Concordia News: Please Post Here

[lightman1984]

Looks like M30 is headed back to Giglio.

[SomeBeach]

Interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10460186/Costa-Concordia-officer-I-thought-Captain-Schettino-might-kill-himself.html

 

I wasn't there. I have never met the Schettino. Still I don't think I could picture him as a man that would kill himself. Reason. When ordered to go back to the ship, he did not even attempt to get back on the ship on the other side.

[Uniall]

Interesting.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10460186/Costa-Concordia-officer-I-thought-Captain-Schettino-might-kill-himself.html

 

I wasn't there. I have never met the Schettino. Still I don't think I could picture him as a man that would kill himself. Reason. When ordered to go back to the ship, he did not even attempt to get back on the ship on the other side.

 

My law enforcement gallows humor prompts me to say the captain couldn't be considered a serious suicide risk because he never does the right thing. :D

[bigeck]

When I checked out the Giglio web cams last night it looked like the waves were reaching the Bridge of the Concordia.

We were on Serenade of the seas a few weeks ago down that coast. Glad we missed that. We did have incredible lightning when we were in Cannes

[luisrp]

I just stumbled across some interesting pictures taken aboard the Concordia after the parbuckling on the upper decks showing part of the damage. They were posted by what appears to be someone working there but they are on another forum and don't know if it is ok to post the link here. Just in case I am asking first.

[SomeBeach]

Luis, not sure about your question. Hard call if it is another cruise forum. If it is just a link you are posting it might be ok. If not, it would be removed. We'll leave it to you to decide.

I haven't been able to find any new pictures from inside since the parbuckle.

[matt87]

ya i saw those pics to last night. hopefully some interior pics are soon to follow.

[luisrp]

It's a boating forum, not a cruise forum so I would not be advertising a competing forum. Here goes and I apoligize in advance if it is not ok. :rolleyes: The link goes to page 3 of 4 which is where the pictures start. There are other interesting pictures in the prior pages but we have seen them here.

 

http://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-outdoor-photos/548948-costa-concordia-3.html

[SomeBeach]

It's a boating forum, not a cruise forum so I would not be advertising a competing forum. Here goes and I apoligize in advance if it is not ok. :rolleyes: The link goes to page 3 of 4 which is where the pictures start. There are other interesting pictures in the prior pages but we have seen them here.

 

http://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-outdoor-photos/548948-costa-concordia-3.html

 

Some good pix from the deck. Thank you.

[SomeBeach]

"I was ordered..."

 

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/costa-concordia-crew-member-jacqueline-2851532

[Uniall]

"I was ordered..."

 

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/costa-concordia-crew-member-jacqueline-2851532

 

Interesting last comment that when the final oder came to abandon ship, it came from second officer. ???

[chengkp75]

Interesting last comment that when the final oder came to abandon ship, it came from second officer. ???

 

The second officer and one of the third officers are usually designated as "deck commanders" in charge of all the lifeboat lowering and loading for that side of the vessel. What I believe she meant was that the second officer had received the word to abandon (I believe the decision was the Staff Captain's), and then passed that word to the lifeboat crews.

[glojo]

As a 16yr old sailor I received my baptism of a life afloat when our ship was involved in the horrible recovery of passengers from a cruise ship.

 

we are all quite understandably holding the captain to account but why aren't we learning lessons?

 

If we do any type of research regarding the sinking of large cruise ships a pattern starts to emerge. Fire fighting skills that leave a lot to be desired, poor command and control, poor leadership, the master of the Concordia is most certainly not the first captain to fall woefully short of the standards expected of them.

 

We keep hearing about how it would be too expensive to carry out more detailed, more complex training but at the same time cruise lines are setting higher standards of training for their hotel side?

 

Chengkp

Could you please tell me what simulation type training the captain and senior officers have to do, and how much stress are they put under?

 

I am asking this as there seems to be a fairly common theme when looking at several horrible examples of major incidents, a number of which started as small events but because of the poor training, they escalate?

 

I accept that some simulators can test the skills of these officers, but what about their mental abilities? The ability to think whilst a dozen people are demanding answers and they have to also make life saving decisions whilst answering that bombardment of questions.

 

The Greek Merchant Marine Ministry launched a two-year investigation into the Lakonia disaster. The board of inquiry maintained that the Lakonia never should have passed safety inspections before sailing. Lifeboat davits were rusted and lockers containing lifesaving equipment failed to open.

 

The drain holes in many lifeboats were without stoppers, so that passengers had to constantly bail water.

 

While a lifeboat drill had been conducted by the crew a week before the fateful voyage, only five of the boats had been lowered in the drill. All of the boats should have been tested, the board argued.

 

Charges of looting were dropped after extensive questioning. The crewmen maintained that they had only broken into cabins to search for extra life-jackets.

 

The board of inquiry issued a number of other charges. The order to abandon ship was given too late. Operations on deck were not supervised by responsible officers. The crew, despite a few cases of self-sacrifice, failed to rescue sleeping passengers from their cabins below decks.

 

Eight of the Lakonia's officers were charged with negligence. Captain Zarbis, his first officer and the ship’s security officer were charged with gross negligence. The other five men were charged with simple negligence.

 

Passengers were angered when the wireless operator left the ship in a launch, with a nurse and two musicians. Kalogridis later testified that he had left to rescue people from the water. He did not return to the ship, because the current pushed the launch away, he explained. Passengers also claimed that some of the crewmen took advantage of the chaos to loot staterooms.

 

The cause of the fire was ultimately determined to be a short circuit of faulty electrical wiring.

 

Realising the fate of the ship, the crew fled in panic, neglecting the standard procedure of closing the lower deck portholes. No alarm was raised. Passengers remained ignorant of the events taking place until they witnessed the first signs of flooding in the lower decks. At this stage, eyewitness accounts reveal that many of the crew, including Captain Avranas, were already packed and ready to depart, seemingly unconcerned with the safety of the passengers.

 

Captain Yiannis Avranas was accused by the passengers of leaving hundreds behind with no one other than the ship's on-board entertainers to help them evacuate. Avranas claimed that he left the ship first to arrange for a rescue effort, and then supervised the rescue from a helicopter. Avranas stated: "When I order abandon the ship, it doesn't matter what time I leave. Abandon is for everybody. If some people like to stay, they can stay."

 

A Greek board of inquiry found Avranas and four officers negligent in their handling of the disaster

 

I could keep posting examples but hopefully we get my drift and whilst the master has to be held accountable.. Should the industry not be looking at the bigger picture and demand legislation that requires more strident training, and selection. To me it is unacceptable for any master, any senior officer to put their own lives before those whose lives have been entrusted into their care.

[Uniall]

The second officer and one of the third officers are usually designated as "deck commanders" in charge of all the lifeboat lowering and loading for that side of the vessel. What I believe she meant was that the second officer had received the word to abandon (I believe the decision was the Staff Captain's), and then passed that word to the lifeboat crews.

 

Cheng

I did not post my observation with chain of command in mind. From a legal point of view, unless the comment was an aside by the witness not intentionally elicited by the prosecutor, it would have been drawn out by the prosecutor to build upon with other witrnesses to prove Captain Coward shirked his duty to issue a timely abandon ship order.

 

In a trial, you build facts upon facts with different witnesses and try to save your most compelling witnesses till the end to tie together all the loose ends.

 

John

[chengkp75]

glojo;

 

I won't quote you, as that would just add to the length of this thread, but I'll answer your questions.

 

All deck officers are required to take a "Bridge Resource Management" or "Bridge Team Management" course every 5 years. This is a 3-5 day course, and covers simulated emergency procedures as well as normal navigational problems. While all courses must be accredited by a national body, it varies between training facility as to how realistic, and how stressful they make the situations. Also, as with all simulation training, you know it's a simulation, so the degree of stress is much less.

 

The quality of training aboard ship has been a problem for decades. It is being addressed through the IMO's STCW convention, which dictates training such as the BRM course mentioned earlier. However, in most countries, and under most flags, only the deck and engine departments have to meet STCW training, and training for the hotel department personnel is voluntary. This was pointed out in the USCG report on the Carnival Splendor fire, where many of the fire teams are hotel personnel, but don't have any fire training other than what is done onboard.

 

I will get up on my US flag soap-box again. The USCG requires that every crewmember on a US flag cruise ship (Pride of America), must be a credentialed mariner, have passed the background check, and meet STCW minimum training, which includes a "Basic Safety Training" course which covers things like launching liferafts and lifeboats, basic firefighting, and personal survival in the water. This credentialing and training, however, costs the company about $8-10,000 per person, and there is no guarantee that the person will not quit after one day onboard the vessel. This is why the POA frequently sails short-handed, as a Bahamian flag ship that needs a room steward just calls the crewing agency in the Philippines, and one is on the next flight. There is no pool of room stewards with a USCG merchant mariner's credential just standing around waiting for a job.

 

One of the things that I found interesting when I was interviewing for the job at NCL, was that all officers had to be flown to see a psychologist in Sweden who's job it was to see who could still see the big picture when being bombarded with details.

 

As I've said in the past, until the US cruising public votes with their pocket books against poorly trained flag of convenience crews, the situation will never get much better. The IMO generally only responds to calls for increased safety after there is a catastrophe. Yes, it is a lot more expensive to meet USCG standards than IMO standards, but until the US requires cruise ships to be US flag when homeported in the US, there is nothing that can be done.

 

Ships that don't call on the US are even more removed from scrutiny.

 

Of course the Captain and officers should be held accountable. However, you are again dealing with the laws of the country where the ship is registered, and these may be totally different from ours. And the companies see this as a dollars and cents issue, risking a possible disaster versus an actual cost of increased training, equipment, etc.

 

I can only say what I've been saying for a long time about the cruise industry: Buyer beware.

[chengkp75]

Cheng

I did not post my observation with chain of command in mind. From a legal point of view, unless the comment was an aside by the witness not intentionally elicited by the prosecutor, it would have been drawn out by the prosecutor to build upon with other witrnesses to prove Captain Coward shirked his duty to issue a timely abandon ship order.

 

In a trial, you build facts upon facts with different witnesses and try to save your most compelling witnesses till the end to tie together all the loose ends.

 

John

 

But from a layman's perspective, I can see where the prosecutor would ask, "who gave the order to abandon ship", and the witness would answer, "the second officer", which was her experience. The prosecutor could just leave it at that, giving the appearance that the Captain never gave the command, but the second officer finally did. The Voyage Data Recorder has the abandon ship being passed on the public address (though without the normal signals on the horn), which must have originated on the bridge where the VDR is, not with the second officer.

 

Just the humble opinion of a poor mariner.

 

You must know from my prior posts that I have nothing but contempt for Schettino, and most of his bridge officers, but I think that there is a lot of legal maneuvering here, that I don't particularly like. I know you are a legal professional, but having been on the receiving end of a lawyer's questions for 6 hours during "expert witness" deposition, I know how things can get twisted from what the witness really wants to say.

 

The way to prove that the order was not given in a timely fashion is to use the VDR recordings of the phone calls and radio calls from the engine room telling Schettino how many compartments are flooding, and comparing this with the time that he called for the abandonment.

Edited November 27, 2013 by chengkp75

[Uniall]

But from a layman's perspective, I can see where the prosecutor would ask, "who gave the order to abandon ship", and the witness would answer, "the second officer", which was her experience. The prosecutor could just leave it at that, giving the appearance that the Captain never gave the command, but the second officer finally did. The Voyage Data Recorder has the abandon ship being passed on the public address (though without the normal signals on the horn), which must have originated on the bridge where the VDR is, not with the second officer.

 

Just the humble opinion of a poor mariner.

 

You must know from my prior posts that I have nothing but contempt for Schettino, and most of his bridge officers, but I think that there is a lot of legal maneuvering here, that I don't particularly like. I know you are a legal professional, but having been on the receiving end of a lawyer's questions for 6 hours during "expert witness" deposition, I know how things can get twisted from what the witness really wants to say.

 

The way to prove that the order was not given in a timely fashion is to use the VDR recordings of the phone calls and radio calls from the engine room telling Schettino how many compartments are flooding, and comparing this with the time that he called for the abandonment.

 

My profession has to use all of our wits and wiles to get witnesses to tell the whole truth.

All witness fail to tell the truth, either intentionally or subconciously.

Much of our trial techniques (to you: maneuvering) are devised to get the witness to divulge the greatest possible truth as is possible.

