savageseadog
Well-known member
Channel 4 or 9PM on +1
Concordia Disaster on TV 8PM Tonight
- Thread starter savageseadog
- Start date
Blue5
New member
I,ll check back tomorrow the forum should by then have had enough time to hold a court of enquiry and apportion blame
SailorBill
New member
I,ll check back tomorrow the forum should by then have had enough time to hold a court of enquiry and apportion blame
I think you'll find that's already been done!
xyachtdave
Well-known member
I,ll check back tomorrow the forum should by then have had enough time to hold a court of enquiry and apportion blame
Yes, there is almost no point in watching!
Reverend Ludd
New member
That's what I just said to herself.
I'll happily watch a documentary after the enquiry.
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
Well the point of watching was to see and hear some stuff on the sinking of this vessel. It was quite and interesting programme.
Hoolie
Well-known member
Indeed. I was struck by a number of points.
The rope ladder over the port bow which has been shown in photos on the previous thread here was not as I had thought, for rescuers to get on board but was used to rescue hundreds of passengers left without access to lifeboats
This at night while the captain was giving interviews in a hotel in the town.Again from a post by Haydude on the previous thread, in Italy the responsibility for the vessel passes to the Coastguard after a Mayday. Hence why the Coastguard commander had the authority to order the captain to take certain actions. Very clearly shown in the radio transcript.
Lots of lessons for the design of passenger ships. A significant number of the lifeboats could not be launched due to the ship's list being more than 20 degrees. Of course if they had evacuated earlier that might not have been a problem. Once the ship was on its side the remaining people on board had very little to hold on to or to climb up to ways out. Perhaps ladders or climbing aids should be built into passageways across the ship.
The rescue helicopters had no idea where the ship was and lost nearly an hour looking for it in the dark. The AIS data could have been made available if there were a centralised data recording system. There is of course, but seemingly can't operate in real time.
Kukri
Well-known member
I don't often stand up for naval architects and still less often for the IMO but I would like to comment on the last post.
This ship was built to SOLAS 90 standards, these require a ship to remain afloat and stable with a specified range of stability (so as to ensure that lifeboats can be launched) with two compartments flooded and indeed to remain afloat (with little stability) with three compartments flooded.
You cannot design and build a ship, now or in 1912, that will withstand having a long length of the underwater hull ripped open like a can opener, by an iceberg or by a rock.
What you can do is design a ship that will not sink following a collision with another ship, (an accident that will involve at most two compartments) and that will remain sufficiently upright to permit the boats and rafts to be launched.
Almost all the boats were launched.
This was technically a very similar accident to the loss of the Titanic; the difference in loss of life shows how much better ships are now.
AIS is not a good way to look for a ship in distress; there are better ways of doing that, and I find it very difficult to believe that helicopters spent an hour looking for the ship.
This ship was built to SOLAS 90 standards, these require a ship to remain afloat and stable with a specified range of stability (so as to ensure that lifeboats can be launched) with two compartments flooded and indeed to remain afloat (with little stability) with three compartments flooded.
You cannot design and build a ship, now or in 1912, that will withstand having a long length of the underwater hull ripped open like a can opener, by an iceberg or by a rock.
What you can do is design a ship that will not sink following a collision with another ship, (an accident that will involve at most two compartments) and that will remain sufficiently upright to permit the boats and rafts to be launched.
Almost all the boats were launched.
This was technically a very similar accident to the loss of the Titanic; the difference in loss of life shows how much better ships are now.
AIS is not a good way to look for a ship in distress; there are better ways of doing that, and I find it very difficult to believe that helicopters spent an hour looking for the ship.
Last edited:
Hoolie
Well-known member
Points taken.
As far as lifeboat launching is concerned I was reacting to "expert" comment in the programme that they are still launched on ropes hanging from davits as they always have been.
I agree about AIS but footage from the IR cameras on the helos, backed up by crew comment on board, showed they had great difficulty locating the ship. Poor communication all round I think.
As far as lifeboat launching is concerned I was reacting to "expert" comment in the programme that they are still launched on ropes hanging from davits as they always have been.
I agree about AIS but footage from the IR cameras on the helos, backed up by crew comment on board, showed they had great difficulty locating the ship. Poor communication all round I think.
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
The interesting stuff for me was that the crew instructed passengers that all was in control. I have been trained in command and control for oil rig incidents and one clear message is that as more information becomes available, its is wise to update those who are mustered with the facts, albeit a controlled feed of information.
I also thought that the Coastguard guy was not contributing much by ordering the Captain back. It was clear that the captain had lost control of the situation completely and it would have been near impossible for him to re-establish control.
