Costa Concordia SINKING

[cdamion]

 

---

 

 

 

Now a good question might be... If the normal projected course of the Concordia did not require a pilot, would a close passing of the island require one?

 

---

 

Excellent question!

[reallyitsmema]

 

 

Jason, something is really screwy on this board, as I never was quoted saying anything more about the Splendor, except for the fact the they are sister ships, and both experienced electical faillures.

 

Someone that has more knowledge has stated that there was a major failure in a "bus" system (that being the main componet that runs the electrical system) on the Splendor.

 

So, what appears to be my "quote" is not, in fact, from me.

 

Rick

What is "screwy" is one person continues to misquote and break the quote tags every time they attempt to quote. Those broken quotes are then quoted and it makes it look like people are saying things they didn't say. I fixed the quote tags on this post or else what you just said wouldn't be shown as your words.

[inotdown]

I wish this post was locked. These multiple pissing matches are cluttering the few good tidbits of information that is in here.

[cruiserfanfromct]

Your statements are beyond idiotic. By claiming that the accident was caused by the Captain, Costa is categorically stating that they as an organization are 100% liable for any injuries and financial loss.

 

Right - I can see how they would try to deflect liability by stating a meteor hit the ship or that sharks ate into its hull or that it was attacked by pirates or even backing up the captain and say he hit a rock that wasn't suppose to be there - LOL! But putting the blame on the captain is putting the blame on the company. At least they are accepting responsibilty or do they think the captain is going to personally monitarily compensate the passengers and crew members?

[nealstuber]

OK, I'm busted. I do prefer my US flagged salary, don't you?

 

I did, when the jobs were there! (During and after Desert Storm). There would be no US flags at sea at all if not for the Jones Act and sooner or later we'll elect a Ron Paul type and there won't be. So enjoy your feast of Golden Goose while you can. :rolleyes:

[Chansterooney]

It's obvious what carnival is

 

Under American law, the principal will not be held responsible if the employee does something bad if the employee is on a frolic as opposed to a detour

 

Not sure if this holds for maritime or Italian law, but at this point, if I was carnival I would be throwing everything up against the wall

 

So if this captain deviated from his plan for purposes of blowing the horn to his familia, that could be a frolic

 

However if somebody can establish that carnival ignored these routine detours then carnival is in a world of hurt

 

And yes I know the ship is not technically owned by carnival, but that won't matter when it comes time for legal strategy time

[foxesden1]

I wish this post was locked. These multiple pissing matches are cluttering the few good tidbits of information that is in here.

 

I am for one glad the post is not locked, we would have the same thing all over the boards. By keeping it like this, it's all contained. I thank the mods for allowing this to be open.

[Finnjet]

Where did you see this? I would be curious to learn about various ships' designs and capabilities.

 

My uncle is a container ship Master, and I also have several acquiantences who are pilots in the Puget Sound area. I, too, thought this information was very interesting. Check out this link:

 

http://www.foreship.com/documents/WhyShipsSink.pdf

[benbess]

My uncle is a container ship Master, and I also have several acquiantences who are pilots in the Puget Sound area. I, too, thought this information was very interesting. Check out this link:

 

http://www.foreship.com/documents/WhyShipsSink.pdf

 

Very useful. Thanks.

 

Rather worrying though. Doesn't seem like it would take anything more severe than what you can see on the Costa Concordia to sink the biggest and newest ships. Things are better than the days of the Titanic, by a whole lot. But maybe not quite as much better as I (in my ignorance) thought.

 

Again, thanks for this...

[poolboyclay]

Right - I can see how they would try to deflect liability by stating a meteor hit the ship or that sharks ate into its hull or that it was attacked by pirates or even backing up the captain and say he hit a rock that wasn't suppose to be there - LOL! But putting the blame on the captain is putting the blame on the company. At least they are accepting responsibilty or do they think the captain is going to personally monitarily compensate the passengers and crew members?

 

All they said was that it "appears" that there was a mistake by the captain.

[cruiserfanfromct]

All they said was that it "appears" that there was a mistake by the captain.

Actually this is what appears on their website:

While the investigation is ongoing, preliminary indications are that there may have been significant human error on the part of the ship’s master, Captain Francesco Schettino, which resulted in these grave consequences. The route of the vessel appears to have been too close to the shore, and in handling the emergency the captain appears not to have followed standard Costa procedures. We are aware that the lead Prosecutor has leveled serious accusations against the ship’s captain, who joined Costa Crociere in 2002 as a safety officer and was appointed captain in 2006.

