Concordia News: Please Post Here

[sidari]

Tonka ... regardless of how it is presented an airliner full of Innocent people were killed! the fact that money was paid to those families relatives to me is an admission of guilt without saying it, as it will be in the Concordia case.

 

To compare it to Concordia is not wrong because the end result is the same ie Dead people! the difference being one Captain will be jailed more than likely while the other one gets to keep his Gold plated pension.

[Tonka's Skipper]

Tonka ... regardless of how it is presented an airliner full of Innocent people were killed! the fact that money was paid to those families relatives to me is an admission of guilt without saying it, as it will be in the Concordia case.

 

To compare it to Concordia is not wrong because the end result is the same ie Dead people! the difference being one Captain will be jailed more than likely while the other one gets to keep his Gold plated pension.

 

 

 

 

Your wrong, Military operations and Captian who was operating under rules of engagement is nothing even close to the fool/criminal Captian on the concordia!

 

Frankly you owe the Captian of the naval ship an applogy to even try and compare them. example!

 

The story presented here was mispresented by the smuff person, as is most of that person comments.

 

AKK

Edited October 17, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Ken711]

Will meet this afternoon, October 17, Florence 14 at the headquarters of the Region of Tuscany, the Observatory for the removal of the Costa Concordia. The meeting, attended by, among others, the Mayor of the Municipality of Isola del Giglio Sergio Ortelli and representatives of companies Titan-Micoperi and Costa Cruises, part of the normal activities of supervision of the work in progress with the aim of take stock of the situation. We will discuss the security plan and the plan risks of ongoing operations particularly with regard to authorization procedures and technical and operational for the positioning of platforms to use "false bottom" on the off-shore the ship. From what was learned from sources close to the companies that are operating on the island of Giglio, within 10 days, maximum end of the month, will be completed during the ship's anchor while in spring you might succeed in straightening. Then the next summer could perhaps spend to complete the installation of the boxes on the starboard side to arrive in the early fall with the physical removal of the wreck with drive to the port of destination.

 

If these sources are correct, the timeline appears to have the ship raised upright in the spring, the sponsons installed on the starboard side in the summer and the ship moved early fall. Other articles appear to indicate the lag in the removal process has been caused by issues with the seabed rock fracturing during the drilling of pilings. So that the pilings are taking much longer to install.

[Tonka's Skipper]

If these sources are correct, the timeline appears to have the ship raised upright in the spring, the sponsons installed on the starboard side in the summer and the ship moved early fall. Other articles appear to indicate the lag in the removal process has been caused by issues with the seabed rock fracturing during the drilling of pilings. So that the pilings are taking much longer to install.

 

 

Ken, as always, thanks for your work to get these great photos!

 

As expected..lots of delays already!

 

I wonder what to latest total project costs is?

 

AKK

[Uniall]

We're packed and ready to go on our 14 day NCL Star, New York to New Orleans cruise.

 

I hope they have "NCL University" classes in knot tieing. I can practice and bring my new learned skills back to the Concordia thread for "Captain Death"

 

 

John

:p

[sidari]

"Your wrong, Military operations and Captian who was operating under rules of engagement is nothing even close to the fool/criminal Captian on the concordia!

 

Frankly you owe the Captian of the naval ship an applogy to even try and compare them. example!

 

The story presented here was mispresented by the smuff person, as is most of that person comments"

 

A military operation the Captain was told then ordered to stand down from of which he did neither despite being told that the aircraft was a civilian airliner, gung ho and trigger happy comes to mind.

 

So this story is not true then ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Tonka's Skipper]

"Your wrong, Military operations and Captian who was operating under rules of engagement is nothing even close to the fool/criminal Captian on the concordia!

 

Frankly you owe the Captian of the naval ship an applogy to even try and compare them. example!

 

The story presented here was mispresented by the smuff person, as is most of that person comments"

 

A military operation the Captain was told then ordered to stand down from of which he did neither despite being told that the aircraft was a civilian airliner, gung ho and trigger happy comes to mind.

