TheBestIsYetToCome

Some may have seen this but I just found it in Youtube. Seems to be a documentary for TV. It is entirely passengers and crew footage before, during and after the accident. Some real hair raising moments.

 

 

I have sort of avoided watching too much of this kind of thing, because it's very, very hard to see what happened to the passengers and crew during the crash. It's also painful to keep revisiting the unmitigated disregard this captain had for the trust that was placed in him -- not only by the passengers, but by his own crew. I have been on three beautiful cruises since then, but cruising has been changed forever for me as a result of this crash. I think I will always spend some time thinking of these terrified passengers and the souls who were lost every time I am on a ship....

 

But, the video was very well done and is worth watching....thank you for sharing.

We did back-to-backs a few weeks ago, and gosh...we missed a ton of stuff!

 

We have been to 25ish Caribbean islands, and I thought the Serenity Bay area of Castaway Cay held up very well to beaches we have enjoyed the most. It's fantastic. My husband didn't snorkel in the area with the underwater features, but went out to an area near one of the sandbars off Serenity Bay. He saw a live conch and then a barracuda. And then he came back. :eek:

 

Beautiful pictures, thank you for sharing. :)

Those have been converted to the new Cat IT cabins.

Fair enough...if the ship is in its upright position...

 

But since Concordia is on her side, the glass elevators will be effectively dangling with a 40ft plus drop below to what was a wall on a deck landing that is now the floor (with the furniture, fixtures and fittings that were on the floor when the ship was upright all in a heap), nowhere to get out and crawl to cos there is nothing to crawl on.

 

Glass elevators were designed for buildings, they have never been tested on a listed ship...cos no-one ever considered that a ship the size of Concordia would fall over onto its side. The mindset has been build them big, build them with glitzy bits like glass elevators cos they would never sink or fall over....standard design complacency, never build redundancy into it cos it'll never be needed.

 

Concordia has shown that these ships are not perfect, they can and do fall over - the cause of why it fell over is not important per se, but the fact that it DID go over has unveiled all sorts of design and equipment issues that had largely been ignored under the "it'll never happen, so we do not need to worry about that" file.

 

People ask why engineering staff did not go to the elevators when she went over...simple really...the deck became the wall, the wall became the deck...

The image below....Carnival Magic's glass elevators....in the vertical, they are fine, but in the horizontal they are potentially lethal cos there IS nowhere to go...

 

That didn't happen immediately. If someone with proper training had been sent to check the elevator banks immediately following the power loss, there would have been time for a different outcome.

Well, it's not a very pleasant thought, but with 4000 passengers on board it should have been someones job to think about.

 

Agreed. It would be prudent to assume that there are people in the elevators and to act accordingly.

 

I don't go in elevators on cruise ships. Period. I like the stairs and I'm concerned about the crowding and spread of illness. But the thought of being trapped in an elevator on a ship that is failing and filling with ocean water....its so horrifying. When i can no longer use the stairs anymore, I don't think I'll be cruising. And if the power goes out on a ship, I know the first thing ill be thinking is....is there anyone in the elevators?

But how did the elevators have power in a blackout situation?

 

Stella .... good question unless they were in there before they lost power.

 

What a horrific scenario to contemplate......

I would be more concerned if he wasn't seen out and about tbh.

 

I would imagine that the individual who took him out in the boat did it with the best intentions in mind...to get him outside after 6 months of not mixing with anyone, he does still have friends inside and outside the industry and they will have been concerned about his mental state and thought a trip out in the sunshine would do him some good.....misguided, perhaps but I can understand how a friend would think he was helping in some way...and unless that friend arranged for the paparazzi to be there, neither of them would have known that the parasite would be waiting to get that prime photo.

 

 

It's not his friend's fault either. He needs to politely decline frolicking in the graveyard of the souls who entrusted their lives to him, no matter how much good it might do him.

 

For Heavens sake, we know the man has mad self-preservation skills, how could he not realize how thoughtless and careless this has made him look?

