Costa Concordia SINKING

[astrocruises]

Here's the timeline from the Telegraph article

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9019143/Cruise-disaster-as-his-ship-took-on-water-captain-told-coastguard-Its-no-emergency.html

 

shortly after 9.40pm passengers heard a “terrifying groan” as the 1,000ft-long ship was torn open and its cabins were plunged into darkness by a power failure.

 

By 9.45pm it was listing by seven degrees, and it was becoming clear to the passengers that something was badly wrong. Some made mobile phone calls to relatives, one of whom alerted their local police in Tuscany, who raised the alarm with the coastguard in Livorno.

 

At 10.06 the coastguard radioed Mr Schettino, who said it was a blackout and was under control. At around the same time, the captain contacted Costa and told them there was a problem.

 

Ten minutes later, the coastguard radioed again, and this time the captain admitted the ship was taking on water, but insisted there was no emergency.

 

It was 10.30pm when, under pressure from the coastguard, he sent a mayday. The ship was now listing by 20 degrees.

 

The order to abandon ship was given 20 minutes later, too late for at least six passengers who are now known to have drowned on-board.

The captain had clambered into a lifeboat at 11.40pm, ahead of women and children. An hour later he told the coastguard he was “co-ordinating the rescue” from the shore. He said: “There are only 200 people left on board. But I’m not in touch with them, I’m in a lifeboat.” Aghast, the coastguard ordered him back to the ship. Mr Schettino failed to comply.

[carlabob]

....?? And how could this "recorded conversation" be from the black box - even if it was somehow able to record conversations off-board? They haven't announced anything yet from the black box so why would they release this recorded convo from the black box? Something isn't adding up here.

 

I agree with you. There is a problem w/that. The article would seem to indicate that they were speaking by phone, & that the Captain had already "disembarked" and was on the island. Unless, the official who is quoted, actually boarded the ship and was speaking from the bridge. That is the only scenario whereby I can imagine a conversation being recorded on the "black box". Again I'm making an assumption that these quotes were translated first from Italian (ANSA), to French (France-Presse), then to English (Vancouver Sun).

 

However, it does suggest an underlying explanation as to the miscommunication & delay onboard between the time of the collision and the commencement of evacuation; ie: a broken chain of command?

 

This coupled w/the previous quote referenced (interview w/the ship's cook) that states the Captain was AWOL @ dinner after the collision is curious to me. It would be interesting if someone could verify the translation of the cook's interview (as well as verify that the cook in the interview is indeed the cook from the Concordia.) Reports are that another dining room employee, who was a resident of the island of Giglio, was present on the bridge, with the captain, at the time of the collision. So, the cook's statements would suggest that the ship had already collided w/the rock outcroppings at the point he was cooking for the Captain; therefore the conclusion has to be that the Captain returned to dinner post-collision. So, I'm having a little trouble reconciling those events as well.

 

 

 

I'm so confused... The black box (on board the ship) recorded a conversation between the official (on land) and the captain (on land)?

[Milaandra]

That is so sad. Truly sad. :(

 

But why did they jump in the first place? I've wondered this alot...was it just panic that made people try to swim to shore, or did no one inform people that the ship was now in shallow water?

[Rancher Dave]

I read somewhere that the captain joined costa cruises 11 years ago and started as a security officer.

 

If this is true, it doesn't sound like anywhere near enough experience to be responsible for nearly 5000 lives and a billion dollar vessel to me....

 

That was an inaccurate translation. He joined as a low level deck officer who was responsible ironically for Safety.

[Hunwolf]

That timeline (if correct) is truly disgusting.

[Isklaar]

Here's the timeline from the Telegraph article

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9019143/Cruise-disaster-as-his-ship-took-on-water-captain-told-coastguard-Its-no-emergency.html

 

shortly after 9.40pm passengers heard a “terrifying groan” as the 1,000ft-long ship was torn open and its cabins were plunged into darkness by a power failure.

 

By 9.45pm it was listing by seven degrees, and it was becoming clear to the passengers that something was badly wrong. Some made mobile phone calls to relatives, one of whom alerted their local police in Tuscany, who raised the alarm with the coastguard in Livorno.

 

At 10.06 the coastguard radioed Mr Schettino, who said it was a blackout and was under control. At around the same time, the captain contacted Costa and told them there was a problem.

 

Ten minutes later, the coastguard radioed again, and this time the captain admitted the ship was taking on water, but insisted there was no emergency.

 

It was 10.30pm when, under pressure from the coastguard, he sent a mayday. The ship was now listing by 20 degrees.

 

The order to abandon ship was given 20 minutes later, too late for at least six passengers who are now known to have drowned on-board.

The captain had clambered into a lifeboat at 11.40pm, ahead of women and children. An hour later he told the coastguard he was “co-ordinating the rescue” from the shore. He said: “There are only 200 people left on board. But I’m not in touch with them, I’m in a lifeboat.” Aghast, the coastguard ordered him back to the ship. Mr Schettino failed to comply.

 

Thanks for this, it seems this timeline makes sense. As time is passing some things are becoming more clear, although there is still a lot of conflicting information (understandable I suppose).

That the ship was listing like that so quickly is something I find very scary indeed.

Those poor people must have been terrified and I can certainly understand why there would be confusion and panic on board under the circumstances.

[mwedge]

Where did you read that?

 

According to the stories I have found, there are 6 bodies found at this point. Three were in the water, at least one of which is presumed to be a heart attack, although the age and even gender of this victim have been reported differently in different accounts.

 

Two seniors were found in the submerged part of the restaurant, one of which was 84 and the other 63? These two were wearing their life jackets, but no information as to why they were still there or how they died.

 

One was found in a dry corridor, wearing his lifejacket. No additional information.

 

I'm not saying that they won't find anyone in that situation, but I just don't want you to feel what you're feeling about a tragedy that, at this point, didn't happen...I think.

 

It was originally reported in the uk as being in a cabin.... However there is a lot of information going about and i may have missed an update so you may be right.

[ObscureAllure]

 

I agree with you. There is a problem w/that. The article would seem to indicate that they were speaking by phone, & that the Captain had already "disembarked" and was on the island. Unless, the official who is quoted, actually boarded the ship and was speaking from the bridge. That is the only scenario whereby I can imagine a conversation being recorded on the "black box". Again I'm making an assumption that these quotes were translated first from Italian (ANSA), to French (France-Presse), then to English (Vancouver Sun).

 

However, it does suggest an underlying explanation as to the miscommunication & delay onboard between the time of the collision and the commencement of evacuation; ie: a broken chain of command?

 

This coupled w/the previous quote referenced (interview w/the ship's cook) that states the Captain was AWOL @ dinner after the collision is curious to me. It would be interesting if someone could verify the translation of the cook's interview (as well as verify that the cook in the interview is indeed the cook from the Concordia.) Reports are that another dining room employee, who was a resident of the island of Giglio, was present on the bridge, with the captain, at the time of the collision. So, the cook's statements would suggest that the ship had already collided w/the rock outcroppings at the point he was cooking for the Captain; therefore the conclusion has to be that the Captain returned to dinner post-collision. So, I'm having a little trouble reconciling those events as well.[/Quote]

 

 

 

This article says he left with 200 people left in board. This matches somewhat to the crew member who said that he left in the last lifeboat while the remaining 200 or so people were being airlifted.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[foxesden1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46011830#46011830

 

I keep watch g the news reals, hoping to hear someone say something good about a crew member... :(

 

So far nothing, how very scary to find out you are alone.

[bobsig]

The black box may have been simply recording the IC's (Idiot Captain's) handheld radio conversations with the Port Authority. Also, the recording could have taken place at the PA office instead or in addition to the black box on the ship. The IC did not even have to be on the ship while the box was recording - which I highly suspect is true based on what I am reading.

[Canadian Karebear]

What will be truly telling is if the Italian government concludes (and I am talking after a full investigation which is far from over) that the ship was operated in a manner outside the legal operating requirements, which may trigger (if the insurnace contract has the provision included which most do) the clause in the policy that states if you were committing a crime no payout is forthcoming under the policy. In that case, I'd suspect Carnival is subject to far greater losses.

 

Not knowing if that ship has a debt load or is paid off...no insurance payout if that is the end result will set back Carnival/Costa a few million bucks.

 

Ultimately this is all sad that so many are so seriously impacted by the desire (based on various reports) to take the ship close to the shore so some folks could wave and honk horns. Now many people are mourning, hurting, and contemplating what next.

 

I guess I have to chime in, being in the insurance industry for 25 years.

The insurance company would be hard pressed NOT to honor a personal injury claim. The parties involved that were victims of this loss are not to blame for the captains error. The last thing the insurance company (and subsequent re-insurers) want is bad press because of that.

The people that are innocent will be paid. Either by the company (in the form of a free cruise or compensation, or both). The loss of life will have to be adjusted separately based on the income level among other factors.

The property damage may be in question by the exclusion you speak of. I have noted this in previous posts.