 

So this story is not true then ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

 

 

Wiki??.ho a good source.sorry,,,,,,,,,,,,wrong!.....your stroy is based on a report.not the case report.....

Edited October 17, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Tonka's Skipper]

Wiki??.ho a good source.sorry,,,,,,,,,,,,wrong!.....your story is based on a report.....not the case report....

 

Not to mention is was in a active war zone, there was combat aircraft in the area and the Irans started to whiole inccident with gunboat and radio trarrfic the final reports showed was designed to confus the issue!

 

It would not surprize me the Iran goverment wanted the civilian plane shot down for the propagader!

 

 

but you beleive what you want.........but this iccident is in no way near the Concordia!

 

AKK

Edited October 17, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Tonka's Skipper]

Delete

Edited October 17, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[CostaSmurfette]

Going back to the ship and her apparently growing list of unserviceable equipment...

 

Perhaps Tonka can answer this in a mature way since he has some experience of being at sea other than as a passenger...

 

Is there some sort of "minimum equipment list" that a ship must have in order to proceed to sea safely?

 

In aviation, the MEL is a vital piece in regard to safety...that is to say, that is an aircraft is missing vitial instrumentation or equipment is unserviceable that that equpiment could potentially endanger the aircraft and anyone on it, the aircraft is grounded until everything is in full working order and signed off as nil defect.

 

Concordia seems to have been having quite a few equipment problems...whether switched off or just unserviceable....so if such a minimum equipment list exists for shipping, would the "missing" items not be on that list as reasons to keep the ship in port until all were put right?

 

Or is it a case of "well they were due to be fixed, appointment booked with engineers" but the accident happened before that date...which seems to have been the case here....and Concordia was given clearance to sail on the proviso that all faults would be repaired by a given date (in this case January 14, 2012)...?

 

I am curious as to whether or not there is a go/no-go type of legislation in shipping and if not, after this accident, that maybe the introduction of this measure would be viable?

[Vampire Parrot]

A question that has been asked is along the lines of "When Schettino took the conn, did he have enough time to avoid hitting the rocks?"

 

I believe I have the answer.

 

At 21:39:17 Schettino took the conn. Even if the ship had been heading directly at the island (which it wasn't but I'll take the worst case scenario), giving the command "helm starboard 5 degrees" would have taken the ship clear of the island. Yes, just five degrees.

 

The ship hit the rocks at approximately 21:45. Let's round that down to 21:44. And let's assume it took Schettino 43 seconds to put his coffee down, so it wasn't until 21:40 he effectively took the conn. Again, worst case scenario. At 16 knots, Concordia would travel 1950 metres in 240 seconds. (8.23 m/s * 280 seconds)

 

If the rudder had been put to 5 degrees starboard at 21:40, 43 seconds after Schettino took the conn, the ship's advance (i.e. maximum distance travelled in the initial forward direction) would be sllightly less than 1400 metres and she'd have missed the rocks.

 

VP

 

p.s. At 16 knots, full rudder (35 degrees) on Costa Concordia has an advance of only 530 metres - she was a very maneuvreable ship.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[sidari]

VP ... Thanks for that insight into ship and rudder movement.

 

Tonka ...maybe this one has more credibility than wiki ? being as the people involved are US citizens.

 

http://alt-f4.org/img/seaoflies.html

[Ken711]

Ken' date=' as always, thanks for your work to get these great photos!

 

As expected..lots of delays already!

 

I wonder what to latest total project costs is?

 

AKK[/quote']

 

The salvage is expected to cost at least €300 million ($387 million) and will set new technical and environmental standards.

 

However, the latest from insurance giant Lloyd's said the cost has already increased 100 million so now I'd estimate around $487 million. And, I wouldn't be surprised to see it easily increase to well over $500 million.

 

The Costa Concordia wreck removal costs have increased by $100m and claims are now being made on the second layer of the International Group reinsurance programme.

[Max49]

Sid, you obviously don't like America or Americans. In hindsight, it was a mistake, but they did'nt know if it was fighter jets about to come down on them like in Pearl Harbor.

