Costa Concordia captain saved some?

[easy1969]

regardless of what distraction or stupid decision the captian made that caused the ship to hit the rock outcropping I believe that he took the correct action in the hour after the accident.

If he had stopped the ship to abandon ship in deep water I think that at the rate the ship was taking on water it would have capsized completly long before all passangers could have boarded lifeboats that would have resulted in many more deaths.

By taking the damaged ship to shallow water where it bottomed out before it could capsize 180 degrees he did save some lives.

 

that being said he did without a doubt make bad decisions that led to the accident. And then as soon as he got the ship to shallow water he made sure he was one of the saved by " accidently slipping and falling into a lifeboat". I do believe he will be held accountable for that cowardly act and will spend years in prision and the rest of his life playing out those few hours in his mind.

[Aus Traveller]

I am not a marine engineer so I don't know if the ship would have capsized or sunk if the captain had anchored in deeper water. I am sure if he had alerted the Coast Guard (instead of lying when they contacted the ship) and sounded the call to call everyone to muster stations as soon as they knew how serious it was, more lives would have been saved. If he had anchored before the ship developed a severe list they would have been able to lower all the lifeboats.

 

We have now heard that around an hour (or a bit less) after the collision the other captain who was hitching a ride took over command. If that is so, he could be the one who needs to be thanked for bringing the ship into shallow water when they had virtually no power. They relied on their thrusters, the wind and the force of the water to take them to shore.

 

This captain who hitched a ride home (was his name Bario?), the deputy mayor, the doctor and the purser stayed on board until 5.30am organising the evacuation. They all deserve an Award.:)

[ScarboroughCruiser]

regardless of what distraction or stupid decision the captian made that caused the ship to hit the rock outcropping I believe that he took the correct action in the hour after the accident.

If he had stopped the ship to abandon ship in deep water I think that at the rate the ship was taking on water it would have capsized completly long before all passangers could have boarded lifeboats that would have resulted in many more deaths.

By taking the damaged ship to shallow water where it bottomed out before it could capsize 180 degrees he did save some lives.

 

After hitting the rock, I read that the ship lost the use of its main engines so that the ship was moving mainly on momentum. The ship only had control via its rudders and later when the ship slowed down, some use of the bow thrusters (hope that's the right term). In order to use the lifeboats, I would think that the ship would have to come to rest in the water. The only action possible was to turn hard to the right to put the port side perpendicular towards the ship motion thus slowing and stopping the ship. That the ship ended up on shore was the result of time and the tide pushing it against the shore. What I'm getting at is that it seems the ship ending up on shore was only an after thought and not the result of great seamanship and direct action by the ship's driver (whoever that was). The passengers should have been alerted and mustering right after the collision. After the Concordia came to a stop and before it started drifting towards shore was the time to abandon ship and to get everybody off a ship with a big hole in its hull....perhaps saving everybody.

[ehfl]

Grounding a sinking ship is standard practice...apparently the one standard practice he followed.

[mickey_d_mouse]

Saying Schettino did anything to help us is an insult, he did nothing except save his own skin and leave his crew of waiters and cabin staff to help us and risk their own lives he is a coward and an utter disgrace.

 

The ship did not move any closer to Giglio from when we were first told to go to our cabins until the Abandon ship order was given we were there we sat there looking from the hallway through our balcony cabin, whilst he ordered people to tell us everything was alright if he had ordered the abanodon ship immediately and stayed to give commands I do not believe so many people would have lost their life.

 

No one can defend the actions of that incompetant idiot.

[antsnanny]

Saying Schettino did anything to help us is an insult, he did nothing except save his own skin and leave his crew of waiters and cabin staff to help us and risk their own lives he is a coward and an utter disgrace.

 

The ship did not move any closer to Giglio from when we were first told to go to our cabins until the Abandon ship order was given we were there we sat there looking from the hallway through our balcony cabin, whilst he ordered people to tell us everything was alright if he had ordered the abanodon ship immediately and stayed to give commands I do not believe so many people would have lost their life.

