MorganMars

Micki,

I see where you are coming from. We all have our triggers, don't we? I enjoy having multiple views on this forum that are respectfully submitted. We're good.:cool:

Regards,

MorganMars

MorganMars, I thank you for the compliment. From you, that means something and I appreciate it. I try not to offer to many opinions or speculations because even tho I have a not favorable opinion of the Captain, I am waiting for the facts.

 

I commented in one of my posts that I thought CS offered some valid points but that was in the early going. Then comes the one making it sound like we should look at Schettino as a hero for bringing certain things to the attention of the world kind of got to me. I mean really, if you think there is a problem with sail-byes or ship design, there's a better way to bring it to peoples attention than ripping your ship open.

 

Post 1804, was in response to the quoted post by CS. Now it's as if the Captain was psychic because of how he looked in a picture taken the night before.

Even if I eliminate that part of the post and stick with with the Chief Engineer speaking to him and the captain seeming even more distrubed by whatever may have been said, it's third party info from someone claiming to be friends with him and commenting after the accident.

To me CS is playing "what if" without saying what if.

 

Again, this is just my opinion. CS or anyone for that matter is entitled to theirs. If anyone follows me closely they will note I very seldom get into these debates. Sometimes I just can't help making my own statement. :D

 

Someone help me out here. Wasn't Concordia going to have some repair work done when it arrived in port on Jan 14th? I seem to recall that there was an issue, possibly electrical that was scheduled to be checked that day.

Morgan ... depending on where the watertight doors were open and if they were open around the area of damage,it may well be that the compartments walls were ripped open as it seems they were which means that even if the doors were closed water would have bypassed them rendering them useless anyway!

Exactly!

One serious point that does need to be looked at is why the ship began to sink stern first and to starboard when the hole was midships and on the port side?

Yes, I would like to know if that was due to the weight of the water shifting from one side to the other and why, or if was the result of the way the ship settled on the bottom, or if some other factors came in to play.

Regards,

MorganMars

Micki,

I deeply appreciate all that you have contributed to these discussions and your posts have always been informative, however, in this I feel I must disagree. I see Smurfette as nothing more or less than she claims to be, a very logical person with a big picture viewpoint. I also know that many times people lurk on these boards for some time before finally deciding to make a contribution to the discussion. I do the same thing. This thread was actually becoming a bit stale and one sided until she chimed in. It is hard to be a Mr. Spock on a forum. I hope there is room for all of us here.

Regards,

MorganMars

 

I think I'm going to have to join some others that are no longer going to respond to you. I feel you are an apologist for the Captain, looking to devert attention from him for a decision that was ultimately his own call.

I thought that I had, but it I will try to make it more clear:

Question 1: There are too many "What ifs." A few possible scenarios (of many):

Question 2: I think it is a matter of opinion.

If you are asking if I think there was too much of a delay in abandoning the ship, then IMHO, yes, but I wasn't there. I bow to qtlikeme's greater experience.

Fair enough MM. But you did not answer my original question:

 

Original question Posted by cruiserfanfromct to MorganMars

Which begs the question, if the Concordia hadn't run aground again a second time and the watertight doors closed like they were required and the muster procedure starting much earlier, would this have saved more lives? What do you think?

I read your post. I was just asking if the article had changed your viewpoint in any way.

Of course, we are allowed to have a viewpoint. That is why I am posting here, to express my opinions and to hear others. My original point regarding the watertight doors was that it may or may not have made a difference in the eventual outcome, as the flooding of the decks in the ships current resting place is due to the ship laying on its side and that watertight doors would not be a factor in that position. That is my opinion based on past experience.

So, with that, I think I'll add a sig line that I 've seen on another board:

I said saved more lives NOT "resulted in no loss of life". Please reread my post. It goes without saying that all that is posted here is pure conjecture and opinion, after all, no one here was actually there on the bridge that night in any official capacity. Is this not a discussion board where thoughts and opinions are shared and discussed based on what is read and watched elsewhere? Are we not allowed to have a viewpoint? :confused:

With all the "what ifs," are you saying that this latest article has convinced you that closing the watertight doors would have resulted in no loss of life? As to what I think, I think that everything at this point is just opinion.

Regards,

MorganMars

Which begs the question, if the Concordia hadn't run aground again a second time and the watertight doors closed like they were required and the muster procedure starting much earlier, would this have saved more lives? What do you think?

Please take into consideration that the reason the ship is on it's side with the starboard cabins underwater is because it is aground, watertight doors or not. So, while the watertight doors may have made a difference if they had decided to stay in deeper water, assuming that they had enough control of the ship to keep it there, once the ship is aground in its current location, it is going to roll on to its side.

Regards,

MorganMars

This article, just published a few minutes ago in Italy, states that if the watertight doors, (doesn't specify the numbers or letters of the exact watertight doors) but if the 2 doors that were SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSED HAD BEEN CLOSED LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN, the vessel would have remained afloat longer, maybe 2 hours more and perhaps would have avoided any loss of life. So much for following emergency protocol.

 

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/cronaca-italia/costa-concordia-francesco-schettino-paratie-aperte-1319722/

Costa Smurfette,

Welcome aboard! Thank you for your reasoned and knowledgable posts.

Regards,

MorganMars

VP,

I understand what you are saying about the chain. What I don't understand is Captain John Konrad's theory about using the anchors and a proper length of chain to prevent the capsize of the Concordia. It sounds as though, he is implying that the ship could have been careened. Is that possible with the Concordia and similar vessels?

Regards,

MorganMars

Interesting :eek: video. If I'd been on that deck I would have run away terribly quickly and told everyone else around me to do the same... only once the chain had run out past the bitter end would I even think about getting back on that deck!

 

On a ship, it's the weight of chain on the seabed that anchors the ship in position, not the anchor itself. Once their is sufficient weight on the seabed, additional chain will increase the distance the ship can move.... it's as much art as science, a balance between how much slack chain their is, and weight of chain on seabed as too little chain will increase the risk of anchor drag.

 

VP

CFFC,

I followed discussions regarding the deployment of the anchors closely as initial reports showing the movement of the ship during the turn that resulted in the grounding on the starboard side was reminiscent of a maneuver that I had been trained to use in emergency situations. At some point though, I believe it was the release of the video of the bridge, I became convinced that the anchors were not dropped at an appropriate time to use them in such a maneuver.

In the opinion of Captain John Konrad, Schettino deployed the anchors during the grounding in order to help prevent the capsize but, by allowing too much chain to be released, that maneuver was ineffective. However, it may be that the chain brake on the ship was not operational without power. I must leave it to others who are more familiar with that machinery to enlighten us. A video of a chain brake failing can be found at

Regards,

MorganMars

Thanks for this info MM. Do you remember what exactly happened with the anchors? Did Schettino order them to be dropped and if so, when? Did this help or hinder the evacuation process?

 

I read there is a video out there by the Guardia di Finanza who arrived onsite 10 minutes after the disaster and shows that the anchor had not been lowered at that point. Do you know anything about this? Thanks.

It is also worth noting that the Vanity Fair article, http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/costa-concordia-sinking-scandal-italy , identifies Simone Canessa as the ship's officer that worked with Mayor Pellegrini in the rescue of the passengers left stranded on the port side of the ship.

So that was the voice of Simone Canessa, who was ordered to lie to the Coast Guard.

You are correct, of course. I had forgotten that. She is also one of the people who swam to shore. There is a photo of her here: http://www.la****one.it/grosseto/cronaca/2012/02/23/671744-costa-indagati-naufragio-sette-nuovi.shtml

Not that it matters but I believe the third officer, Silvia Coronika or Coronica, is a woman.

In the testimony of Silvia Coronika, http://www.quotidiano.net/file_generali/documenti/PDF/2012/01/silvia-coronika.pdf he states (translated from page 5):

The Port Authority of Civitavecchia asked specifically whether there were any problems on board and the captain ordered Officer in charge of radio, Canessa Simone, to report that there was a blackout on board.

Other than the voice sounding very much like Schettino, I don't have proof. Do you have proof that it wasn't his voice? Even if it wasn't his voice, it is doubtful that any officer would have blatantly lied to the Coast Guard without the direct orders of his commander.

 

Re David Blair -- some historians are of the opinion that the binoculars would have made not one bit of difference in spotting the iceberg on the night of the sinking given the conditions.

Loubetti,

While I agree with you that one cannot compare the sinking of Titanic to the Costa Concordia, after listening to the passengers who use the Titanic to describe their experience, I believe that what they are referring to is the movie. Since many do not share our interest in nautical history, that is their only point of reference and James Cameron did a pretty good job of depicting the process.

Regards,

MorganMars

Comparing Concordia to Titanic is ludicrous. Aside from from striking an object, they are completely different accidents. Unless you know who David Blair is, do not talk about Titanic. Titanic was an accident chain of events that should be studied by all mariners and even aviators, perhaps Concordia also, but we wont know the latter until all the facts are in.

 

Everyone runs to Google to look up David Blair. ;)

Just came across another John Wayne quote that I thought you might want to add to your collection.

AKK

 

Here's some John Wayne Rules to Live By:

John T. Chance (Rio Bravo):

 

 

 

"Sorry don't get it done, Dude."

 

Sergeant John M. Stryker (Sands of Iwo Jima):

"A lot of guys make mistakes, I guess, but every one we make, a whole stack of chips goes with it. We make a mistake, and some guy don't walk away - forevermore, he don't walk away."

 

John Bernard Books (The Shootist):

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

 

Ringo Kid (Stagecoach):

"Well, there are some things a man just can't run away from."

 

Hondo Lane (Hondo):

"I don't guess people's hearts got anything to do with a calendar."

 

Hondo Lane (Hondo):

"Yup. The end of a way of life. Too bad. It's a good way. Wagons forward! Yo!"

 

Capt. Rockwell Torrey (In Harm's Way):

"All battles are fought by scared men who'd rather be some place else."

 

Colonel Madden (Back to Bataan):

"This kind of war, you've gotta believe in what you're fighting for."

 

Tom Doniphon (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance):

"Out here a man settles his own problems."

 

Duke Gifford (Operation Pacific):

"He was a good man. Make sure that it says so on the patrol report."

 

Tom Dunson (Red River):

"Every time you turn around expect to see me. 'Cause one time you'll turn around and I'll be there, and I'll kill you, Matt."

 

Marshall J.D. Cahill (Cahill, U.S. Marshall):

"Cause even grown men need understanding."

 

Col. Michael Kirby (The Green Berets):

"Out here, due process is a bullet."

 

Col. David Crockett (The Alamo):

"Republic. I like the sound of the word."

 

Costa actually has a very nice page devoted to each of their Captains detailing their background and experience at http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/USA/HereForYou/SkilledCrew/KnowCrew/default.htm#1. Clicking on the Captain's name takes you to a rather extensive listing of their CVs. This is the first time I have visited that site, so don't know if it is something new or if has always been there.

Regards,

MorganMars

Especially when they have something to hide. RCI has no problem sharing biographical information on their captains: http://www.royalcaribbean.com/allaboutcruising/behindTheSmiles/profile.do?INTERVIEWID=11

gatour,

If you see it that way, I did not clearly communicate my thoughts, as I do not place blame on the media for the generalizations referred to in the second statement. The two statements are not related.

Regards,

MorganMars

You just did the same in regards to the media, you just painted all media/people with the same brush.

Lady Peacock,

We also travel when popular opinion says not to. We will be cruising to Egypt in December as long as the State Department maintains the current view. Media reports should not be used to make such decisions, since they are financially motivated. (More action/adventure = More Viewers)

I have not sailed Costa, and probably won't, but I don't sail Carnival anymore, either, since I have found better experiences on other lines.

It is unfortunate when a place, or a people, all get painted with the same brush. I have found that by using a bit of logic and reasonable caution I can travel without fear. If I didn't, I would not have traveled to Paris for all the stories of rampant pick pockets, London for fear of suicide bombers or the Florida Everglades because of the hoards of mosquitoes. (That turned out to be true, but the repellent worked, thank goodness!)

Regards,

MorganMars

I can remember in the early 90's being advised against travelling to Florida, but unless the foriegn office states not to travel we always do.

 

We travelled with two very young children, we flew into Orlando and was advised after a long flight to stay the first night at the airport which we did, we made sure that our hire car didnt have any visable signs that it was a hire car, while there we travelled to Miami, again after even americans in our hotel advising us not to do it, we only travelled where there was a sunshine on the road signs.

 

What a family holiday we would have missed if we had listened to the advise and not travelled to the USA.

 

Having travelled to alot of the middle eastern countries and Egypt (over 10 times) and unless the Uk foriegn office advise us NOT to travel we will carry on travelling.

 

This thread as turned into judge and jury.... and knock Costa.

 

Our family must be stupid to travel Costa and gosh to Egypt, I wish people would stop commenting on a cruise line they have never travelled on or intend to travel on, and make people who do enjoy Costa feel stupid for enjoying the product.

 

We have only travelled with Princess once out of New York, and we had such a bad experience that we would never travel Princess again, do you see me posting on the Princess topic slating them, no not at all because I have respect for people who do enjoy cruising onboard a Princess ship.

I have some favorite quotes on Opinions, public or otherwise. 1) From Winston Churchill, "There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion." 2) From James Fennimore Cooper, "It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny." But, perhaps the best one is from Rodney Dangerfield, "My psychiatrist told me I'm going crazy. I told him, "If you don't mind, I'd like a second opinion." He said, "All right. You're ugly too!" I try to keep that one in mind whenever I'm on a social network so I can remember that it is all just opinion.

It already has been proven in the court of public opinion for the vast majority of rational human beings.

Another link http://www.corriere.it/english/12_luglio_03/erika-dellacasa_14a9743c-c52f-11e1-a141-5df29481da70.shtml?fr=box_primopiano where Costa continues to contend that it is all on Schettino.

Regards,

MorganMars

Wow! Thanks for the link. Also, was happy to see a new post since the last time I checked this thread was locked.

Here is another link with more information: http://www.corriere.it/english/12_luglio_03/fiorenza-sarzanini_c641440a-c52e-11e1-a141-5df29481da70.shtml

Fire doors

Safety regulations stipulate that watertight doors should remain closed unless permission for them to remain open has been issued by the harbour office. Although Costa has applied for permission, it is not thought to have been granted. The ship’s officers confirm that the doors were open because, as Simone Canessa, who was on the bridge, says in his statement, “this was standard practice during navigation to make it easier for those who were working to come and go”.

Recordings from the operations rooms show that the doors were in fact left open. It is no coincidence that forty minutes after impact, Staff Captain Ciro Ambrosio ordered the watertight doors to be shut. The order could not be carried out because the switches were not working, perhaps because the Martec system was out of service. The shouts of officer of the watch Giovanni Iaccarino just after the impact ring dramatically clear: “Water is getting in through the fire doors, water is still getting in through the fire doors”.

Regards,

MorganMars

http://www.news.com.au/world/costa-concordias-black-box-failed/story-fndir2ev-1226416228028

 

****************

 

with all the lack of safety controls for costa and this ship. how culpable is the corporation (aka. carnival ) for such cost cutting that basic safety equipment is in dis-repair or out of date?

 

*****************

 

Unial,

I have no issue with the evolution of law or maritime practices and I know that both have changed, some in response to laws and some in response to good practices. My contention with your proposal is that; 1) it is based solely on an interpretation of what happened in this particular incident based on media reports, 2) it is entirely too limiting to be good practice, 3) it can be negated by contractual language and, 4) it makes no allowances for a captain to make the often required changes to course necessitated for a safe voyage.

I have no desire to get into a dispute over non-equivalent scenarios, so I will not address your questions in this forum. I propose that we agree to disagree and press on. It is really not in our hands, in any case.

Regards,

MorganMars

If the law didn't evolve and force maritime practices to change, we'd still have flogging, and excutions by hanging from the yard arms.

 

Your post begs these questions:

 

1. What is the benefit and enjoyment for the pasengers to change course and sail by Gilglio less than a mile off shore at night time?

 

2. Is there an inherent difference between a cruise ship and a cargo ship?

 

3. If you're taking a bus to work and the driver decided to take a short detour to drive by a recently retired bus driver's home and wave hello, what is your opinion?

 

4. If you're on a 24 passenger commuter plane and the pilot decided to buzz his girl friend's house with a wing wag, what is your opinion?

 

5. If you're on a hotel shuttle bus and the driver took a detour to drive by his pal's new restaurant and give him a congratulatory horn beep, what is your opinion?

Uinial,

I seem to remember that the sail by was listed on the cruise bulletin as a passenger event. Whether it actually was listed or not, if it is publicized as such, doesn't that "cover their a**" under your proposal?

I can picture it now. An inset in all the daily bulletins on board. "Watch for a special surprise today!" and some lawyer, after the fact, saying "The sail by was for the passengers. See, it was announced in the bulletin."

I'm sure that you are a fine lawyer, but I feel that the mariners are also professionals in their field and have a good understanding of maritime law and practices.

Regards,

MorganMars

Yes, you do understand my postition that sail bys should be banned "on cruise ships". That is becasue, in my legal opinion, a "cruise ship" should inherently be operated solely for the enjoyment and benefit of the passengers.

 

To change to a course that is intended to be for the enjoyment and benefit of the crew or employees results in what the law calls "on a lark of their own" and a diviation from the intended purpose of the cruise.

 

This opens the door to liability if the change in course results in deaths or serious injuries. It creates what the law calls a "rebuttable presumption of negligence" where it would then be up to the captain/owners to prove that the change in course was for the enjoyment and benefit of the passengers. (eg avoid bad weather, see the volcano, see a glacier, see the whales, etc.) OR to follow the anicent law of necessity (eg at sea rescue of other in peril).

Unial,

It is 2:15 in the morning and I am in the middle of a Tropical Storm, so I don't have a lot of time, but I wanted to acknowledge your question.

From the mariners perspective, there are times when it is safer to be close to shore. For one thing, it is the only way that you can dock.;) Additionally, there are some passages that cannot be made without being in close proximity to navigational hazards (the hard edges around the sea as one captain use to say.) This is complicated by the fact that operating a vessel is nothing like operating a car as there are so many more forces to take into account. A good captain will do that and not let a sail by become a threat to passenger safety. Also, the sail bys are typically done for the benefit of passengers entertainment, not as a salute to some fellow employee, as most landlubbers get bored silly after watching the sea for any length of time. Letting one incident dictate all future navigational decisions is simply not practical or reasonable.

I do understand that you feel strongly in this matter and I wonder if you see it as cause and effect. For me, it is not. For me, it was a matter of the Captain not knowing where he was. The first rule of navigation is to know your position at all times. He should have known, especially considering the maneuver he was attempting. We sometimes make navigational errors (it is a challenging skill, since there are no road markings on the sea) and I would cut him some slack for that, if he had not botched the rest of the operation so badly.

My outrage is at the failure to take immediate action to attend to the safety of the passengers once he knew he had struck the rocks, by failing to notify the Coast Guard and summoning assistance and then, finally, the abandonment of his passengers and leaving it to more dedicated mariners to clean up the mess. Attempting a sail by is nothing in comparison to all that. Consider an alternate scenario where an less senior officer hits the rocks, but the Captain then assesses the situation, sends out the distress signal, supervises an organized evacuation of the ship and is the last one to be lifted off the ship by helicopter, or even more dramatically, drowns in the bowels of the ship while successfully rescueing a beautiful little girl. That captain then would be hailed as a hero. That was not this man whether he did a sail by or not.

That is all I have time to discuss for now, but I hope that this will provide you with another perspective that you may be able to consider as valid and reasonable and not a justification.

Regards,

MorganMars

I confess that I haven't got a clue why people are not outraged by sail byes. This is a serious question and not intended to belittle your views.

 

When I board a cruise ship, it is with the belief that the operations of the ship are for the benefit and enjoyment of the passengers 24/7 and not the benefit and enjoyment of the crew, past and present. In my view, if there was no sail byes at all, there could never be a heightened risk of getting too close to shore.

 

What is the basis of your justification of sail byes?

Sidari,

Yes, that's the one. I couldn't remember the name and didn't have time to look it up before posting, so thanks for adding that.

There is a Wikipedia article about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sea_Diamond and several articles right here on CC in the Cruise News archives.

Regards,

MorganMars

Morgan .... was the case you refer to at Santorini? where the MS Sea Diamond hit a rock/reef that was charted in the wrong place, we were there recently and one of the bar owners told us that the ship has been towed to deep water before it sank.

 

The Greek government are still fighting the owners in order to have the ship raised and moved.

 

Tonka .... i believe the rock that is buried in the side of concordia was underwater and not visible from the surface.