Iran apparently was willing to risk civilians by having commercial airliners and fighter jets using the same runway.

Besides, why are you still holding a grudge? Iran may very well feel they paid us back when our commercial airliners were hijacked and rammed into our Twin Towers. How many innocent people were killed in that? 2,977 victims and 19 hijackers.

Get over it, it was a military mistake and also a mistake to have commercial airliners taking off right into where hostilities are already going on. Heck, with all the lunatic suicide bombers over there, they could have crashed the commercail airliner right into our naval ship just like they did on 911

Is this your best defense for Schettino?

Edited October 17, 2012 by Max49

[Max49]

Yes, it does seem Schettino has a few supporters here. After 2 days of hearings, there is no doubt he caused the accident but Costa will probably share the blame for not acting fast enough in alerting the authorities and botching the evacuation process. The attorneys will certainly go after Carnival because that's where the money is.

 

We're packed and ready to go on our 14 day NCL Star, New York to New Orleans cruise.

 

I hope they have "NCL University" classes in knot tieing. I can practice and bring my new learned skills back to the Concordia thread for "Captain Death"

 

 

John

:p

 

Hey Uni, you don't have to "rub it in" but enjoy your vacation , we're missing ya around here. Is the captain planning any daring 'sail bys' ?

[Max49]

"The fact the Cheif Officer was giving the quartemaster commands, when the Master was clearly in command at that time, again demonstrates the poor training of the bridge staff. The Chief Officer had no right to shout commands over the Master.

 

I disagree and am glad somebody had the sense to take over after the ship hit the rocks and Schettino went paralized knowing his captain career was over.

 

"Hard to Port" was correct call after impact to try to get the stern of the boat off the rocks but then that also put the bow of the boat heading to shore and more rocks. I imagine Schettino was in a trance by now and thankfully some one had the sense to order "hard to starboard" to away from the shoals.

[Max49]

Going back to the ship and her apparently growing list of unserviceable equipment...

 

Perhaps Tonka can answer this in a mature way since he has some experience of being at sea other than as a passenger...

 

Is there some sort of "minimum equipment list" that a ship must have in order to proceed to sea safely?

 

In aviation, the MEL is a vital piece in regard to safety...that is to say, that is an aircraft is missing vitial instrumentation or equipment is unserviceable that that equpiment could potentially endanger the aircraft and anyone on it, the aircraft is grounded until everything is in full working order and signed off as nil defect.

 

Concordia seems to have been having quite a few equipment problems...whether switched off or just unserviceable....so if such a minimum equipment list exists for shipping, would the "missing" items not be on that list as reasons to keep the ship in port until all were put right?

 

Or is it a case of "well they were due to be fixed, appointment booked with engineers" but the accident happened before that date...which seems to have been the case here....and Concordia was given clearance to sail on the proviso that all faults would be repaired by a given date (in this case January 14, 2012)...?

 

I am curious as to whether or not there is a go/no-go type of legislation in shipping and if not, after this accident, that maybe the introduction of this measure would be viable?

 

Sounds like a fishing expedition but to answer your question;

The captain is the 'captain of the ship'. If he,or any of his crew for any reason what so ever feels it is unsafe, he can get off the boat and go home. (oops, that's just what he did after He made the boat unsafe) It would be really dumb to pull a daring night time sail by if he thought the ship was not safe. But then again, Schettino is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, probably more like a spoon.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Max49

[cruiserfanfromct]

To compare it to Concordia is not wrong because the end result is the same ie Dead people! the difference being one Captain will be jailed more than likely while the other one gets to keep his Gold plated pension.

The captain of the Vincennes reacted to what he perceived was a threat to his ship and crew and his reaction to carry out his duty to protect took precedence.

 

You can not compare this to an unnecessary showboating, skirt-chasing stunt gone terribly wrong. The fact that there were 3 people on the bridge that had absolutely no business being there makes it eversomuch reckless and shows total disregard for the ship, passengers and crew members.