One question: Once the hull was breached, how quickly would the Chief Engineer and Captain know that the compartments were flooding e.g. are there water detectors that would highlight via an annunciator panel that water levels are increasing in compartments?
I also thought that the Coastguard guy was not contributing much by ordering the Captain back. It was clear that the captain had lost control of the situation completely and it would have been near impossible for him to re-establish control.
One question: Once the hull was breached, how quickly would the Chief Engineer and Captain know that the compartments were flooding e.g. are there water detectors that would highlight via an annunciator panel that water levels are increasing in compartments?
Kukri
Well-known member
Lifeboats are not really launched "as they have always been" - the programme simplified that a good deal. Compared to the TITANIC or even the QUEEN MARY the davits and boats and release hooks are different.
But certainly I and many other people dislike conventional lifeboats.
Free fall boats are much safer but unsuitable for passenger ships because people have to be trained in them and the elderly might have trouble boarding them at the steep angle needed.
Mind you, on a bet with the present head of the MAIB, I took my then six year old son for a drop in one and he loved it!
I did not see the whole programme, just a bit of the IR video from a chopper and the crew did not seem to have much trouble finding the right ship, though they were not expecting to see her capsized or so close inshore. Maybe I missed the important bit.
But certainly I and many other people dislike conventional lifeboats.
Free fall boats are much safer but unsuitable for passenger ships because people have to be trained in them and the elderly might have trouble boarding them at the steep angle needed.
Mind you, on a bet with the present head of the MAIB, I took my then six year old son for a drop in one and he loved it!
I did not see the whole programme, just a bit of the IR video from a chopper and the crew did not seem to have much trouble finding the right ship, though they were not expecting to see her capsized or so close inshore. Maybe I missed the important bit.
Last edited:
SHUG
Active member
Good presentation....really made one understand the dilemmas of the passengers. Do you stay on the lower side to be accessible to lifeboats and risk drowning if the ship slips or do you climb to the high side and risk death if you fall.When wide rooms turn through 90 degrees and become a sheer drop..... its a nightmare.
A few years ago I anchored in the nice little bay just 50metres from the wreck...hard to imagine the scene now.
A few years ago I anchored in the nice little bay just 50metres from the wreck...hard to imagine the scene now.
Skylark
Well-known member
How and why the grounding took place undoubtedly will be uncovered in a court of law.
While not trying to defend the captain for one second, it's not hard to imagine that the guy was in total shock immediately after the event and hence completely incapable of taking charge. The immediate "culpa mia" feeling over an event of this magnitude must have been overwhelming.
While not trying to defend the captain for one second, it's not hard to imagine that the guy was in total shock immediately after the event and hence completely incapable of taking charge. The immediate "culpa mia" feeling over an event of this magnitude must have been overwhelming.
Kukri
Well-known member
I will never forget being telephoned (I was "the office") by a very experienced Master who had, through over confidence, just put his ship ashore. Nobody was injured, there was no pollution or cargo damage and she came off a few days later but his self confidence was completely gone and I was having to remind him to do simple things that he would have done without thinking normally.
dancrane
Well-known member
Mightn't the public address system have been used to tell the terrified waiting passengers that the ship was hard aground, and so could not sink below the surface? Nobody drowns on a beach. Anyone who (quite reasonably) tried to escape, was in greater peril than those waiting on the 'high' side.
LouisBrowne
Member
I agree it would be perfectly understandable if Captain Schettino fell to pieces, but, if the ship was turned round and stranded outside the port of Giglio under his control, it would seem that he kept his cool and was in command of all his skills.
This begs a question: If he was in control of himself and of the situation why did he leave the ship at a time when he must have known that there were many people, including passengers, still waiting to get off?
Two possible answers are (1) he was not in fact in command after the ship hit the rock; he did indeed go to pieces and someone else organised the grounding of the ship and its abandonment, or (2) he was in control and was carrying out his duties and his story of an accidental fall into the water while moving around the listing deck is true.
The Captain made mistake with catastrophic consequences, but I do not think that the shipowners are blameless. It seems that they turned a blind eye to at least one earlier fly by: if they had put their foot down on the first occasion and insisted that there must always be an approved passage plan this disaster might not have happened.
The owners' behaviour after the event was disgraceful: instead of putting out a statement along the lines of 'Captain Schettino is an experienced sea captain and we must wait for a full report before apportioning blame' they just cut him loose and hung him out to dry.
We spent two days on Giglio last summer anchored in the bay just to the south of the port. The photos attached (at least I hope they are attached) show the Scole rocks. Due to the angle from which the photos were taken you cannot see the gap between the two reefs, but you can just see the extremely narrow gap between the headland and the westernmost hump of rock. The Scola Piccola, the one the Costa Concordia hit, is clearly visible on the right, close to the shroud.
This begs a question: If he was in control of himself and of the situation why did he leave the ship at a time when he must have known that there were many people, including passengers, still waiting to get off?
Two possible answers are (1) he was not in fact in command after the ship hit the rock; he did indeed go to pieces and someone else organised the grounding of the ship and its abandonment, or (2) he was in control and was carrying out his duties and his story of an accidental fall into the water while moving around the listing deck is true.
The Captain made mistake with catastrophic consequences, but I do not think that the shipowners are blameless. It seems that they turned a blind eye to at least one earlier fly by: if they had put their foot down on the first occasion and insisted that there must always be an approved passage plan this disaster might not have happened.
The owners' behaviour after the event was disgraceful: instead of putting out a statement along the lines of 'Captain Schettino is an experienced sea captain and we must wait for a full report before apportioning blame' they just cut him loose and hung him out to dry.
We spent two days on Giglio last summer anchored in the bay just to the south of the port. The photos attached (at least I hope they are attached) show the Scole rocks. Due to the angle from which the photos were taken you cannot see the gap between the two reefs, but you can just see the extremely narrow gap between the headland and the westernmost hump of rock. The Scola Piccola, the one the Costa Concordia hit, is clearly visible on the right, close to the shroud.
Duffer
New member
The ship was apparently 50mins flying time away and helicopter crew were not expecting to see ship on its side more or less blacked out.
The captain did not come out of it well.
It must have been absolutely terrifying for the passengers left on board not knowing if the ship would completely capsize/sink.
There didn't appear to be enough lifeboats according to passengers and beyond 20 degrees list were very difficult to launch.
It is not clear if lifeboats disembarked passengers on the island and then returned for more. Is there a case for chartplotters on this type of lifeboat so that crew can quickly determine where they are and where they can best disembark passengers? In the dark it would have been very difficult to determine this. VHF and maybe even an AIS transponder on these large lifeboats might help SAR manage this type of emergency for modest cost.
The captain did not come out of it well.
It must have been absolutely terrifying for the passengers left on board not knowing if the ship would completely capsize/sink.
There didn't appear to be enough lifeboats according to passengers and beyond 20 degrees list were very difficult to launch.
It is not clear if lifeboats disembarked passengers on the island and then returned for more. Is there a case for chartplotters on this type of lifeboat so that crew can quickly determine where they are and where they can best disembark passengers? In the dark it would have been very difficult to determine this. VHF and maybe even an AIS transponder on these large lifeboats might help SAR manage this type of emergency for modest cost.
Boomshanka
New member
I think the 'who's to blame' chestnut has a) been done to death on here and other places and b) will only be for the enquiry/legal process to decide.
What struck me though was the responsiblity folk like the dancers have for the evacuation of passengers. I was thinking how on an aircraft, I would trust the hostesses to act with clear, firm, professional orders of what to do in an emergency... they are clearly trained to look after your safety (and serve drinks/food whilst everything's going to plan). It's also pretty clear to me that air hostesses are quite at ease being on a plane. Compare that to the dancers on Costa Concordia, one of whom was even scared witless of being on the water. I can't think I would have felt secure following their orders... competent dancers no doubt, but in charge of hundreds of evacuees???
What struck me though was the responsiblity folk like the dancers have for the evacuation of passengers. I was thinking how on an aircraft, I would trust the hostesses to act with clear, firm, professional orders of what to do in an emergency... they are clearly trained to look after your safety (and serve drinks/food whilst everything's going to plan). It's also pretty clear to me that air hostesses are quite at ease being on a plane. Compare that to the dancers on Costa Concordia, one of whom was even scared witless of being on the water. I can't think I would have felt secure following their orders... competent dancers no doubt, but in charge of hundreds of evacuees???
dunedin
Well-known member
Not entirely sure this proves that ships are better now. It proves that if your ship is sinking and capsizing, being able to run it aground # is better than being in deep water mid Atlantic. If it had not ended up aground presumably it would have capsized entirely trapping very large numbers of people on board, and perhaps sinking completely with them entombed.
# Clearly being too close to shallow water and rocks in the first place is less of a good idea
Kukri
Well-known member
I cautiously beg differ.
Almost all the passengers were sucessfully embarked in the lifeboats and almost all the lifeboats were launched sucessfully, by definition before the angle of loll exceeded 20 degrees. Fwiw, I suspect that the grounding triggered the capsize, due to ground reaction, but that is mere speculation. That the boats were launched is a fact.
Almost all the passengers were sucessfully embarked in the lifeboats and almost all the lifeboats were launched sucessfully, by definition before the angle of loll exceeded 20 degrees. Fwiw, I suspect that the grounding triggered the capsize, due to ground reaction, but that is mere speculation. That the boats were launched is a fact.