If there was criminal intent, then the insurer has every right to deny a claim. Upon further thought on this however, the captain's charges were not directly related to a criminal effect on the ship itself, but rather a poor judgement call for sailing too close to an island, and leaving the ship when he was supposed to stay. The insurer (and re-insurers) would also be hard pressed to deny a claim on this basis as Insurance companies do insure stupidity. (I have lots of claims examples on this if you want).

If the Insurance company did not insure for "accidents" then the guy that left his spring tires on this morning in the -29c cold and blowing snow weather that hit the other guy would be at a loss for a claim. We insure him too for whatever coverage he holds.

This wasn't really an "accident" but can be spun that way as the captain did not turn the ship to intentionally hit a rock. He was merely exercising bad judgement.

 

Sorry to get so wordy, but had to chime in my two cents.

 

Remember these ships are insured with at least 4-5 insurance companies (re-insurers) and given the loss ratio of cruise ships is very low, there may be a substantial payout in the end by the insurer's either way you slice it.

 

Insurance companies also don't get involved in civil suits, which I suspect there will be a few of (especially the loss of life involved).

 

this was a sad day all around for everyone involved.

[ObscureAllure]

The black box may have been simply recording the IC's (Idiot Captain's) handheld radio conversations with the Port Authority. Also, the recording could have taken place at the PA office instead or in addition to the black box on the ship. The IC did not even have to be on the ship while the box was recording - which I highly suspect is true based on what I am reading.

 

If he were at the taxi drivers home and the port office were calling him, as the "told three times to go back" story goes, the black box could not have recorded it.

 

This newer story claims he was on a lifeboat when called and told to go back. Others said he was on the docks... Obviously, these all can't be true...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[foxesden1]

How long till we find out what the black box is opened and shared? How lng till this goes to court? Does anyone know how fast and or slow the legal system is in Italy?

[Canadian Karebear]

But why did they jump in the first place? I've wondered this alot...was it just panic that made people try to swim to shore, or did no one inform people that the ship was now in shallow water?

 

Funny we asked the same question, and they said it was because it was so unorganized they felt it was their only option.

The cut their feet on the rocks climbing up after the swim, but other than that they are happy to be alive and safe.

They we quite thankful for the hospitality from the shore, people with blankets and ready to find them shelter.

[mwedge]

How long till we find out what the black box is opened and shared? How lng till this goes to court? Does anyone know how fast and or slow the legal system is in Italy?

 

Unfortunately the Italian courts / Police didn't cover themselves in glory over the Amanda Knox -Meredith Kercher murder case. I hope they do a better job this time around.....

[EVALUATOR]

I guess I have to chime in, being in the insurance industry for 25 years.

The insurance company would be hard pressed NOT to honor a personal injury claim. The parties involved that were victims of this loss are not to blame for the captains error. The last thing the insurance company (and subsequent re-insurers) want is bad press because of that.

The people that are innocent will be paid. Either by the company (in the form of a free cruise or compensation, or both). The loss of life will have to be adjusted separately based on the income level among other factors.

The property damage may be in question by the exclusion you speak of. I have noted this in previous posts.

If there was criminal intent, then the insurer has every right to deny a claim. Upon further thought on this however, the captain's charges were not directly related to a criminal effect on the ship itself, but rather a poor judgement call for sailing too close to an island, and leaving the ship when he was supposed to stay. The insurer (and re-insurers) would also be hard pressed to deny a claim on this basis as Insurance companies do insure stupidity. (I have lots of claims examples on this if you want).

If the Insurance company did not insure for "accidents" then the guy that left his spring tires on this morning in the -29c cold and blowing snow weather that hit the other guy would be at a loss for a claim. We insure him too for whatever coverage he holds.

This wasn't really an "accident" but can be spun that way as the captain did not turn the ship to intentionally hit a rock. He was merely exercising bad judgement.

 

Sorry to get so wordy, but had to chime in my two cents.

 

Remember these ships are insured with at least 4-5 insurance companies (re-insurers) and given the loss ratio of cruise ships is very low, there may be a substantial payout in the end by the insurer's either way you slice it.

 

Insurance companies also don't get involved in civil suits, which I suspect there will be a few of (especially the loss of life involved).

 

this was a sad day all around for everyone involved.

 

The insurance companies may pay out a lot on the claims.

 

But I bet the renewal premiums will be adjusted accordingly.

 

They have debt, and I'm sure those covenants would require insurance.

[JJSMaine]

If he were at the taxi drivers home and the port office were calling him, as the "told three times to go back" story goes, the black box could not have recorded it.