 

Finally...the speedboat ride...well once again its the paparazzi problem. Just as with Princess Diana & Dodi Fayed, those damned tabloids have their cameramen pretending to be tourists loitering around, nosing their way into business that does not need to be nosing into...like pigs at a trough, waiting to snap that elusive picture..."oh look he is on the toilet...lets see what colour loo roll he uses". ;)

 

Respectfully, if Dodi or Dianna had, prior to the chase in which their lives ended, been driving a car in which 32 people had perished or had Schettino been formerly married to an heir to the British throne and been driving with the future Mrs. Schettino in a Paris tunnel, I would agree with you that these two situations had something in common. But, as it is, the press has totally different interests in these situations and the fact that Mr. Schettino does not have any awareness of how his behavior might be perceived by the families of the lost souls is telling. This is in NO WISE a paparazzi problem, but a common sense problem.

 

The other day the media caught him out on a speedboat...well...good for him, it was something he needed to do...whether the world approves or not is neither here nor there, he needed to clear his head, to get outside into the fresh air and feel human again, if only for a couple hours.

 

 

I disagree that he needed to be on the sea in order to get fresh sir and feel human again. I think it is horribly insensitive to the families whose loved ones perished while he was in command on Concordia. He should get his fresh air by stepping into the backyard, but never, never by going to sea where he could be photographed. It says a great deal to me that he did not consider how painful it would be for the families to see him out enjoying the ocean, the very place their loved ones perished, doing the very thing he was doing when their lives ended. It gives me heartburn, I can't imagine how it made the family members feel.

Can't you give him a break? :rolleyes:

 

He's gone months without being able to see Domenica. He's been cooped up in the house with his wife. He just needs a little relaxation. Why do you have to be so judgemental and vengeful?;)

 

You're right, of course. I went way too far in pointing out that his behavior was "upsetting" to me. I withdraw my comment, and instead say "That's quite a tan."

 

:D

It's beyond upsetting to see him enjoying the very place where he left 32 souls to rest. I don't even see how he has the nerve.....

Just came back from our Celebrity Silhouette Adriatic cruise. In Naples we had a spanish speaking private tour guide which is a good friend of Schettino, and believe me when I say that this guy really believes that the floor gave in and that's the reason he abandoned the ship early. His friends believe him and defend him and I was not going to argue with our tour guide.

I also went to a conference with our captain and he was asked about the Concordia. He was really polite and explained that Maritime Law is really complex and we have to wait to know what really happened. But he also said two more things:

#1- will he sail so close to the coast? the answer was no

#2- will he leave the ship before the passengers? the answer was also no.

 

I wouldn't argue with a tour guide either, but I would be quite put off to have this topic raised on a tour. I'm surprised that anyone would want to bring it up with cruiseship passengers on tour. :confused:

I agree Barcelona is one of the worst places for pickpockets. There have been numerous threads on these boards for years. Although pretty savvy, I had my wallet stolen from my purse there. As you say, the credit card was used within minutes at two restaurants for huge amounts (near $800 and $600 US). I also heard the same story from police re: the thieves have accomplices who "cash out" to them.

 

Luckily, my passport, an extra credit card, and some cash were in my room safe. The thieves got into my zipped purse (which was under my arm) and got the wallet without my knowledge. They are that good.

 

Same experience on the Metro in BCN. Just a few Euros were in my purse with my ATM card (which I cancelled immediately afterward, no loss) and my cell phone (which they *tried* to get but it was tethered to something inside my purse -- and the tether was *almost* broken apart.)

 

My hand was on my zipped bag every second until someone shoved me as I tried to exit the car. I let go of my bag for a split second to right myself by grabbing a rail. In literally five seconds or less, I was bumped, the purse was unzipped, the cash was grabbed, and I was shoved off the train.

