MorganMars

There actually was a case a few years ago of a Captain who was vindicated when it was shown that the rock he hit in the Med was not where indicated on the chart. I would surmise that Schettino knew of that case. It makes a convenient possible defense until it is disproved.

 

I did a yacht delivery once where two different GPS devices onboard gave two very different positions due to an operator error in matching the settings in one of the GPS units to the chart datum, so I have wondered if the same happened here. That would still be considered a navigational error with the commensurate liability, so please don't see this as support for Schettino. I have no respect for a Captain who would abandon his duty.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

That won't even pass as a flimsy excuse, far less a reason!

 

The Med was the first body of water well known to sailors, going back a few Millenia now.

As already pointed out, this situation is Italian sailors in Italian seas

equipped with charts 100 x the accuracy of what I attach below.

 

Who are they kidding?

More likely the person at the helm should have been wearing his glasses that night!

.

Here is a link to an article written in response to the drug test results on Schettino, but of greater interest for our current discussion are points regarding empty chair defense, non negligent error in judgment and maneuver domain.

 

http://americanadmiraltybooks.blogspot.com/2012/02/costa-concordia-drug-test-results.html

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

 

"This is a deviation from the itinerary's planned course that sends the Costa officers (and coporate managent) on a "lark of their own" for personal reasons"

 

Uni ... By all means put me right if what i say is wrong but the above quote is made wrong by the preliminary enquiry which someone else has already pointed out to you with regard to the intended route! and the report is quite clear that the ship intended to pass Giglio that night on that intended route which can be proved by the fact that the route was charted.

 

Because this route has previously been used and more than likely by other Costa ships though we still yet have to see any proof, the fact is that "Custom and Practice" was already being used to sail this route despite Costa denying it.

 

Where you have an arguement is the 0.5 miles that the ship was off the Intended Custom and Practice route, to continue the arguement with regard to the ship being in the channel between Giglio and the Mainland is pointless.

 

What will also be interesting will be to see who shouts the Loudest if and when the courts hand out a sentance that people here think is wrong!

I share that opinion.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

Morgan' date=' What happened before was nothing more then a navigation error,........which is negelence..........he would loss his job and likely his license in any country........but what happened afterward IMHO made it criminal.......IMO!

 

AKK[/quote']

What I meant was, that the report seems to document his culpability in delaying the distress call and abandoning the ship more than any error in planning the route.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

 

Perhaps, it is just my reading of it, but it appears that they are focusing more on what the Captain did wrong after the collision. Maybe that is easier to prosecute???

 

 

European Codal (Napoleonic)

They are focusing on the Captain because he is primarily at fault but others may be found to have been secondarily at fault by failing to stop the Captain or, even more agregious, authorizing his actions.

Is it not the case that Italy has a different set of laws? In other words, where ours is a [I]Common-law[/I] country, Italy is a [I]Civil-law[/I] country. My question then would be, "How do we in the US make valid comparisons, especially in the area of maritime law?" For instance, it has often been reported that under Italian law the Captain can be jailed for 12 years for abandoning ship, 8 years for each person lost or abandoned. Would the same apply in US Courts and in the same manner?

I also found it interesting that the Investigative Report was very careful to reiterate compliance with EU law which states that: [I]the aim of the technical safety investigation is the prevention of marine casualties and incidents, the conclusions and the safety recommendations should in no circumstances determine liability or apportion blame. [URL]http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0018:EN:NOT[/URL][/I]

Perhaps, it is just my reading of it, but it appears that they are focusing more on what the Captain did wrong after the collision. Maybe that is easier to prosecute???

I would like to find the results of the Italian Coastguard investigative report which is tasked with the [I]"determination of the causes and possible responsibilities arising from the accident,"[/I] but so far no luck.

Regards,
MorganMars

[quote name='Uniall']Excellent and well written article. It should be noted that all of the cited examples dealt with private vessels or commercial vessels causing damage to property or conractual rights.