 

This newer story claims he was on a lifeboat when called and told to go back. Others said he was on the docks... Obviously, these all can't be true...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

It seems to me that all this communication happened via ships radio and there fore would be recorded by the black box, as would communication on the bridge.

[Rancher Dave]

I guess I have to chime in, being in the insurance industry for 25 years.

The insurance company would be hard pressed NOT to honor a personal injury claim. The parties involved that were victims of this loss are not to blame for the captains error. The last thing the insurance company (and subsequent re-insurers) want is bad press because of that.

The people that are innocent will be paid. Either by the company (in the form of a free cruise or compensation, or both). The loss of life will have to be adjusted separately based on the income level among other factors.

The property damage may be in question by the exclusion you speak of. I have noted this in previous posts.

If there was criminal intent, then the insurer has every right to deny a claim. Upon further thought on this however, the captain's charges were not directly related to a criminal effect on the ship itself, but rather a poor judgement call for sailing too close to an island, and leaving the ship when he was supposed to stay. The insurer (and re-insurers) would also be hard pressed to deny a claim on this basis as Insurance companies do insure stupidity. (I have lots of claims examples on this if you want).

If the Insurance company did not insure for "accidents" then the guy that left his spring tires on this morning in the -29c cold and blowing snow weather that hit the other guy would be at a loss for a claim. We insure him too for whatever coverage he holds.

This wasn't really an "accident" but can be spun that way as the captain did not turn the ship to intentionally hit a rock. He was merely exercising bad judgement.

 

Sorry to get so wordy, but had to chime in my two cents.

 

Remember these ships are insured with at least 4-5 insurance companies (re-insurers) and given the loss ratio of cruise ships is very low, there may be a substantial payout in the end by the insurer's either way you slice it.

 

Insurance companies also don't get involved in civil suits, which I suspect there will be a few of (especially the loss of life involved).

 

this was a sad day all around for everyone involved.

 

 

I'd agree we would see the people affected treated differently than the hull damage claims. I doubt the insurance companies would see too much risk in not paying Costs for their loss of the ship since such gross negligence appears to be involved. I doubt many people would be in an uproar if Costa is out a few hundred million due to this error in judgement.

 

Taking care of those with personal injuries makes definite sense since not doing that would be hard to defend in the press.

 

It is fortunate that the LR is low for cruise ships.

[Loonbeam]

The transcript was obtained by LaRepublica and appears to have possibly come from a 911 type of system or similar at the port authority...

 

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/16/10164356-captains-favor-to-head-waiter-to-blame-for-cruise-ship-disaster

 

 

If he were at the taxi drivers home and the port office were calling him, as the "told three times to go back" story goes, the black box could not have recorded it.

 

This newer story claims he was on a lifeboat when called and told to go back. Others said he was on the docks... Obviously, these all can't be true...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Canadian Karebear]

The insurance companies may pay out a lot on the claims.

 

But I bet the renewal premiums will be adjusted accordingly.

 

They have debt, and I'm sure those covenants would require insurance.

 

Unfortunately it will hit alot of people and not just Costa. Yes, their renewal premiums will increase, that's a given. But in order to recoup a loss of this size, everyone involved with this type of risk will have to pay. Just like your insurance goes up even though you haven't had a claim on your car, the insurance company still pays out claims on other car accidents right?

Same rule applies, just on a larger scale. Much larger.

I would not be surprised if the rates for cruising go up among other things.

Not only that, as others have said, there may be less people willing to go on a cruise based on this tragedy alone. The Cruise companies will lose money off that as well and be forced to "sell off" cabins just to get people interested in cruising again. They will lose money on this, but it will be a necessary factor in gaining trust.

 

Even though the ship I am sailing on in less than a month has had two mishaps in the last week whereby they have damaged property due to mistakes in navigation, I'm still willing to take the chance that perhaps this is just a one-off. But I will be more apt to check out where the lifejackets are, where the deck is that holds the lifeboats etc... and pay attention to the muster drill.

 

Most cruise ships are not paid off fully, that's a given. Banks have some interest there for sure!

[bobsig]

If he were at the taxi drivers home and the port office were calling him, as the "told three times to go back" story goes, the black box could not have recorded it.

 

This newer story claims he was on a lifeboat when called and told to go back. Others said he was on the docks... Obviously, these all can't be true...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sorry, the black box COULD and DID record his conversation - just as it does when he is on the bridge with his handheld radio directing the crew. The way it works is that his frequency (and many others) are recorded regardless of where he is. The range on his handheld is in miles - not feet.