 

No one can defend the actions of that incompetant idiot.

 

DITTO ! I hope he gets what he deserves and in the end, I will bet that he did NOT pass his alcohol and drug test. I say that because, who in their right mind acts like that? This has to be so hard for you for so many reasons and to have people defend this captain is ridiculous and your right, it insults all of you who went through what you did. I wish you all the best and that soon you are able to sleep peacefully.

[Maryscooking]

The only reason the lives needed saving were because of the captain's actions.

 

He deserves zero credit for saving anyone. Rather, he has blood on his hands.

 

If a drunk driver hits another vehicle, causing it to burst into flames, are we celebrating him if he manages to drag a passenger out of the burning car? That's what it reminds me of.

[FrankNJ]

Driving the ship into shallow water to keep it from sinking completely , good , driving it into no water on top of rocks , bad , made it fall over .

 

Initiating evacuation immediately when ship holed, good , waiting an hour or so, bad .

 

Helping all the passengers safely ashore, good . Being a coward and going to buy socks, bad .

 

Calling the coast guard for help , good . Telling them , "just a tech problem " bad .

 

What the heck did this tomato brain Schettino do right ?

[Becks200200]

I've been wondering about why, when it's expected that a captain stays with his ship till the very end, he ran like scared child?

 

Is it because he and maybe other officers from the bridge knew the precarious position of the ship on this 'shelf' and that there was a possibility it would slide into deep water?

[ISLANDCRUSO]

Originally Posted by SeaDog-46

2330 - Captain is ashore.

0330 - Helicopter lifts off final person.

According to the harbour master's report: posted by Milandraa

 

0253 - Captain is seen heading to shore

0317 - Captain is identified on shore

0446 - evacuation complete

 

somewhat at odds with other reports! that claim he was on land by midnight!

[Milaandra]

Originally Posted by SeaDog-46

2330 - Captain is ashore.

0330 - Helicopter lifts off final person.

According to the harbour master's report: posted by Milandraa

 

0253 - Captain is seen heading to shore

0317 - Captain is identified on shore

0446 - evacuation complete

 

somewhat at odds with other reports! that claim he was on land by midnight!

 

Truthfully, I don't remember how the "first to leave the ship" rumours started. I think a passenger said she recognized him wrapped in a blanket?

 

Then there was the well publicised phone conversation, which I thought was just one conversation until this harbour master's report came out which shows that it was several conversations.

 

At this point we have one witness on the bridge who said that she was ordered to leave by Schettino at 23:50.

 

Then we have the harbour master's report

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9030216/Costa-Concordia-Harbour-masters-log-shows-how-the-disaster-unfolded.html

 

It says at 00:34 Schettino said he was in a boat and could see people in the water. At that point there were 70-80 people visible on the ship.

 

After that Schettino appears to have floated about the immediate area for about 90 minutes before heading to shore.

 

Again, I think we'll get a better idea of what happened as the trial unfolds.

[Milaandra]

I will bet that he did NOT pass his alcohol and drug test.

 

The toxicology report was negative.

[Milaandra]

We have now heard that around an hour (or a bit less) after the collision the other captain who was hitching a ride took over command. If that is so, he could be the one who needs to be thanked for bringing the ship into shallow water when they had virtually no power. They relied on their thrusters, the wind and the force of the water to take them to shore.

 

This captain who hitched a ride home (was his name Bario?), the deputy mayor, the doctor and the purser stayed on board until 5.30am organising the evacuation. They all deserve an Award.:)

 

Lots of confusion about this one.

 

Roberto Bosio was a senior officer on the Concordia according to the legal document which was published, and also according to the newsletters someone here had from their Concordia cruise a couple of weeks before the accident.

 

I have no idea if the ride-hitching captain was...a different man? A mistake in reporting? I'm going with a different man, since he was quoted as being in his cabin and then at the lifeboats before the abandon ship, whereas Bosio was on the bridge. I can't find anything on line to show who the captain of the Serena is, to see if the name is similar. (or even the same? Two Costa senior officers named Bosio?)