None of the examples dealt with a "Common Carrier" (tort law) term referring to a primary purpose of transporting people for a fare which imposes the highest degree of duty to protect and is what I've tried to set forth for you.[/quote]

Some of you may find this article titled [I]Maritime Negligence: Who gets to pay when something goes wrong, and how legal liability can be dodged.[/I]
[I][URL]http://www.bpmlaw.com/portals/15/Documents/Legal_Lookout_1003.pdf[/URL][/I]

It is written by Steven W. Block, an attorney with "[I]more than 25 years of litigation experience as a trial lawyer." [URL]http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=310[/URL][/I]

Regards,
MorganMars

[SIZE=3]There may be some misunderstanding here, as the charted course is shown on page 14 of the [I]Marine Incident Report[/I] that [B]TimWJ[/B] so kindly posted earlier. See: [/SIZE][URL="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3544291/Italian%20Maritime%20MSC90%20Presentation%20Costa%20Concordia.pdf"][SIZE=3]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3544291/Italian%20Maritime%20MSC90%20Presentation%20Costa%20Concordia.pdf[/SIZE][/URL]

[SIZE=3]Page 8 provides the planned course, which includes a [B][I]touristic sailing course[/I][/B] at the Island of Giglio. Page 9 shows that the planned course provides plenty of water depth for the vessel. [/SIZE]

[quote]
[SIZE=3]The voyage plan schedules:[/SIZE]
[LIST]
[*][SIZE=3]leaving the funnel-shaped exit of the Port of Civitavecchia[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=3]proceeding 302°[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=3]turning to 278° - abeam Punta Secca (Island of Giannutri), at a distance of 4,5 miles from it[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=3]altering the course to 334°, where Punta della Torricella (Island of Giglio) is bearing 239° from the ship, at a distance of 0,9 miles.[/SIZE]
[/LIST][/quote][SIZE=3]Page 14, though, shows that there was a navigational error, as they have passed the planned point where they were to make the turn to 334 degrees. The circle where the lines intersect is where the turn to starboard was planned. This would have allowed for a safe passage. Instead, at 2144, they are well past the point of no return and making the turn into the rocks.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]It is my understanding from the Investigative Report, that it is now the Coastguard’s task to determine [B][I]why[/I][/B] that happened. It may be attributed to a number of factors, such as excessive speed, windage, faulty GPS settings, current or human error. There is no doubt, though that the Master and crew are expected to make the necessary allowances to assure safe passage.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Regards,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]MorganMars[/SIZE]

[quote name='Uniall']In this case, the ship was going from one port to another by a pre charted course that was the customary route by sea lane between those ports. The Concordia wavered from that course to "show boat" (literally and figuratively) to salute people (say hello) to people ashore. Previous such salutes not only don't excuse the action but even render it more agregious by both the perpetrator (or as we say" The Perp) and his superiors if they condoned the action.

[/quote]

Yep, confusion banished.;)

 

"The bottom of the vessel is usually the horizontal bottom."

 

Tonka ... This is what i would also call the Bottom, anything above that i class as the Hull.

 

"3. What was the Officer on watch/duty doing in those 30 minutes? Did the watch officer advise the Captain that the vessel getting close to the danger? "

 

That part seems to be a mystery so far with no information released as yet apart from the Media guessing game.

 

 

Morgan .... I hope this clears up any misunderstanding between our posts.

Ok, I guess definitions are in order. To me, on a ships hull, anything below the waterline is "bottom."

 

Regards,

Morgan Mars

 

Morgan .... In the coastguard video from the Helicopter Concordia is lay on its Starboard side, you can see the whole bottom of the Keel (which is what i should have said to avoid confusion) which is what i thought you were talking about when you say the "ships bottom impacted" in a previous post so i take it you meant the Hull side below the waterline where the Gash and Rock are.

 

When the Helicopter goes around by the Bow you can clearly see the Bow thrusters and the bulbous bow out of the water, unlike now in its current position.

 

I was not referring to the Gash in the Hull port side, as for the Graphic re the reef 4 miles out i had not seen that before it appeared on the Salute site.

I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to that graphic as support that the ship had struck a reef 4 miles from Giglio.

 

I now am also confused about your comment to Tonka below about the video showing no holes in the hull, as there are numerous photos showing the huge gash in the hull.:confused:

 

Regards,

Morgan Mars

 

Tonka ... The whole of the bottom of Concordia was exposed in the video taken from the coastguard helicopter which appeared to show no holes just a number of Black areas.

 

Morgan ... I have no idea where the graphic came from and do not recall seeing it on the Mail`s website but i take your word about where it came from. With regard to the so called intended route i knew that to be wrong having travelled along the route used by Costa and other cruise ships ie between the Mainland and Giglio, going south from Savona or Genoa the ships travel around the west side of Giglio as we have done on a number of occasions.

I don't think that it is necessary to wait for the salvage of the ship. The testimony of the officers on the bridge have already made it quite clear. At one time we had a poster who was providing translations of the court documents from Italian, but even without that you may be able to read the testimony in this document http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2012/inchieste/cap-1-pag-45-47.pdf that tells exactly what happened.

 

I hope that will ease your mind and convince you that your initial impression was the correct one. I believe that the map on the Salute site was originally published in the Daily Mail and was found to be in error on several counts, including the original intended course, which was to the east of Giglio, not to the west of the island as represented in that graphic.

 

Regards,

Morgan Mars

 

RB ... Just the one on the Salute site and one on the Giglio Webcam... :)

 

Morgan .... I was quite suprised to see that info on the Salute website because like many others i believed the reef was part of Giglio that the ship was supposed to have hit, now then these people are making a time lapse film so it now makes you wonder if and i say if ... Concordia hit this reef at 4 miles off course which brought about the Power loss and the Bang was when concordia hit the reef outcrop of Giglio which is where the Rock stuck in the side of Concordia below the waterline is!

 

"affirming becoming aware only visually that there was a jutting reef with which the ship’s bottom impacted."

 

The Ship is holed on the side and if there is a hole in the bottom then the reef at 4 miles out as claimed on the Salute site may well be what caused the initial damage, but until the ship is inspected during the salvage operation we will have to wait and see.

The information on that site is in conflict with the court documents and the Italian Coast Guard (Guardia Costiera) investigation. You may want to review the document yourself (it is provided in English here http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2012/traduzione_ordinanza_grosseto.pdf) where it says, "the approach to 0.28 nautical miles from the coast of the island was admitted even by the captain in the course of the guarantee interrogation, affirming becoming aware only visually that there was a jutting reef with which the ship’s bottom impacted."

 

All the official documents indicate impact with the Le Scole reef which is identified on the nautical charts as an outcrop from Giglio. You can also view video evidence of the Le Scole impact site at

 

Regards,

Morgan Mars

 

http://murall.com.br/ssssss/plugins/my-category-order/costa-concordia-sinking-map

 

Just for those who have not been following this site. Interesting to note that the reef Concordia hit was 4 miles off course according to the 1st map. Much of the Media have claimed it was part of the Island of Giglio that Concordia hit.

Please keep it civil. When the posts resort to name-calling and arguing, Cruise Critic may close the thread or remove it all together. I, for one, don't want to see this thread go "poof."

 

Thank you,

Morgan Mars

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

 

To be accurate you would also have to factor in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union

My understanding is that unlike the legal system in the USA, which is based on Englsh Common Law, the Italian system is based on the much older Roman Law. However, it is not that simple. Below are three links that I have been reading that others may find informative.

 

Wikipedia has a diagram that may be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Italy

 

The legal history of Italy: http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/law508/ItalianLegalHistory.htm

 

And from Andrea Scella, University of Udine Faculty of Law, Italy:

The Three Most Important Features of Italy’s Legal System that Others Should

Understand: http://www.ialsnet.org/meetings/enriching/scella.pdf

 

A lot more complex, but then our system probably looks pretty complex to others, or even to people in our own country who haven't had much legal experience.

 

Morgan Mars

 

As explained to me by former Italian colleagues, the Italian Criminal Justice system has duplicate and triplicate layers involving the prosectorial action by both executive prosecutors and judicial judges (acting in the stead of Anglo/American grand juries ala French Codal system). The investigation and preliminary probable cause activity can be prosectuor, judge and or a mix of the both.

 

Afterwards, the duplicative and triplicative layers can be repeated at the trial stage and again at the appeal stage.

 

When I questioned the reasons for such a complicated system, the answers seemed to infer (but never aver) that it was to allow investigation/prosecution to succeed despite bribery and/or intimidation activity.

 

 

 

 

 

I sailed on the Dolphin IV in the early 90's and always remember having my first taste of caviar on that cruise. It was the best caviar I've ever had! The champagne wasn't bad, either.:)

 

MorganMars