 

How do I know? I help develop some the software involved in these "black boxes" used in the maritime and aviation industries. His conversation was recorded if he used his handheld radio - which I am sure he did since that is the primary access to the Port Authority.

[Canadian Karebear]

I'd agree we would see the people affected treated differently than the hull damage claims. I doubt the insurance companies would see too much risk in not paying Costs for their loss of the ship since such gross negligence appears to be involved. I doubt many people would be in an uproar if Costa is out a few hundred million due to this error in judgement.

 

Taking care of those with personal injuries makes definite sense since not doing that would be hard to defend in the press.

 

It is fortunate that the LR is low for cruise ships.

 

I suppose that the cost of the loss of the ship depends on what type of insurance they carry as well as the deductible involved as well as whether the ship will be rebuilt or salvaged.

 

Too many factors to discuss at this point. But being in the business, I'll probably see it on Thompson's News at some point.

 

Cruise lines pay alot in Insurance as well, and they are a good customer for insurance companies for the most part. They don't want to be put in a bad position with their customer either. It's a fine line there for sure.

[glrounds]

Looks from the news reports now the issue wasn't so much a fly-by as a daringly aggressive or botched one by shaving far too close to the island - a place where the locals well-knew there was a reef. Yes it had been done before without mishap, just not so close. Yes I can sprint blindfolded across a busy freeway - making to the other side doesn't mean it is smart or safe. Human misjudgement leads to tragedy.

 

So sorry for anybody who has been injured in any way. Appallingly bad, seemingly criminal judgement.

 

Brings to my mind two other tragedies - the military pilot who tried to fly under the Italian alpine cable car and snapped the cable with his tail (a US military flier?), and here in British Columbia a few years ago a large car ferry went down with loss of life when the deck officers didn't notice they had veered off course and hit a rock reef, promptly sank - rumour has it the watch officer was in the midst of a torrid affair with a female crew member who was up on the bridge at the time, and one can imagine what might have distracted him from his sworn and solemn duty to the ship and the souls aboard.

 

There are other examples where human misjudgement or misadventure has breached the immense trust of the travelling public - airline pilots flying impaired by alcohol, emotionally distraught pilots trying to intentionally crash. To me something like this isn't a hugely different event from the dangerous risks taken by businessmen and politicians in recent financial fiascos that destroyed people's financial lives. What is most notable is the huge numbers of endangered passengers, the growing total of the victims killed.

 

The comparisons to the Titanic might be cliche, but wasn't pride and ego the seed of that disaster too? Steaming in fog at night after having received reports of ice.

 

If as it now appears the Captain took a stupid risk for purely egotistical reasons, while I condemn it and expect he will be and should be severely punished, I can even pity how his life is no doubt now destroyed. No wonder he lost his grip. It sounds as though he acted as best he could in the critical moments after the ship was holed though. And nothing but respect for the crew who got most of the passengers safely off under tremendous duress.

 

Looking at the pictures of the empty davits they managed to get a large number of the lifeboats launched.

 

Sad all around.

 

I recall the advice I had from an old sailor when I got my first cruising sailboat: "Never, never compromise the safety of the vessel for the enjoyment or comfort of the passengers or crew."

 

Well put, sir. To add to your sea quotation:

 

"There is nothing more placid and calming than the sea, and yet, nothing more totally unforgiving of even the least bit of ignorance."

 

[bobsig]

The transcript was obtained by LaRepublica and appears to have possibly come from a 911 type of system or similar at the port authority...

 

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/16/10164356-captains-favor-to-head-waiter-to-blame-for-cruise-ship-disaster

 

 

This is probably true - the Port Authority would record all of the radio traffic from the ship AND the handheld radios of the crew including the Captain. Even a strong possibility radio traffic between crew members would have been recorded.

[ObscureAllure]

Sorry, the black box COULD and DID record his conversation - just as it does when he is on the bridge with his handheld radio directing the crew. The way it works is that his frequency (and many others) are recorded regardless of where he is. The range on his handheld is in miles - not feet.

 

How do I know? I help develop some the software involved in these "black boxes" used in the maritime and aviation industries. His conversation was recorded if he used his handheld radio - which I am sure he did since that is the primary access to the Port Authority.

 

I'm sorry - I was going off of the story before that said that got off the ship and was driven some miles away to the taxi drivers house where he was called on his **cell phone** which is why I said it would not have been recorded by the black box. I was merely following the details given in the news report... But then again each report has him in a different place at a different time when this conversation happened, so I suppose it's ignorant of me to listen to the details they give.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk