Costa Ship grounded or sinking

[Aussie Gal]

Redwing 55,

 

Thanks Windsor, for what you and the crew did. So many folks are looking for sensational stories and news to get headlines. You did and wrote the right headlines!

Prayers to you and all that were part of this accident- even the captain. Cruising offers so much to so many. Too bad that so many prefer to point out the bad over the good. But yes, a tragedy that may have been avoided has occurred. So grateful that so many were rescued with little or no injury.

 

I think you will find that Windsor 26 was reporting what he read on Facebook. He wasn't on the ship or is part of the crew.

 

Jennie

[Redwing55]

Redwing 55,

 

Thanks Windsor, for what you and the crew did. So many folks are looking for sensational stories and news to get headlines. You did and wrote the right headlines!

Prayers to you and all that were part of this accident- even the captain. Cruising offers so much to so many. Too bad that so many prefer to point out the bad over the good. But yes, a tragedy that may have been avoided has occurred. So grateful that so many were rescued with little or no injury.

 

I think you will find that Windsor 26 was reporting what he read on Facebook. He wasn't on the ship or is part of the crew.

 

Jennie

Thanks for pointing that out. I couldn't tell by the post, though I did see an email.

[azbirdmom]

The cruise by has been mentioned previously, but his article indicates that it was done for the head waiter. This story just keeps getting more disgusting http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/16/10164356-captains-favor-to-head-waiter-to-blame-for-cruise-ship-disaster

[bdjam]

A simulator makes no difference if the Master of the vessel decides to take a side trip.

 

As for Titanic, it was well known by her builders that she was not unsinkable - anything with a big enough hole in it is going to sink. When White Star marketed Titanic, they changed the by-line from "Practically Unsinkable" to "Unsinkable."

 

Simulators are only as good as the software that humans write to cover all possible known emergencies.

 

I doubt, for example, that a simulator if one had existed would have done any good for the Titanic as it was "unsinkable" until a situation occurred that nobody had ever anticipated

[bdjam]

That's not the way I read it - seems that they went back up to their cabin and stayed there for about an hour until the evacuation call came. If the Captain had started evacuation as soon as he knew the ship was severely damaged, it probably would have gone a lot better than it did.

 

If you read the post by one of the Aussie survivors who was at dinner that night, there was no time to do anything other than try and save themselves. Here is the link: http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1548951

 

Jennie

[CZEE]

I don't think a pilot was on board. The ship had left Civitavecchia hours beforehand and was in heading for Savona. I don't believe a pilot was necessary once leaving port.

 

Jennie

 

You misunderstood. I wasn't commenting on whether or not there was a pilot on board.

 

A former poster said the captain was always in charge. I addressed that. Pilots take control of ships in their ports. It can sometimes take 10 or more years to become a master pilot. San Francisco Bay is one such port. The Panama Canal is another. I remember when the aircraft carrier Enterprise grounded under the Golden Gate Bridge. The San Francisco Bay pilot was absolutely to blame. Not the US Navy captain.

[karatemom2]

That's not the way I read it - seems that they went back up to their cabin and stayed there for about an hour until the evacuation call came. If the Captain had started evacuation as soon as he knew the ship was severely damaged, it probably would have gone a lot better than it did.

 

I agree. Had proper evacuation procedures been implemented immediately and mayday call initiated as soon as the impact occurred likely things would have gone better. Because of the delay, people were lulled into a false sense of security and then when things really started to deteriorate quickly, people naturally panicked and by then the situation was dire and all of the lifeboats were no longer able to be used. So at that point sheer pandemonium appeared to result. Seems pretty clear there was a real lack of leadership and I don't blame the crew. In fact, it seems pretty clear that when the dust settles we will discover it was likely certain members of the crew who rose up and did the right thing by passengers that helped to save lives. Some reports are even now saying that an official evacuation order never came, but that members of the crew basically began to take charge because of the obvious severity of the situation. You can bet that the purser who stayed behind loading people into lifeboats until he himself slipped and broke his leg and then had to be airlifted off the ship will be one of those extraordinary crew stories. I'm sure there will be others.

[robgvic]

Sorry if I have missed it here but I am curious about the gash in the ship. Why did the ship sink in that way so we can see theg gash from the rock. Was it also gashed on the other side? Anyone know?

[Carolyn R]

I think the focus right now should be finding the missing, hoping that some of the 29 missing will be found alive. Although none of us knows how we would respond in such an emergency, I am dismayed at the panic and "me first" attitude by so many of the passengers during the evacuation, reports of men pushing ahead of women with children to get into the lifeboats. Panic and fear changes us all but I think that basic human kindness or lack of it shows up when an emergency occurs.

[Princess Patches]

Sorry if I have missed it here but I am curious about the gash in the ship. Why did the ship sink in that way so we can see theg gash from the rock. Was it also gashed on the other side? Anyone know?

 

See my post #76 for a possible explanation of why the tear in the hull is on the portside, but the ship sunk to starboard side.

[Aussie Gal]

Here is a link to a most interesting article in an Italian newspaper. I just hope that I never cruise on a ship where the Captain thinks it standard procedure to cruise to close to an island and blow the ship's horn just because a) a one time Commander of the ship lives on the island and b) one of the crew on board the ship comes from the island.