Of course, we could do better, if society would just let us use the interrogation techniques used by our medieval brothers. :eek:

 

John

 

PS

From a trial technique point of view the best way to prove the abandon ship order was not timely is to prove everyone did not get aboard a life boat and they died. The jury feels that in their gut.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Uniall

[Uniall]

[glojo]

Hi Cheng

Thank you once again for your much appreciated wise words and your answers match exactly what I expected. The training of merchant mariners regarding ship handling is certainly very good and we will all fly the flag for our relevant countries which is only to be expected.

 

When push comes to shove however, no one, but no one appears to know how they will act when confronted by the type of pressure the Concordia master or indeed the masters in the examples I posted were put under. They were certainly never prepared for this type of scenario and it sounds like it is not dealt with as part of any command course?? (dealt with in depth).

 

I can lay on my bed tapping away on my keyboard and say I would be a hero and take all this in my stride... Sadly, my experience has shown that sometimes the very worse side of our character comes out. It is so easy to say I could never jump ship before all passengers have left but when faced with making that ultimate decision.... It tends to be not so black and white.

 

I will not go into details but in an extremely high pressure situation where lives were very much in danger... Two men fled, two men that were paid to protect, two men that for years had performed those duties in an exemplary manner but on this night that decision to flee or fight went the wrong way, leaving myself and two others to fend for ourselves. Not only did these two men flee..... They tried concocting stories to cover their conduct!! Two men who were usually very brave, but on that night, in a situation that no one should ever experience, did in my opinion let themselves down, their uniform down and their colleagues down...

 

I am sure they would never have dreamt they would react the way they did. (no doubt that might apply to the captain of the Concordia) I could of forgiven them if they had simply apologised to me when everything cooled down, but to run away and then concoct a story to try and blame others was and is unforgivable (that incident has left me permanently disabled)

 

Just like with the Concordia saga national newspapers had a field day branding those two as cowards, but who were they to judge, would those reporters, editors have acted any differently!! It is so easy to be the Internet judge or indeed the jury, but when that manure hits the fan, how many of us will stand up and take it in the face? :eek:

 

I digress and apologies for that (I am still suffering from that incident) Does the cruise industry need to review its training and to back up that question look at the very few examples of the many I have posted regarding the conduct of those in command of cruise ships. Major disasters are thankfully not that common but it is shocking to see the ongoing pattern of a failure at the highest of levels. The first example I posted was 1963 and if we do any type of search we willl see that it is still happening in just the same way with captains failing miserably to take overall command and CONTROL

 

We are talking about ships that are now carrying possibly FOUR THOUSAND passengers. No way can these souls jump from the ship and the joke, if that is the correct word?? the 'joke' is that NO training is given to the crew regarding the lowering of life-boats at sea in anything like adverse conditions (not even a light swell)

 

should the owners be held accountable for not insisting on this type of training? Perhaps we can all guess why it is not offered (I am in agreement with your assessment on why not)

 

Without having had any of this type of training is it right to prosecute one party, without going for the other? (I am not talking about the manning of the seaboats) I must emphasis that I have no sympathy with the master, I just feel he is the scape goat for what to me is a clear lack of training??

 

The ships might not be registered in the US or UK but to me that is lawyer talk designed solely to avoid compliance with rules and regulations that would probably make these ships a safer location and of course offer theemployeess more rights and better benefits?? Whilst these cruise ships might not be registered in the US or UK..... where do the owners, or fat cats live that own these ships? when we see captains being prosecuted, should the owners also also have their day in court!!:eek:

 

They are employing crews that are not trained to a professional level regarding damage control or other likely emergency. They employ these people and should it be up to the employer to ensure all necessary training is given to enable the master to deal with any situation they might face?

 

Should prospective captains\masters be put under pressure and taught how to multi task in the most stressful of situations. This CANNOT be done in a classroom on a 9am - 5pm course, the industry needs to take this seriously. Should they have some type of sea-going ship operated by a crew and used as a training vessel where all sorts of simulated disasters could be acted out. Even to level of where 'passengers' are paid to be aboard and play there part in putting stress onto the would be commanders!!

 

This captain of Concordia will get crucified and I have little or no sympathy for him, but I feel it somehow distasteful for non sea goers to sit on their high horses and lambast him the way they are doing. (You are clearly an extremely highly regarded seafarer who I have grown to regard in the highest regard and have earned that right) :)

 

:)

My profession has to use all of our wits and wiles to get witnesses to tell the whole truth.

All witness fail to tell the truth, either intentionally osubconsciouslyly.

Much of our trial techniques (to youmanoeuvringng) are devised to get the witness to divulge the greatest possible truth as is possible.

Of course, we could do better, if society would just let us use the interrogation techniques used by our medieval brothers. :eek:

 

Hmmm, I have seen far, far too many witnesses destroyed by extremely clever advocates. I tend to view any criminal court case as an intellectual battle, where the cleverest (or usually highest paid) advocate will win the day and who cares about truth or innocence?

 

I have had the privilege of meeting this man

 

I sat directly behind him for fourteen days and I agree with what you say about trial techniques but I am not so sure about 'the truth' This man would easily get anyone to agree that black was white, white was black!!

 

This I believe might come under the heading of 'robust cross-examination' :o

 

George Carman QC was indeed known for his:

 

robust cross examination, colourful one-liners in court and for winning difficult cases against seemingly insurmountable odds.

To translate.... Getting rich folk off of charges they were 'possibly' guilty of committing.

 

Was he getting witnesses to

divulge the greatest possible truth

 

Or was he doing whatever was in the best interests of those that paid him the eye watering fees that he demanded for representing them? I for one will treasure the memories from those fourteen days sat close to him and also going to his chambers mornings and evenings, a truly 'top man'... Thank goodness I was 'On his side'

 

In case you are wondering why I was there.. He was representing the National newspapers that had branded the two men I was talking about as 'Cowards' (they had the nerve to try and sue those that had printed the story)

 

Apologies for my ramblings and please accept I am bored to tears and I'm enjoying reading these very wise words of both you and Uniall.

 

THANK YOU

 

John

[Uniall]

Hi Cheng

Thank you once again for your much appreciated wise words and your answers match exactly what I expected. The training of merchant mariners regarding ship handling is certainly very good and we will all fly the flag for our relevant countries which is only to be expected.

 

When push comes to shove however, no one, but no one appears to know how they will act when confronted by the type of pressure the Concordia master or indeed the masters in the examples I posted were put under. They were certainly never prepared for this type of scenario and it sounds like it is not dealt with as part of any command course?? (dealt with in depth).

 

I can lay on my bed tapping away on my keyboard and say I would be a hero and take all this in my stride... Sadly, my experience has shown that sometimes the very worse side of our character comes out. It is so easy to say I could never jump ship before all passengers have left but when faced with making that ultimate decision.... It tends to be not so black and white.

 

I will not go into details but in an extremely high pressure situation where lives were very much in danger... Two men fled, two men that were paid to protect, two men that for years had performed those duties in an exemplary manner but on this night that decision to flee or fight went the wrong way, leaving myself and two others to fend for ourselves. Not only did these two men flee..... They tried concocting stories to cover their conduct!! Two men who were usually very brave, but on that night, in a situation that no one should ever experience, did in my opinion let themselves down, their uniform down and their colleagues down...

 

I am sure they would never have dreamt they would react the way they did. (no doubt that might apply to the captain of the Concordia) I could of forgiven them if they had simply apologised to me when everything cooled down, but to run away and then concoct a story to try and blame others was and is unforgivable (that incident has left me permanently disabled)

 

Just like with the Concordia saga national newspapers had a field day branding those two as cowards, but who were they to judge, would those reporters, editors have acted any differently!! It is so easy to be the Internet judge or indeed the jury, but when that manure hits the fan, how many of us will stand up and take it in the face? :eek:

 

I digress and apologies for that (I am still suffering from that incident) Does the cruise industry need to review its training and to back up that question look at the very few examples of the many I have posted regarding the conduct of those in command of cruise ships. Major disasters are thankfully not that common but it is shocking to see the ongoing pattern of a failure at the highest of levels. The first example I posted was 1963 and if we do any type of search we willl see that it is still happening in just the same way with captains failing miserably to take overall command and CONTROL

 

We are talking about ships that are now carrying possibly FOUR THOUSAND passengers. No way can these souls jump from the ship and the joke, if that is the correct word?? the 'joke' is that NO training is given to the crew regarding the lowering of life-boats at sea in anything like adverse conditions (not even a light swell)

 

should the owners be held accountable for not insisting on this type of training? Perhaps we can all guess why it is not offered (I am in agreement with your assessment on why not)

 

Without having had any of this type of training is it right to prosecute one party, without going for the other? (I am not talking about the manning of the seaboats) I must emphasis that I have no sympathy with the master, I just feel he is the scape goat for what to me is a clear lack of training??