 

Since then, I have a used a diaper pin to close the zipper on the outside of my bag and a second diaper pin on any compartments inside that need to be secured. And that's just for whatever minimal stuff I need to carry in my purse. Everything else is on my person or in the hotel/on the ship. If I have to get a few Euros out for a gelato or a ticket, I step away from the crowd, pull out the amount I need, repin everything and then step into line. Yes, I know....making that donation on the metro has left its mark and I"m slightly bent as a result of it. :D

 

Vigilance is important but it man not be enough. Put your things somewhere that people are very, very unlikely to get it.

[quote name='sidari']CT .... I understand the damage to AidaBlu was that it was pushed against the pier due to the wave created as the Costa ship went by.[/QUOTE]

The Captain was merely standing on the bridge maneuvering the Costa Concordia on the advice of a local pilot when, as a result of God commanding the sea to be separated from the land thousands of years ealier, a wave was formed and next thing you know, Aida Blu is slammed into a pier in Warnemunde. I wouldn't blame the pilot. I certainly wouldn't blame the Captain. I wouldn't blame the wave. I wouldn't even blame the ocean. I'd blame God. :D

Schettino = Pinocchio's twin brother. Note to Schettino: the more you talk, the deeper you dig yourself into a hole.

 

I wish he'd stop talking -- it's sickening to hear these interviews. It's so disrespectful to the families of the lost passengers and to the survivors.

New development out of Italy: Schettino is now blaming Ciro Ambrosio for the accident. Wonder why he waited until now to say this......

 

Supposedly, Ambrosio failed to warn the captain when the ship was 1/2 mile from shore.

 

My question is this: Why wasn't Schettino there on the bridge paying attention in the first place? Maybe if he would have looked out the window :eek: he would have seen the island. This is the same island passing that was announced in the Costa daily newsletter as 5 nautical miles away, NOT 1/2 mile nor a few yards nor close enough to slice through its rocks as Schettino waved bye-bye. Where exactly was he and what in the world was he doing that was soooooo much more important as the ship was closing in on the island and about to go down in history as the worst cruise ship disaster in modern times?

 

http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/1059192/Giglio-Schettino-accusa-Ambrosio-ceduto-comando-senza-informarmi-su-manovra.html

 

Then again maybe it was the fault of the compass:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/48193685#48193685

 

Seems, though, now the rock WAS there. But, the water just wasn't as deep as it was charted to be.

 

:mad:

Did he abandon his ship?

“No, I didn't abandon the ship. This is completely wrong. The ship was flipping over on its side and you had no other option than to go on the boat or to die at sea,” he said.

“It is a grounded ship and the reason why that's there is that they have the feeling that I left the ship and abandoned the people there because I have created the grounding condition of the ship. If I would not have done that the ship would have sunk completely and in that case I would have been the last one to leave.”

So does that mean that had he not grounded the ship, many more people would have died?

“Of course. Of course. And this was my plan - to ground the ship. So I knew in advance it would not have sunk. Otherwise if you want to be the hero to remain on board - to me it was easier to go on the left side and remain there. It was the easiest thing to do,” he said.

The ‘captain’s code’ says he should have been the last man standing on the boat. Clearly he was not.

“I was willing to do that, but I was on the wrong side of the ship. You know if you have an earthquake and the soil collapses under your feet may I say you abandoned your building? The concept is clear, and I don't understand why they're so stubborn that they cannot understand this,”

 

 

This is the part I found interesting. No mention of accidently falling. If the ship hadn't capsized, he would have stayed to the end. (yeah, right :rolleyes:) When it capsized, he just got the heck off.

 

That was fascinating, because he seems to be saying that he would have, of course (OF COURSE!!!) been the last one off the ship had the ship not fortuitously deposited him into a lifeboat not far from shore. In fact, for him, he is just like a person who was in a building that collapsed in an earthquake and who was deposited onto the ground floor. (Shaking my head at that analogy which seems to completely lose sight of the fact that he was the Captain of this particular ship, and not a random person with no ethical obligations....)

