 

7:49pm. An evening in early December and it is very dark. Whilst travelling at 10 knots, the water under our keel is 15 metres deep and currently we are drawing 8 metres. We are 300 metres away on our port side from running aground.

 

7:56pm. Speed, 10 knots. If we continue our present course, in 0.6 nautical miles we will be aground. To our portside, we are 200 metres away from shallow water. We start an 80-degree turn to starboard to avoid the seabed ahead of us.

 

8:05pm. Thre is less than 200 metres from shallow water on our port side, the Captain has increased speed to 12 knots.

 

8:18pm. The Captain has increased speed to 20 knots. The shallow water on our port side is now 500 yards away.

 

Now that sounds a lot scarier than a properly planned and executed sail-by, doesn't it? And yet it's considered safe passage. It's the route a ship takes coming out of Southampton, England.

 

VP

Ok, that (Watertheodds) reminded me of this:

The following is being transmitted around the Internet as an event that really took place, but it never happened. It is simply an old joke like those found in popular magazines:

watertheodds,

A number of previous posts addressed this and I am having technical difficulties quoting your message and locating the previous posts, so please forgive the quick reply. There is no problem with ships traveling east of the island and that is a typical course. The "voyage plan" can be found beginning on page 8 in the Investigative Report at http://www.seereisenportal.de/fileadmin/Downloads/Italian_Maritime_MSC90_Presentation_Costa_Concordia.pdf

Even that planned course presents no difficulties, but there was obviously a navigational error that took the ship too close to shore. There is a difference between a course deviation and a navigational error. Course deviations are typically planned and properly executed. Navigational errors are not . Also, please keep in mind that many navigational errors result in no damage. Navigational errors can result from several causes, but it normally involves human error.

Regards,

MorganMars

Some additional related information: August 2011 sailby with Captain Massimo Garbarino

http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/USA/HereForYou/SkilledCrew/KnowCrew/default.htm#Massimo-Garbarino

Previously discussed on CC at http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1548995

Uni ... take a look at this News video regarding the routes taken by Concordia, interesting to note that the claimed sailby of August 2011 as being in the Daylight by CT is clearly in the darkness!!

 

 

With regard to the Olympics .... not watched it have more interesting things to do and do not take aspirin.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/4664013/25-years-on-ship-pilot-still-silent

The Ministry of Transport held a preliminary inquiry immediately after the sinking, led by Captain Steve Ponsford.

The Express reported on March 7, 1986, that the inquiry found Mr Jamison was responsible, but Mr Ponsford would not say what explanation Mr Jamison gave him for trying to take the ship through the passage.

 

"All the inquiry had to establish was the facts of the sinking. It was not our role to go into the reasons for Captain Jamison's actions and I'm not a psychologist," the Express quoted Mr Ponsford as saying at the time.

 

The Marlborough Harbour Board and the ship's owners came to an out-of-court settlement for damages.

 

Mr Ponsford recommended that no formal investigation be held, which was backed by then transport minister Richard Prebble.

 

Mr Prebble said on the 20th anniversary of the sinking that he had written to the Russians to offer an inquiry, but was told it was not necessary.

 

The ministry also wrote to Mr Jamison and suggested "very strongly" that he surrender his pilot's licence, which he did.

 

Mr Jamison was not charged because New Zealand-registered pilots working on foreign ships could not be prosecuted. The law has since been changed.

 

Mr Jamison later applied for and was re-issued his pilot's licence. He worked for Strait Shipping for a decade before retiring in 2001.

 

The Mikhail Lermontov's captain, Vladislav Vorobyov, who was not on the bridge when the ship hit the rocks, was given a suspended four-year jail sentence after an inquiry in the former Soviet Union.

 

The ship lies on its side at the bottom of Port Gore, 33 metres below the surface, and has become a popular diving attraction.

I have been trying to find out what happened to the Captain, Pilot and bridge officers from the Lermontov in respect to accountability, but have drawn a blank as to whether or not they faced any form of legal punishment.

As to any legal action taken against the owners, operators, crew or the errant Pilot of Lermontov...especially in view that a crewman died and many others hurt...is unknown. That is a pity since it might act as a guide to possible outcomes this time around.

I have been thinking back and remembering that someone in the earliest discussions here had suggested that when Costa began to disassociate themselves from Schettino, it was not the usual response for a company to take. They said that it was a high risk damage control strategy that would open Costa up to questions regarding their corporate structure, how they pick their captains, why other crew members didn't question the captains decisions, etc., etc., etc.

I am no fan of Schettino. I cannot understand his, to me, disgraceful actions that night. It does appear at this point, though, that Costa's strategy was the right one, since everyone is focused on Schettino and very little attention has been paid to other possible contributing factors until the posts of the last few days and it still seems to be hard to let go of the picture of Schettino as the one and only villain in the piece. But, I think that we would be wise to at least consider the alternatives.

Having been a captain, I always have a mariners perspective on a cruise which may offer me some advantage in a crisis situation but, even so, some of my mariner friends won't step foot on a cruise ship because of the perceived safety issues. They would rather cross the Atlantic in a 35' sailboat than risk being on a cruise ship that is "too big to fail", under the control of someone they don't know if they can trust or not, and with 4,000 people that are supposed to be able to abandon ship in 30 minutes.

What I am trying to say, is that it won't hurt for us to keep an open mind about some of the things besides the captain that may have contributed to this disaster. I doubt that we know the half of it.

Regards,

MorganMars

Wow! I don't think I'm reading the same posts by Smurf that you, and some others, are. I have never had the impression that she was saying it is not Schettinos fault (if indeed fault can be placed), she has only offered alternative scenariors and taking it as a defense of Schettino only happens if some statements are taken in isolation and out of context. I see all of these scenarios as possiblities in the "real world" just as your take on the whistleblower scenario exists in the "real world." Much as we might like it to be a "right or wrong" situation, I think we are all mature enough to know that the "real world" is nothing but gray.

Incidentally, I am going to be in Civi in December and have thought about taking a detour to Giglio. Anyone else considered it, or would advise against it?

Regards,

MorganMars

"Geeze, you and Smurf seem to think he was punished enough already"

 

I understand "and appreciate" that others may know more about a situation and have a differing opinion than mine, and maybe I could be persuaded to acknowledge that they may be right and I may change my opinion also. Smurf is a great writer and obviously intelligent and I told that I thought she was. She is also certainly entitled to her opinion. However she has repeatedly insisted that it was not Schettinos fault and has said it was the junior officers fault many times over. She has said the junior officers have since said some unflattering things about Schettino, daredevil, devil may care, risk taker etc. (I would like to see these also, but I have not) I thought Schettino was the only one talking. She also has blamed Brozio. She has now upped the ante that now it was not only not Schettinos fault, but he has "fallen on his sword" to protect his crew who was actually at fault, and he is such a martyr that he is going to for sake his career to save the younger Brozios career. (spell check on Brozio) OMG this sounds so bizarre to me and IMO only a lover or very close familiy could even dream up this defense.

I and several others have asked her many times, "How do you know this", a very simple question but she ignores it.

I have not seen or heard any thing to make me feel it was not Schettinos fault except I do feel Costa has informally approved the sail bys. I also think there was some kind of rivalry between some captains about who was the most daring, and Schettino was very competetive.

If Smurf had some evidence that it was all the crews fault and not Schettino, she should post it up or tell us how she knows. She might win me and many others over.

I'm not just "out to get Schettino", it's just that every thing I have read or heard of makes me feel he is 90+ % responsible. I believe Costa unofficially approved the sail bys for publicity and entertainment(unofficial is so if any thing does go wrong, it's the captains fault) but Schettino is still responsible , no body made him do it. This is also why I don't think Smurfs 'whisle blower' idea works in the real world. Jr office goes to management, "the captain is too risky, he gets to close to the island" Costa says "we'll look into it". Costa call the capt and says 'joe' is complaining that you get to close to the island, has he been a trouble maker for you? Do we need to find another job for him?

Of course I know none of this but these are real scenario possibilities that I have seen in my lifetime,

Vampire Parrot,

Thank you, so much. That was my gut instinct, but I much prefer having the facts and figures. I appreciate you providing the details.

Thanks, again,

MorganMars

The IMO (International Maritime Organization) rules require that in a hard turn to starboard or port whilst underway, a ship's advance must be less than 4.5 times the ship's length. The advance is the distance ahead of the ship (just as she starts the turn) that is required to turn the ship through 90 degrees.

 

Concordia was 290 metres in length, therefore she would require a maximum of 4.5x290 = 1305 metres to turn through 90 degrees. Being a cruise ship she is probably more maneuverable than a typical cargo ship and thus has a smaller turning circle and thus a shorter advance. But I'll assume that Concordia only just meets IMO regulations, i.e. I'll use the worst-case numbers.