 

http://www.corriere.it/english/12_gennaio_16/disaster-caused-sail-past-manoeuvre_6c1da704-4052-11e1-a5d2-75a8a88b1277.shtml

 

Jennie

[robgvic]

See my post #76 for a possible explanation of why the tear in the hull is on the portside, but the ship sunk to starboard side.

Thanks but I don't think we can believe anything the Captain said. I certainly won't give up cruising but don't think I will ever consider Costa. They don't seem to hire well, have good safety procedures and have had a poor record anyway

[RickEk]

See my post #76 for a possible explanation of why the tear in the hull is on the portside, but the ship sunk to starboard side.

 

This seems to be a reasonable explanation...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/interactive-graphics/9018076/Concordia-How-the-disaster-unfolded.html

[Princess Patches]

This seems to be a reasonable explanation...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/interactive-graphics/9018076/Concordia-How-the-disaster-unfolded.html

 

This article states exactly what I stated in my post #76. Even though the gash in the hull was on portside, the ship sunk to starboard side when the crew turned the ship starboard in an attempt to make the harbor and thus shifting the weight of gravity to starboard side.

[Princess Patches]

Thanks but I don't think we can believe anything the Captain said.

 

I do not agree. The evidence is mounting that the captain acted recklessly, but that does not preclude the captain and crew from making some attempt to save the ship by turning it starboard towards the harbor. The positioning of the stranded ship certainly suggests that. It is the only scenario that seems plausible to me that would explain why the ship sank starboard side but the gash in the hull was portside.

[robgvic]

You have convinced me, Princess Patches. There really is no other explanation for now at least

[satxdiver]

I do not agree. The evidence is mounting that the captain acted recklessly, but that does not preclude the captain and crew from making some attempt to save the ship by turning it starboard towards the harbor. The positioning of the stranded ship certainly suggests that. It is the only scenario that seems plausible to me that would explain why the ship sank starboard side but the gash in the hull was portside.

 

The recorder has been recovered and we will all know soon what the ship did during the crisis. If the captain did indeed try to turn the ship into the harbor, it will show on the recorder. Another possibility is that the ship navigation system failed or the command link failed causing the ship to capsize. I recall the incident off the Atlantic coast where a ship suddenly listed to one side due to a navigation fault not too long ago.

[Wehwalt]

I'm curious to find out if Costa in the past has disregarded such deviations of course. And keep in mind, to give a good show to the passengers at a time of year when the sun doesn't make much of an appearance (eight or ten hours a day) is not trivial. Plainly the captain acted recklessly, or permitted recklessness, but I'm curious to see what will come out about corporate practice.

[WVBill]

I don't know if this has been posted before but there was a CC member aboard who posted an account of her experience here:

 

http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1548951

[Princess Patches]

The recorder has been recovered and we will all know soon what the ship did during the crisis. If the captain did indeed try to turn the ship into the harbor, it will show on the recorder. Another possibility is that the ship navigation system failed or the command link failed causing the ship to capsize. I recall the incident off the Atlantic coast where a ship suddenly listed to one side due to a navigation fault not too long ago.

 

Yes, you are right. That is another plausible theory. Someone else mentioned to me that the captain/crew may have turned the ship starboard when it was clear they could not go further in order to beach it on the reef on which it now rests and thus prevent it from going under completely. A third plausible theory.

 

One thing all three theories have in common is that the ship turned starboard for whatever reason (to try to make it to harbor, failure of the navigational system, or to beach it on the reef) and this turn caused the water pouring in portside to shift to starboard side resulting in the ship capsizing starboard side down.

[cruzinchris]

Night vision video of evacuation from the Concordia:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16591501

[Princess Patches]

Here is a transcript of a telephone call released by the Italian Port Authority in which the captain and first officer are accused of abandoning ship and are ordered to return to the ship, but they fail to do so. The captain actually claims at one point that it is too dark for him to return to the ship. Just unbelievable.

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/story.html?id=6007749

[VOR]

The recorder has been recovered and we will all know soon what the ship did during the crisis. If the captain did indeed try to turn the ship into the harbor, it will show on the recorder. Another possibility is that the ship navigation system failed or the command link failed causing the ship to capsize. I recall the incident off the Atlantic coast where a ship suddenly listed to one side due to a navigation fault not too long ago.

 

Their is mounting evidence that relatives of the head waiter, who was from that island, were expecting something with this ship. His father talked to the press about it, and I believe it was his sister who posted something on her Facebook page.

[Carolyn R]

Here is a transcript of a telephone call released by the Italian Port Authority in which the captain and first officer are accused of abandoning ship and are ordered to return to the ship, but they fail to do so. The captain actually claims at one point that it is too dark for him to return to the ship. Just unbelievable.

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/story.html?id=6007749

 

Oh my! I just heard this on CNN. Shocking!

[VOR]

Oh my! I just heard this on CNN. Shocking!

 

This appears to be a translation of a conversation that happened in a different language, but its pretty damning.

 

In the end though, I don't think the time the Captain got off the ship will be a factor in the success of the evacuation.

 

His decision to navigate close to the shore was however the cause of the tragedy in the 1st place. That is his real crime.