[Shake]

It seems that the commander has made an error of judgment who have had serious consequences: the route followed by the ship was too close to the coast, and it seems that its decisions in emergency management have not followed the procedures that are in line Costa Cruises and, in some cases go beyond international standards.

 

 

Yes "It seems" the Captain was too close to Shore and.......

 

"It seems" emergency procedures were not followed.

 

We do know is:

 

* A Luxury Cruise Liner is on it's side.

* People have died and others are missing.

* The Captain has been arrested and is in jail.

* Cruising routes can be adjusted by a Captain at anytime.

* A major investigation and changes are forthcoming.

[Finnjet]

Very useful. Thanks. Rather worrying though. Doesn't seem like it would take anything more severe than what you can see on the Costa Concordia to sink the biggest and newest ships. Things are better than the days of the Titanic, by a whole lot. But maybe not quite as much better as I (in my ignorance) thought. Again, thanks for this...

 

EXACTLY what I thought. Although I know that crew "abandon ship" drills cannot simulate a listing vessel, I'd think such a scenario is closer to reality. I'd be interested to know how many life boats were actually launched, and how many people were evacuated by other vessels that wouldn't necessarily be available farther from shore, in the open sea.

[cruiserfanfromct]

Some interesting news tidbits coming out:

 

Investigators have found one of the two "black box" recorders that track the ship's movements. It was reported to show a one-hour lag between the time of the impact at 9.45pm local time on Friday and the first call to the coastguard at 10.43pm.

Mr Schettino apparently left the vessel in a lifeboat at about 11.30pm while there were still about 230 people aboard, including two newborn babies and four disabled people who were not rescued until 2am.

[reallyitsmema]

EXACTLY what I thought. Although I know that crew "abandon ship" drills cannot simulate a listing vessel, I'd think such a scenario is closer to reality. I'd be interested to know how many life boats were actually launched, and how many people were evacuated by other vessels that wouldn't necessarily be available farther from shore, in the open sea.

There is a thread about this accident in the RCL forum that has a link to a site with 100 pictures of the accident. One of these pictures shows all the lifeboats that had been used, tied up in port. There were 20 shown in the picture. From stock pictures of the ship, there looked to be 13 lifeboats down each side of the ship. So, based on those pictures, it looks like they were able to launch the majority of the lifeboats. I don't know if all were actually used, I just know what you can see in the picture.

[benbess]

Wasn't Titanic supposed to be able to float with 4 of its 16 compartments flooded? 5 of course were cut, and that led to the rest being flooded and the ship going to the bottom.

 

The new regulations, if I read them right, require a modern mega cruise ship to stay afloat with only 2 compartments compromised. If you get 3 flooded you're toast. Seems less than what the Titanic had...? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

I know in many ways ships today are better--better steel, more lifeboats, better lifeboats, better watertight compartments (tops esp.), etc., etc., etc.

 

But in this one way was Titanic slightly more able to withstand an accident? Probably not and I'm probably just not understanding things very well...

 

I assume an alarm goes off when you close the watertight doors? Was that done on the Costa? But passengers seem to be saying that no alarms went off until the abandon ship alarm, if I'm understanding correctly....

 

Anyway, a lot will be cleared up by the investigation, obviously...

[EddiesToys]

There is a thread about this accident in the RCL forum that has a link to a site with 100 pictures of the accident. One of these pictures shows all the lifeboats that had been used, tied up in port. There were 20 shown in the picture. From stock pictures of the ship, there looked to be 13 lifeboats down each side of the ship. So, based on those pictures, it looks like they were able to launch the majority of the lifeboats. I don't know if all were actually used, I just know what you can see in the picture.

From what I see, two...possibly three lifeboats on the port side, never made it down to the water. Notice the yellow and white boats still in the davits? The other boats probably auto release when the starboard side came in contact with the water.

 

Eddie M

[ghstudio]

Costa has to try to stop the press and their passengers from focusing on Costa's training, procedures, directives.... They paint a picture that everything corporate did was correct and this entire incident including the crew's lack of assistance was something caused by one "rogue" captain. The press release helps keep everyone's eyes on the captain as the "villan" in all this. As I said in a previous post, the investigators will find problems everywhere...who certified that the crew was safety trained? who specified the life boats on the ship? who approved the emergency plan? How does a waiter wind up trying to drive a lifeboat? Yes, the captain is responsible for everything, but he didn't write the books or design the ship or train the crew that had to be certified before boarding the ship.