 

As she started her turn she was doing 16 knots, so she's taking 3 minutes and 45 seconds to cover a nautical mile, which is 1852 metres. Assuming the turn is a constant radius - which it isn't, it actually tightens and so again my numbers are "worst case" and Concordia would do better - she'd cover 2049 metres total distance for a 90 degree turn to starboard, which would take about 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

 

She didn't need to turn through 90 degrees to miss the rocks, a 70 degree turn would have been sufficient but again I'll ignore that, I'll keep using "worst case" numbers.

 

I would bet a large sum that it would take Concordia less time to make a 90 degree turn and the advance to be significantly less than 1805 metres. I would love to see Concordia's wheel house poster which has all the relevant data on it.

 

So in answer to the question, Concordia should very easily have been able to make the turn to starboard.

 

VP

I have a question for those mariners with experience of the "yaw radius" of these ships. On page 12 of the report I have been reading, it states the ship's position at 42 degrees 20 minutes 12 seconds N; 010 degrees 58 minutes 19 seconds E at 2137 hours, and 1.8 miles off Giglio as they begin to make the turn. Seven minutes later, at 2144 hours, the position is 42 degrees 21 minutes 05 seconds N; 010 degrees 56 minutes E, and 0.3 miles off the rocks of Giglio. They've traveled West for 1.5 miles in that seven minutes according to the report, though I don't have the charts to plot the course. Would it typically take that long to make the turn to starboard and head North?

Regards,

MorganMars

While I don't buy the "second rock" thing, I have been at sea at night and it is pretty amazing what you can see when you have become accustomed to it. We call it "night vision." Seeing waves breaking on a rock is entirely possible in my experience. The rest of it, :eek:!

Regards,

MorganMars

Here is where the "incorrect charts" defense falls apart for me, and I could be wrong. Schettino claims he was aware of Le Scole and that he had set the minimum distance to pass one rock in particular which was charted and was picked up by radar. (Also said he knew the area, knew the depths, had made the same move three or four times before, etc.) But on this go round, there was a second rock - undetected - that he saw only at the last second when he looked out over the bow. This uncharted second rock was under water, apparently, but the foam off it caught his eye and alerted him to something there. Then he knew...

 

But this was at night! Certainly, the ship's lights might have illuminated that, but he saw this at a glance (with his vision) at night?

 

Seems he and his legal team undoubtedly realize that that part of the story will not hold up if the charts indeed were accurate. Now they're focusing on "bad information," insisting that his crew never warned him they were closer than he had thought they would be when he arrived on the bridge. As a captain, do you not specifically get a handle on that when you take over the command?

 

As told his boss, this happened because he "messed up." He decided to make this salute at night. He delayed making the general and emergency alarms. He left his ship and did not return. He abandoned his passengers and crew. And made matters worse by lying and lying: "It's only a blackout." "Go back to your cabins.""We were sailing 300m from the coast and the chart showed the rocks at 150m, so we shouldn't have hit it." "We were the last to leave the ship." "I fell..."

While the course to Giglio is often questioned, I believe that a careful reading of the Marine Accident Investigation as of May 18th, does not indicate a concern with that course by the Maritime Investigative Body, only stating that the ship is "off the planned course - much more close to the coast compared to the planned route." (This is on page 14 where the planned course is shown), which is still only .5 mile difference. What they DO take issue with, as do I, is the "delay in sounding the 'General Emergency' alarm and taking timely steps to abandon the ship." (page 55) Pages 56 through 60 layout all the items that are still to be investigated.

http://www.seereisenportal.de/fileadmin/Downloads/Italian_Maritime_MSC90_Presentation_Costa_Concordia.pdf

Just saying that if we are not going to find ourselves tremendously dissatisfied with the eventual outcome, it might be advisable to try to be on the same page with the investigators and not quite so focused on our own opinions of the causes.

Also, for those who have been focusing on the watertight doors, there are some very interesting drawings on pages 46 through 53.

Regards,

MorganMars

 

Oh come on, The Captain left the charted course , pre-meditated far long enough to notify certain people on the island to watch for them that evening, hit rocks that everyone seemed to know about but him - even the matre de said be careful, while watching from the bridge. The impact caused a hole in the side of the ship, he didn't call for immediate evacuation of the passengers resulting in loss of life. It is cut and dried. The rest is just what it is, excuses. Maintenance issues have nothing to do with these basic facts of the events that night. Debate them all you want but basic facts don't change. The only thing I can agree with you except one word, Chances are "no one can (I say, WILL) be held accountable.

 

I just envision you going on cruises just so you can go around interrogating staff and crew. I stand by my earlier comments that I am baffled that so many are willing to talk candidly with you while on Costa cruises with the investigation so fresh. If this is all true you must have a quite a way about you. The staff and crew I encounter on cruises are way to busy to engage in long conversations and are relunctant to spill their guts about "behind the scenes" activities. Costa must be quite the cruise line - at least for you.

Though this may not be what people want to hear, I can see it as a plausible, and even probable, scenario. I am reminded of the infamous Captain Hazelwood of Exxon Valdez who was cleared in court of being drunk and instead was found quilty of a misdemeanor of negligent oil discharge. The fine was $50,000 and 1,000 hours of community service. :(And that was in a US court. We may need to prepare ourselves emotionally for such an outcome in this case, as well.

I recently saw an article that provided data on previous captains who had abandoned ship with passengers left onboard with no negative consequences. I will see if I can find it again.

Regards,

MorganMars

Until the investigation is complete and cause(s) for the accident have been agreed upon and verified, the legal arguments for culpability cannot start...afterall, you cannot prosecute someone for something that is not proven to be a criminal act. Unless intentionality can be proven in making the "mistakes" that led Concordia to go off course, the prosecutorial side have a very slim chance of getting anyone convicted of anything.

 

A case in point was Concorde in 2000, it was 2004 when the investigations finally came to their conclusions and only then did the legal wheels start to turn and criminal litigation start, which reached its end last year with Continental Airlines being prosecuted for that wayward piece of metal that burst the tyre, that busted the fuel tank, that set the wing on fire that brought the plane down onto the hotel.

 

In amongst all that were the civil suits against Aerospatiale, Air France and Continental.

 

French justice system was slow with Concorde, Italian justice is likely to be the same for Concordia...slow, methodical and full of legal shenannigans, ducking and diving.

 

There is no rushing these things.

Interesting. I lived in the UK for several years when I was younger and acquired a taste for British Mysteries. I have seen many characters such as Dr. George Bullard, Dr. Laura Hobson, Max, and McCallum playing the forensic pathologists, so I am making a connection here. They are are always key players that have sometimes determined whether or not the DCI can proceed against a favorite suspect. Silly, perhaps, to equate these fictional characters to the real world that we are discussing, but it is the only point of reference that I have, so please forgive me. Are these the types of individuals under discussion here, or do they have superiors who actually provide these types of findings? I suppose, in this case, that it is a whole investigative team such as those who have compiled the Marine Investigative Report at http://www.seereisenportal.de/fileadmin/Downloads/Italian_Maritime_MSC90_Presentation_Costa_Concordia.pdf

Regards,

MorganMars

Just to clarify as to what "death by misadventure" actually implies in law....

 

 

 

So if that definition is taken in its literal sense in regard to the Concordia, the end result could potentially be 32 cases of death by misadventure...meaning that the accident happened during a legal act without premeditation or intention to do those 32 people harm.

 

Not murder or manslaughter.

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m119.htm

Is this the one? http://framework.latimes.com/2012/01/14/cruise-ship-runs-aground-off-italy/#/8

This was an underwater picture. You could see the large hole, not really in length but in depth. The metal was ripped back, not up as if it happened when the ship capsized. Laying on the seabed were several lounge chairs and the visible hole. I remember asking if anyone thought it was from the crew quarters because it looked like a bed was visible.

I brought the pix to one of the threads but I believe it was one that has been closed.

I remember the picture you are talking about. Will try to find it.

Regards,

MorganMars

This was an underwater picture. You could see the large hole, not really in length but in depth. The metal was ripped back, not up as if it happened when the ship capsized. Laying on the seabed were several lounge chairs and the visible hole. I remember asking if anyone thought it was from the crew quarters because it looked like a bed was visible.

I brought the pix to one of the threads but I believe it was one that has been closed.

Micki,

The gash from the initial contact with the reef is about 160' long located on the aft port side, so it includes about 17% of the length of a vessel that is 952' long. The ship is lying on her starboard side and there is no doubt additional damage there, just from the weight of the ship on the rocks and the movement that took place when there were concerns about the ship slipping into deeper water.

I do not know how many compartments would have been breached by such a gash.

Regards,

MorganMars

When the ship was coming into the Island, wasn't a large hole ripped into the starboard side? I remember a picture that showed a large opening tho I do think that was more to the front of the ship.

Playing "what if" it could be possible that another hole was made further back. (yes, pure speculation)