 

The "mutiny" story...that's another confusing one. When the word was first used in the news on the 17th, the stories were that a couple of people (the man who may or may not be Bosio and other officers) had started loading the lifeboats before the abandon ship was ordered. (We know that's true...Michelle has confirmed that) If that's the "mutiny", then it couldn't be on the bridge prior to the abandon ship order, because the "mutineers" were at the lifeboats prior to the abandon ship order, right?

 

I haven't been able to pinpoint references to testimony or quoted witnesses that talk about a mutiny on the bridge. According to the Harbour Master's Report, Schettino told them he had ordered the abandon ship. Now whether it was Schettino himself on the phone or another officer? Who knows.

 

There are just too many things about all this that make you go "hmmm..."

 

At this point, I'm inclined to believe that the "mutiny" on the bridge is urban legend, but I'm sure we'll find out for certain during the trial.

[BIG_Steve]

Lot of accounts and expert opinion flying around. I read an article where more then one ship engineer (not from the Corcordia) insist the way the ship is built it would not have capsized in deeper water. And that the reason it capsized was because of the sharp turn he made with his ship filling up with water down below.

 

Grounding a ship is a last resort if all hope is lost. It doesn't sound to me like grounding was his intent. I've read he wanted to get closer to their little harbor on the island.

 

If the captain left early, I do blame him. But I don't suppose most of us know what we would do in his situation that night.

[tinlizzy]

The ship had no power. It was wind and tide that moved the ship back towards shore.

[Vampire Parrot]

I'm not familiar with the electrical system of Costa Concordia, but given that the engine room had flooded and that the only electrical power available came from the emergency generator, I doubt that the bow (or stern) thrusters could be used. I'll explain why I believe this. If someone else has more information then please say so.

 

To start with, the pictures of Costa Concordia when she was listing slightly shows that none of her cabins are lit, her promenade/lifeboat deck *is* lit, and that she's showing lights that indicate she's not under command. From this, and from the bloody great hole in the hull which flooded the engine room, all evidence points to the only electrical power available comes from the emergency generator.

 

The bow thrusters (and on Costa Concordia, stern thrusters) will require around 1.5 to 2 MW each and so will be connected to the main electrical bus (11kv on Vista ships) which is powered by the main diesel generator sets in the engine room. The emergency generator on Vista class ships (Zuiderdam, Arcadia, etc) can only power the 690V emergency bus and can produce around 1.2MW, and I would place a bet that the same is true on the Costa Concordia. Even if it could be rigged up to power the 11kv bus, it would probably trip if any of the bow thrusters were turned on. So I don't believe the thrusters were used to bring Costa Concordia to the island - I think it was the wind and current that drove her onto the rocks.

 

VP

[bluesy]

DITTO ! I hope he gets what he deserves and in the end, I will bet that he did NOT pass his alcohol and drug test. I say that because, who in their right mind acts like that? This has to be so hard for you for so many reasons and to have people defend this captain is ridiculous and your right, it insults all of you who went through what you did. I wish you all the best and that soon you are able to sleep peacefully.

 

The toxicology report was negative.

Right, and Schettino did not take/was not given an alcohol test.

I assume that is because of the amount of time that had passed from the collision to when Schettino was arrested, but don't really know the official reason for no alcohol test.

[Milaandra]

Right, and Schettino did not take/was not given an alcohol test.

I assume that is because of the amount of time that had passed from the collision to when Schettino was arrested, but don't really know the official reason for no alcohol test.

 

Supposedly the hair test is used for alcohol as well. Until this incident, I didn't even know they could do that!

[olefin32]

regardless of what distraction or stupid decision the captian made that caused the ship to hit the rock outcropping I believe that he took the correct action in the hour after the accident.

 

Disagree completely.

There was plenty time to get everyone off the ship safely, had he taken immediate action. At least he should have sent people to their muster stations as soon as he knew the ship was flooding. And he knew that within minutes due to loss of power from engine room flooding. Instead people were told to return to their cabins. There was no reason for lost lives except the poor decisions made by the person in charge..the Captain.

[greg-nc]

regardless of what distraction or stupid decision the captian made that caused the ship to hit the rock outcropping I believe that he took the correct action in the hour after the accident.

 

Just for reference, the top Coast Guard official in Italy testified that the captain's decision to not abandon ship in the hour after the accident was not the correct decision and obviously cost lives.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/italy-ship-crew-idUSL5E8CU1PN20120130

 

"Italy's top-ranking Coast Guard official, Marco Brusco, said last week that the ship's captain, Francesco Schettino, lost "a precious hour", which made evacuating the ship more difficult.

 

Had the order been given earlier, "the lifeboats could have been launched calmly, people could have been reassured," Brusco said in testimony to a committee in the Italian Senate."

[captainmcd]

I'm not familiar with the electrical system of Costa Concordia, but given that the engine room had flooded and that the only electrical power available came from the emergency generator, I doubt that the bow (or stern) thrusters could be used. I'll explain why I believe this. If someone else has more information then please say so.

 

To start with, the pictures of Costa Concordia when she was listing slightly shows that none of her cabins are lit, her promenade/lifeboat deck *is* lit, and that she's showing lights that indicate she's not under command. From this, and from the bloody great hole in the hull which flooded the engine room, all evidence points to the only electrical power available comes from the emergency generator.

 

The bow thrusters (and on Costa Concordia, stern thrusters) will require around 1.5 to 2 MW each and so will be connected to the main electrical bus (11kv on Vista ships) which is powered by the main diesel generator sets in the engine room. The emergency generator on Vista class ships (Zuiderdam, Arcadia, etc) can only power the 690V emergency bus and can produce around 1.2MW, and I would place a bet that the same is true on the Costa Concordia. Even if it could be rigged up to power the 11kv bus, it would probably trip if any of the bow thrusters were turned on. So I don't believe the thrusters were used to bring Costa Concordia to the island - I think it was the wind and current that drove her onto the rocks.

 

VP

 

This is what I think as well. The only problem I see is from AIS data which show a rapid turn to starboard changing the heading from North to South when nearly dead in the water. It was not caused by any rudder or anchor use. I never sailed on a ship with a bow thruster that consumed less than 1000 kw, and that is on smaller cargo ships.

 

One observation that I have regarding captains is that many companies, especially cruise lines, have chosen deck officers for promotion based on their political skills, their charisma and appearance as much as their professional competence and judgement. I know that is hard to evaluate, but all crew are regularly evaluated by thier supervisors on these qualities and many times those evaluations, which are indeed subjective, are not given enough attention when promoting someone to captain.

 

Having spent 50 years at sea, about a third of them as captain, it is easy to fall into a sense of infalibility. Seldom will someone come up to you and tell you that you made a mistake. Even port captains and marine superintendents who you work for like to give you the benefit of the doubt. If someone is egotistical and starts believing that he is beyond reproach, he is in trouble. In my experience the best captains are those who have a sense of humor and can laugh at themselves, and are self-confident enough to realize they are not perfect and can learn from their mistakes.

[Cuizer2]

regardless of what distraction or stupid decision the captian made that caused the ship to hit the rock outcropping I believe that he took the correct action in the hour after the accident.

If he had stopped the ship to abandon ship in deep water I think that at the rate the ship was taking on water it would have capsized completly long before all passangers could have boarded lifeboats that would have resulted in many more deaths.

By taking the damaged ship to shallow water where it bottomed out before it could capsize 180 degrees he did save some lives.

 

that being said he did without a doubt make bad decisions that led to the accident. And then as soon as he got the ship to shallow water he made sure he was one of the saved by " accidently slipping and falling into a lifeboat". I do believe he will be held accountable for that cowardly act and will spend years in prision and the rest of his life playing out those few hours in his mind.