[sidari]

Max ... You may have come into the conversation late so to save you digging out the relevant page i will say it here again for you, i have friends in the USA whom i have met and i also like the USA so you could not be more wrong ... what i dislike is treating one person with contempt while another gets away scott free and treated as a hero despite the facts that people died through their negligence.

 

The signature from a commercial airliner is totaly different from that of a fighter plane! and as the airliner was Ascending not Descending should have told the captain that there was no threat.

 

At Atlanta airport last year there were USAF fighter planes parked up so do i take that to mean that these aircraft are using the same airports as commercial aircraft going off what you say ?

 

 

"Get over it, it was a military mistake"

 

And Schettino`s was also a mistake!

 

 

"The captain of the Vincennes reacted to what he perceived was a threat to his ship and crew and his reaction to carry out his duty to protect took precedence"

 

Despite disobaying orders! ....

 

The following is taken from one of the reports into the above incident which in time will be attributed to the Concordia accident.

　

•Disaster was caused by multiple factors:

–Human error

•Poor decision making

•Erroneous expectancies

–Human/system interface mishaps

•System deficiencies

•Lack of training

[sidari]

Max ... The twin towers was a truly horrendous attack carried out by Insane brainwashed individuals who have no place in any society, the attack was horrendous not just for the USA but for the whole world.

The sad part other than those who were killed, seriously injured and maimed in other ways is that many of these individuals are home grown.

 

With Schettino and the Captain of the Vincennes we are talking about two sane, clear minded people who got it wrong there can be no denying that, neither of them i agree went out on the given day to do what they did but circumstances show otherwise. I am sure that if either could go back and undo what happened they would.

[CostaSmurfette]

Sounds like a fishing expedition but to answer your question;

The captain is the 'captain of the ship'. If he,or any of his crew for any reason what so ever feels it is unsafe, he can get off the boat and go home. (oops, that's just what he did after He made the boat unsafe) It would be really dumb to pull a daring night time sail by if he thought the ship was not safe. But then again, Schettino is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, probably more like a spoon.

 

You didn't answer the question (no surprise there since you constantly make veiled personal attacks towards anyone who does not agree with your point of view)....

 

Is there a "minimum equipment list" or MEL that a ship must have in regard to fully functioning equipment that MUST be in full working order BEFORE a ship sails?

 

We already know that the sonar system was off, there are also other items that were deemed faulty or turned off...to the extent that engineers were due to meet the ship in Savona on January 14 to get these items fixed.

 

Now....my question is that if these things were known about, would/should that have been grounds for the authorities in Barcelona or Civitavecchia to delay or refuse the sailing until those items were fixed...or is it the normal procedure to allow ships to sail regardless as to whether or not they have their full compliment of safety, navigation and other major equipment in full working order or turned off?

 

If the authorities in Barcelona and Civitavecchia KNEW there were technical issues with Concordia and they ALLOWED her to sail regardless, then surely that is a very poor standard of authority on the part of those two ports.

 

With the list of technical equipment defects growing, the ship most definitely had a part in what happened, along with the human element - both on the bridge AND those in head office who also would have known the ship was sub-par and who allowed it to sail....ie placing revenue over pax/crew safety in the event of that defective equipment being required, such as the depth sonar, which if it had been working that night, the bridge crew MIGHT have been better informed as to how much water was under their keel.

[CostaSmurfette]

The captain of the Vincennes reacted to what he perceived was a threat to his ship and crew and his reaction to carry out his duty to protect took precedence.

 

You can not compare this to an unnecessary showboating, skirt-chasing stunt gone terribly wrong. The fact that there were 3 people on the bridge that had absolutely no business being there makes it eversomuch reckless and shows total disregard for the ship, passengers and crew members.

 

Negative.

 

He may have perceived a threat, BUT, he went into Iranian territorial waters without need or permission. He also went off to chase boghammers despite his commanding officer telling him not to. The fact that the Montgomery was having issues with said boghammers and was dealing with them and thus did not require assistance from Vincennes and did not request assistance from Vincennes, shows that Vincennes went there to get in the mix on their own volition and in direct contradiction to orders.

 

Therefore, Vincennes WAS in the wrong place, they WERE mixing for a fight that they had no place being in, they DID sail into Iranian waters and they shot down an airliner cos the USN kept making radio calls that went unanswered on the MILITARY emergency frequency and the CIVILIAN emergency frequency that the airliner was unable to hear even if they wanted to. Not only that, the radio operator on Vincennes did not specify which plane they were calling, so IR655 would not have realised it was they who Vincennes was screaming at.

 

It does not mean, however that the actions of Concordia's captain and Vincennes captain are any different...they BOTH played fast and loose with people's lives, they BOTH made extreme errors of judgement and they BOTH deserve punishment that suit those mistakes.

 

And let us not forget here, the reply to IR655 and the lack of perceived remorse or sorrow for the loss of innocent lives, another aircraft was broght down a few months later...PA103. The Vincennes crew were highly trained but that did not stop them screwing up....just as Concordia's crew were highly trained and they also screwed up...and in both cases it cost lives and that is NOTHING to be proud of.

[Uniall]

Since I'm on my way to board my cruise ship, here's my quick take on the second attempt by Ameriphobes to raise a spurious and irrelevent issue in connection with the Concordia:

USS Vincennes, on combat patrol in War Zone VS MS Costa Concordia on pleasure cruise for passengers and Captain

 

In the meantime:

 

 

Captain William C. Rogers III, (USN Ret.)

An American Hero

 

Nickname Will

BornDecember 1938

Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A.

 

 

 

Service/branchUnited States Navy

Years of service1965–1991

RankCaptain

Commands held

USS Cushing (DD-985)

USS Vincennes (CG-49)

Navy Tactical Training Group; Point Loma

 

Battles/Wars/Awards

Operation Earnest Will

Legion of Merit

Meritorius Service Medal

Joint Service Commendation Medal

Navy Commendation Medal

Combat Action Ribbon

Navy Expeditionary Medal

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal

Edited October 18, 2012 by Uniall

[Uniall]

Negative.

 

He may have perceived a threat, BUT, he went into Iranian territorial waters without need or permission. He also went off to chase boghammers despite his commanding officer telling him not to. The fact that the Montgomery was having issues with said boghammers and was dealing with them and thus did not require assistance from Vincennes and did not request assistance from Vincennes, shows that Vincennes went there to get in the mix on their own volition and in direct contradiction to orders.

 

Therefore, Vincennes WAS in the wrong place, they WERE mixing for a fight that they had no place being in, they DID sail into Iranian waters and they shot down an airliner cos the USN kept making radio calls that went unanswered on the MILITARY emergency frequency and the CIVILIAN emergency frequency that the airliner was unable to hear even if they wanted to. Not only that, the radio operator on Vincennes did not specify which plane they were calling, so IR655 would not have realised it was they who Vincennes was screaming at.

 

It does not mean, however that the actions of Concordia's captain and Vincennes captain are any different...they BOTH played fast and loose with people's lives, they BOTH made extreme errors of judgement and they BOTH deserve punishment that suit those mistakes.

 

And let us not forget here, the reply to IR655 and the lack of perceived remorse or sorrow for the loss of innocent lives, another aircraft was broght down a few months later...PA103. The Vincennes crew were highly trained but that did not stop them screwing up....just as Concordia's crew were highly trained and they also screwed up...and in both cases it cost lives and that is NOTHING to be proud of.

 

You are so wrong on international maritime law. Iran has no right to control international sea lanes that pass thru their otherwise territorial waters. They have threatened to violate international law for decades by controlling and or closing the straights of Hormuz which is an INTERNATIONAL SEA LANE.

[sidari]

Uni ... Heroes were those people who went into the Twin towers while everyone else was coming out .... :) not someone who disobeys orders just to get involved in a fight!

 

Now then forget about Concordia you are on Vacation enjoy ... :D