 

The ships might not be registered in the US or UK but to me that is lawyer talk designed solely to avoid compliance with rules and regulations that would probably make these ships a safer location and of course offer theemployeess more rights and better benefits?? Whilst these cruise ships might not be registered in the US or UK..... where do the owners, or fat cats live that own these ships? when we see captains being prosecuted, should the owners also also have their day in court!!:eek:

 

They are employing crews that are not trained to a professional level regarding damage control or other likely emergency. They employ these people and should it be up to the employer to ensure all necessary training is given to enable the master to deal with any situation they might face?

 

Should prospective captains\masters be put under pressure and taught how to multi task in the most stressful of situations. This CANNOT be done in a classroom on a 9am - 5pm course, the industry needs to take this seriously. Should they have some type of sea-going ship operated by a crew and used as a training vessel where all sorts of simulated disasters could be acted out. Even to level of where 'passengers' are paid to be aboard and play there part in putting stress onto the would be commanders!!

 

This captain of Concordia will get crucified and I have little or no sympathy for him, but I feel it somehow distasteful for non sea goers to sit on their high horses and lambast him the way they are doing. (You are clearly an extremely highly regarded seafarer who I have grown to regard in the highest regard and have earned that right) :)

 

:)

 

 

Hmmm, I have seen far, far too many witnesses destroyed by extremely clever advocates. I tend to view any criminal court case as an intellectual battle, where the cleverest (or usually highest paid) advocate will win the day and who cares about truth or innocence?

 

I have had the privilege of meeting this man

 

I sat directly behind him for fourteen days and I agree with what you say about trial techniques but I am not so sure about 'the truth' This man would easily get anyone to agree that black was white, white was black!!

 

This I believe might come under the heading of 'robust cross-examination' :o

 

George Carman QC was indeed known for his:

 

To translate.... Getting rich folk off of charges they were 'possibly' guilty of committing.

 

Was he getting witnesses to

 

Or was he doing whatever was in the best interests of those that paid him the eye watering fees that he demanded for representing them? I for one will treasure the memories from those fourteen days sat close to him and also going to his chambers mornings and evenings, a truly 'top man'... Thank goodness I was 'On his side'

 

In case you are wondering why I was there.. He was representing the National newspapers that had branded the two men I was talking about as 'Cowards' (they had the nerve to try and sue those that had printed the story)

 

Apologies for my ramblings and please accept I am bored to tears and I'm enjoying reading these very wise words of both you and Uniall.

 

THANK YOU

 

John

 

I keep posting, despite past flaming or disresepct of my opinions, motivated by a world wide hatred of the legal profession. I have tried very hard to not respond in kind. It is important that reality and truth must be told.

 

Despite views to the contrary, the legal profession is a noble and honorable calling. Like all professions, clergy, medicine, and education, they are called a "profession" because the practioners profess their knowledge "for the public good." None of these professions should be judged by the few bad apples who enter their ranks.

 

I believe that the severe animosiity toward the legal profession is generated by an angst because of its power and authority to judge the actions of everyone else. That's our job and some one has to do it, unless we go back to trial by combat, torture or ordeal.

 

I reiterate, all witnesses fail to tell the truth. Some because of faulty memory or self induced belief that what they saw and heard is an accurate portrayal of objective reality. Others, tell intentional lies to hide their guilt or for their belief in a greater good (ie convicting a person they believe guilty but who might go free).

 

In the final analysis, it's a jury that decides the guilt or innocence, not the lawyers. I can tell you from personal expereince that juries get it right 98% of the time. The collective wisdom of 12 persons is expotentially greater than the sum of the wisdom of 12 individuals. That's why I believe the Anglo-American common law reliance on juries is superior to the continental reliance on codal law judges.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Uniall

[glojo]

Hi Uniall,

As you know I have only recently been following this thread and in that period I tend to look out for your contributions and those of that olde sea salt Cengkp75. Much, much respect for you in defending your profession and hopefully no one will have any type of come-back to your latest post.

 

May I respectfully change the subject and hurtle back aboard the Concordia?

 

Do you believe the owners have any responsibility or is it culpability regarding this incident?

 

I still do not fully understand why that helmsman was prosecuted and whilst I accept he might not go to prison, he will still have a criminal record.

 

If the captain knew this man had a problem understanding the language, then was this officer negligent in still allowing this person to do that job?

 

Would this then apply to every single senior officer of the watch, if that person was really struggling to understand helm orders?

 

If the captain was showing off and speaking in English purely to 'entertain' the guests on the bridge, then the helmsman must surely be innocent of any charge unless the English language was a requirement and if so, we are back to asking why he was allowed in that position of trust?

[Uniall]

Hi Uniall,

As you know I have only recently been following this thread and in that period I tend to look out for your contributions and those of that olde sea salt Cengkp75. Much, much respect for you in defending your profession and hopefully no one will have any type of come-back to your latest post.

 

May I respectfully change the subject and hurtle back aboard the Concordia?

 

Do you believe the owners have any responsibility or is it culpability regarding this incident?

 

I still do not fully understand why that helmsman was prosecuted and whilst I accept he might not go to prison, he will still have a criminal record.

 

If the captain knew this man had a problem understanding the language, then was this officer negligent in still allowing this person to do that job?

 

Would this then apply to every single senior officer of the watch, if that person was really struggling to understand helm orders?

 

If the captain was showing off and speaking in English purely to 'entertain' the guests on the bridge, then the helmsman must surely be innocent of any charge unless the English language was a requirement and if so, we are back to asking why he was allowed in that position of trust?

 

The owners' may have some culpability IF they knew or should have known ("constructive knowledge") that the captain would put the ship in a danger zone. That was why early discussions involved the prior history of sail by "salutes".

 

Regarding culpability of other officers on the bridge, I'm beginning to suspect (not sure yet) that the Italian court may be borrowing a limited page from the international war crime law by requiring officers to affirmatively question captain's orders if a reasonable seaman would believe the ship was being put in a danger zone. (Perhaps even to say: "Captain, I don not understand English, please use Italian")

[chengkp75]

The owners' may have some culpability IF they knew or should have known ("constructive knowledge") that the captain would put the ship in a danger zone. That was why early discussions involved the prior history of sail by "salutes".

 

Regarding culpability of other officers on the bridge, I'm beginning to suspect (not sure yet) that the Italian court may be borrowing a limited page from the international war crime law by requiring officers to affirmatively question captain's orders if a reasonable seaman would believe the ship was being put in a danger zone. (Perhaps even to say: "Captain, I don not understand English, please use Italian")

 

Uni;

 

I will say that I have a great deal of respect for the legal profession, and most who practice it, but just like my profession, there are Schettino's in any profession. My experience was with one who, while not in Schettino's league, was decidedly biased towards his client (as he probably should be)(it just hurt to have my qualifications and conclusions questioned by a non-mariner).

 

Glojo;

 

Some of the corporate officers have been sentenced, and I think Uni will confirm, that depending on the outcome of the Schettino trial, there may be more charges to come. Some of the bridge officers also have been convicted, mainly for not following their responsibilities to point out to the Captain their concerns about the ship's navigation.

[glojo]

Uni;

 

I will say that I have a great deal of respect for the legal profession, and most who practice it, but just like my profession, there are Schettino's in any profession. My experience was with one who, while not in Schettino's league, was decidedly biased towards his client (as he probably should be)(it just hurt to have my qualifications and conclusions questioned by a non-mariner).

 

Glojo;

 

Some of the corporate officers have been sentenced, and I think Uni will confirm, that depending on the outcome of the Schettino trial, there may be more charges to come. Some of the bridge officers also have been convicted, mainly for not following their responsibilities to point out to the Captain their concerns about the ship's navigation.

Thanks once again :)

[Ken711]

Looks like one of those cranes they use when constructing high rise buildings is installed on the CC.