 

I'm sure this will be debated by the experts. It will be interesting to see what the experts have to say.

[MeridianSkipper]

I presume that a formal board of inquiry will investigate the Concordia disaster in much the same way aircraft mishaps investigations are conducted. Here are some questions that seem to need answers:

Concordia Class Ship Stability and Buoyancy (Cruise ships have become overly top-heavy):

· Does this class ship have inherent stability problems?

· Did the grounding on the rock ledge cause the severe list?

· Should all five Concordia class ships be examined for stability and buoyancy issues?

· Should all five Concordia class ships be examined for stability and buoyancy issues?

· Presuming issues exist, should these ships be pulled from service?

· Were built-in damage control systems sufficiently robust to counter the list?

Emergency / Backup Systems:

· Reports seem to indicate that Concordia was blacked-out owing to generator casualties.

Does this ship class have emergency lighting sufficient to support orderly evacuation procedures?

· Does this class ship have emergency ship generators sufficiently robust to allow for restoration critical systems (e.g. de-watering, lighting, general announcing,)?

· Does this class ship have a damage control center equipped to respond emergency situations?

Training and Procedures (Thoughts on Best Practices):

· Does the Carnival owned fleet have formalized emergency procedures and checklists?

· Is there a printed emergency procedure manual?

· Are crewmembers formally tested on their knowledge of emergency procedures? Is a formal record keeping system to support training?

· Does Carnival use shipboard simulators to train and test critical shipboard personnel?

· Does Carnival have a check captains with similar functionality and authority as those by airline check crews.

· Does Costa have formalized-procedures that address needs of passengers with mobility issues, impaired sight/hearing?

Concordia Captain / Crew Response Best Guess Evaluation:

· Were passengers and crew informed of the gravity of the situation?

· Do “best maritime practices” encourage sharing information concerning emergencies?

· Delays seemed to have occurred, which contributed to chaos and loss of life. What factors, other than bad leadership, could have caused the delays?

This terrible mishap will not keep me ashore. Nonetheless, it seems evident that cruise ship industry puts too much emphasis on resorts at sea and, perhaps, too little emphasis on safety. Whatever the case, the industry should look at this as a “wakeup call.” Business as usual is simply not acceptable.

[sidari]

http://www.cruising.org/vacation/news/press_releases/2012/01/cruise-industry-announces-operational-safety-review

[Keel Haul]

This is what I think as well. The only problem I see is from AIS data which show a rapid turn to starboard changing the heading from North to South when nearly dead in the water. It was not caused by any rudder or anchor use. I never sailed on a ship with a bow thruster that consumed less than 1000 kw, and that is on smaller cargo ships.

 

One observation that I have regarding captains is that many companies, especially cruise lines, have chosen deck officers for promotion based on their political skills, their charisma and appearance as much as their professional competence and judgement. I know that is hard to evaluate, but all crew are regularly evaluated by thier supervisors on these qualities and many times those evaluations, which are indeed subjective, are not given enough attention when promoting someone to captain.

 

Having spent 50 years at sea, about a third of them as captain, it is easy to fall into a sense of infalibility. Seldom will someone come up to you and tell you that you made a mistake. Even port captains and marine superintendents who you work for like to give you the benefit of the doubt. If someone is egotistical and starts believing that he is beyond reproach, he is in trouble. In my experience the best captains are those who have a sense of humor and can laugh at themselves, and are self-confident enough to realize they are not perfect and can learn from their mistakes.

A quality post, I was on the bridge of a cruise ship departing from one of the smaller Canarian Island,the pilot had been told by the Master that he should stay at his daughters wedding (invalidating the insurance) we were about 20 mtrs from the dock side when three pax strolled into view. No pilot vessel meant he had to re dock her which he did.He is my best friend not my Captain when we got inside his cabin I let him have it.In the officers mess that night he apologized.