 

At risk is more than the financial loss of the loss of the ship and compensation of the passengers. What if passengers cancelled their cruises on other Costa ships? That's one of the main risks they are trying to contain. The procedures, training and so on that applied to this ship likely apply to all the other Costa ships. If they have inadequate procedures, bad ship design, untrained crews then that points back to Costa HQ. Better that they point to the captain and hang him for everything in the public's eye.

 

Additionally, if they can show that the captain was acting frivolously, they may be able to avoid some significant liabilities and perhaps avoid insurance issues.

[Seago2]

Some interesting news tidbits coming out:

 

Can you post the link?

[Mydnite]

Right - I can see how they would try to deflect liability by stating a meteor hit the ship or that sharks ate into its hull or that it was attacked by pirates or even backing up the captain and say he hit a rock that wasn't suppose to be there - LOL! But putting the blame on the captain is putting the blame on the company. At least they are accepting responsibilty or do they think the captain is going to personally monitarily compensate the passengers and crew members?

 

 

I have been wondering if this may have something to do with the way that Italy now has criminal corporate liability, where the directors (or directing minds) of the firm may also be held responsible in certian circumstances. This includes a potential charge of corperate manslaughter.

[reallyitsmema]

From what I see, two...possibly three lifeboats on the port side, never made it down to the water. Notice the yellow and white boats still in the davits? The other boats probably auto release when the starboard side came in contact with the water.

 

Eddie M

There is a lot of lifeboat talk in the thread I mentioned. There is a picture of the starboard side of the ship, obviously prior to it submerging, that shows over half of the lifeboats on that side had already been launched. The deck the lifeboats were on was still high above water level so not sure about the auto release you refer to.

[rt1092]

After what seems to me to be pictures of the gash in the hull, on the port side.

The ship heeled over on the starboard side. I wonder if they tried to ballast the starboard side to get the gash above the waterline. And were unsucessful. I have seen this used twice in my career. Once after a collision of the Staten Island Ferry they left the slip in Staten Island in thick fog without paying attention to the security calls of other vessels The ferry had just left the slip and was T boned by a cargo ship. It was during rush hour and the passengers all ran to the opposite side of the vessel. Causing it to list far enough to keep the crater caused by the cargo ship above the waterline. Some quick thinking by the crew kept the passengers on the side of the ship till the went back into the slip. The boat then actually sunk (only 2 feet deeper that the vessels draft) No body was hurt, just late for work.

Another time I witnessed a container ship run aground on a falling tide approching the Kill Van Kull. It was just a soft bottom so the hull was not compromised. But as the tide fell the ship leaned over far enough to have several containers fall off the side. Some quick thinking by the engine room crew loaded the opposite side ballast tanks to right the ship as much as possible and as the tide rose they pumped them out. Till it was high enough to have several tugs pull the ship off.

[cruiserfanfromct]

Can you post the link?

Sure - here it is:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/costa-concordia-crew-member-rescued-after-36-hours/story-fnb64oi6-1226245435254

[MorganMars]

It's obvious what carnival is

 

Under American law, the principal will not be held responsible if the employee does something bad if the employee is on a frolic as opposed to a detour

 

Not sure if this holds for maritime or Italian law, but at this point, if I was carnival I would be throwing everything up against the wall

 

So if this captain deviated from his plan for purposes of blowing the horn to his familia, that could be a frolic

 

However if somebody can establish that carnival ignored these routine detours then carnival is in a world of hurt

 

And yes I know the ship is not technically owned by carnival, but that won't matter when it comes time for legal strategy time

 

I believe that you will find under maritime law that taking a course past the island would not be considered an issue, whether such "detours" were routine or not, which they appear to have been. Ships sail past islands all the time, but they must stay in waters sufficient for the draft of the vessel. At issue will be any navigational error that took the ship on to charted rocks which led to the disaster. It is a fine point, but one that is often discussed between mariners by citing the example of Captain Smith on the Titanic, in that the cause of that sinking was not due to his decision to sail through the iceberg field, but rather that he chose to do it at a speed too fast for the conditions.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

[cdamion]

EXACTLY what I thought. Although I know that crew "abandon ship" drills cannot simulate a listing vessel, I'd think such a scenario is closer to reality. I'd be interested to know how many life boats were actually launched, and how many people were evacuated by other vessels that wouldn't necessarily be available farther from shore, in the open sea.

 

From looking at lots of pics before it was completely capsized it appears that all lifeboats from the Starboard side launched and all but 2 on the Port side launched.

 

The question I have based on reading a ton on various European sites is how many were in the boats. I read some reports that some were almost empty and others were overcrowded.