 

What I got from this was that he didn't abandon ship -- the ship abandoned him.....and that he's at a loss as to why people aren't more cognizant of the fact that he was gonna DIE AT SEA if he stayed onboard (He's forgetting somehow that 32 people did just that.)

 

There's either a complete disconnect on his part from it means to 'abandon ship' or else **I** don't have any idea what it means to abandon a ship. Because, for me, it means 'save the ship or die trying' as opposed to 'I totally would have been the last one out if we'd have had the misfortune to sink completely,'

Four minutes or so into the bridge video they had confirmation that three compartments had flooded, so they knew very early on that the situation was very, very serious. To clarify, someone physically assessed the situation and spoke to the bridge.

I think they will say none of them knew for sure the seriousness of the damage to the ship, and then when Schettino suggested they would beach the boat and let it sit on bottom, they may have thought he was a wise man and that is why he was captain.

I mean, come on, how many ships that have just crashed into the rocks putting a 160' gash into it, do you think these subordinates have been on? My bet, is 'never' , they don't have schools for this real stuff.

In hindsight, I bet they would all do something different.

 

It's one thing to say "At my level of training and experience, it was not possible for me to grasp the seriousness of the situation. As such, I relied upon the Captain and his orders to bring the ship and passengers to safety." It's quite another thing to say "We gave information to the Coast Guard that I knew was a lie." (And they knew it was a lie - within a few minutes after impact, they had assessed three compartments as flooded. They knew they were not simply having a power problem.)

How sad is that this couple did try to get off the boat.

 

SO sad. My heart goes out to their family members.

The best example I can use to explain it is this. It's like driving a car backwards.

 

Imagine you pull your big suv into a parking lot. You park in the middle of three spots and go in shopping. When you come out, there is now a car parked close on each side of you. As you back out, you have to turn. But the actual front of the suv goes the opposite way. If you turn too sharp too fast you will hit the car next to you, but on the opposite side you are trying to get the rear of the suv to go.

 

The bow thrusters might have turned (or pushed) the bow of the ship away from the reef. But they would only work at speeds of less than ten knots. If he would have tried to use them at 16 knots they would have cavitated and probably disintegrated.

 

As for the wind being a saving grace, it might have helped cause the impact too. That same wind that pushed it back to shore north of the port would have also been pushing the ship west before striking the rock.

 

The water depth drops off so fast there only a few meters could have made the difference in striking the reef, and luckily missing it like an earlier fly by. Remember, they were worried about the ship sliding a few meters and dropping off a ledge into water 100 meters deep.

 

That's a very interesting observation, that's for pointing that out.

What do you think would have been a fair offer?

 

I don't know that I have a specific figure in mind. But, I do know that if I owned a half-billion dollar boat that was crashed into a rock by someone *I* employed (a rock that perhaps *I* even encouraged my employee to take a good look at) and if the person that *I* employed then failed to accurately describe the situation to me, the local authorities and the good people who pay for my home and my kids' college fund, and if *I* became aware that my employee's reckless behavior terrorized and killed people...well, *I* would be a lot more generous in my settlement offer. But, then, for me, business is always personal, no matter what my job is.

 

My answer to your question is, I guess....a lot more. An amount well above what would make people say "Damn, that's gotta hurt." The current settlement offer looks to me like it is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Maybe it's not...but it looks that way to me.

You mean that he was having difficulty sleeping in the days following the crash, not that he had an ongoing sleep problem for which he took a sedative the night of the crash (long before he had any intention of retiring....) Correct?

Lending credence to that theory is the fact that Schettino has openly admitted to having taken tranquilizers the night he steered the ship into a reef off the Italian coast and capsized the vessel, yet no traces of that medication were found in the hair and urine samples, either.

 

WHAT? When did he "openly admit" that? Has this been out there and I've somehow missed all the posts mentioning it??? :confused: :eek:

There definitely is something similar visible on the 10th as well, but as IRLJoanie says, it is difficult to see because of the weather. Whatever it is emanates somewhere aft of the bow. What it is, I have no idea. Interesting. :confused: