Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

[Seajet]

westhinder,

have a look at post 118 here.

haydude,

have they actually admitted to deliberately doing this 'sail-by' then ?

All I've seen is dubious claims about 'I thought we were in deep water' etc.

 

[ProDave]

Can't see anything wrong with a sail by an island. but surely they would keep outside the two islets, not in between them? That would still be close enough to see the island and be seen, and would be in safe water.

Has anyone found previous AIS tracks to see their normal route?

 

[Seajet]

Can't see anything wrong with a sail by an island.

No, that's spiffing; but using a £380 million ship carrying 4,000+ people to widen a very narrow rocky channel seems poor judgement.

 

[Giblets]

Isn't it updated by users?

Richard

Ahh, thanks for that. Not familiar with Navionics operation.

 

[ProDave]

Can't see anything wrong with a sail by an island.

No, that's spiffing; but using a £380 million ship carrying 4,000+ people to widen a very narrow rocky channel seems poor judgement.

My point entirely.

A sail by is FINE if you keep far enough off land and in safe water.

So it would be fine of you kept outside the two islets. That's why I asked if anyone had found the AIS track from previous sail by's to establish their "normal" route.

Was the "mistake" on this occasion the fact they went between them, rather than outside both of them? if so why? I still cannot believe it was their intention, or their normal practice, to go between those islets.

Here's supposedly the same AIS track, but this time it looks like they were further out than they really were. Why? http://phasernet.net/?p=25825

 

[longjohnsilver]

Those who know him (I've just met him briefly) speak very highly of Onorato. In the industry we say that a ship has blacked out when power to the board from the main generators is lost.

With a hole that size in the engine room, she will have blacked out for sure, but the emergency generators, which are not located in the engine room, will have started automatically.

Have now seen the video from last years sail by, looked and sounded very impressive. Do we know for sure that this boat actually went between those 2 rocks previously mentioned or is that still speculation?

I understand what you're saying about the blackout, puts a different perspective on what he said.

 

[Firefly625]

just read that link to www.seanews.com.tr , fascinating... also previous report of the same ship having an accident last year...

but the fact that the Captain and First officer abandoned ship before evacuation complete... just dreadful.

Strangely this week we were going to book our first ever cruise round Italy in April... but now SWMBO has said absolutely not....

 

[Seajet]

I'm sure they didn't intend to go between the islets, did so either by nav cock-up or put in that position by the blackout IF that happened beforehand; BUT, surely they still had at least backup GPS / nav, and could stop / reverse engines ?

That scenario brings it back to hitting some mystery object further out, and I still reckon that 'rock' embedded in the hole looks metallic.

Seems more likely something nasty / silly happened to the nav plot and the damage was done between the islets as they swerved at the last moment ?

 

[ProDave]

The "bang" or blackout happened 45 minutes out.

What would you do if you lost nav in an incedent like that?

Stop the ship and try to regain nav?

Or just maintain your course hoping you wouldn't hit anything?

Even if the nav had failed, don't they have radar?

If you had doubts about your nav, you would have aborted the sail by and headed for clear open water, not tried it regardless.

It's just mind boggling that the ship could simply go the wrong way.

 

[haydude]

westhinder,

have a look at post 118 here.

haydude,

have they actually admitted to deliberately doing this 'sail-by' then ?

All I've seen is dubious claims about 'I thought we were in deep water' etc.

It has been confirmed that it was an event agreed with the Isola del Giglio mayor. There is also a video from August 2011 showing how close she was. Videos change and I can no longer find it.

http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cron...passaggio-della-concordia-era-un-evento.shtml

The ship however had a different Captain: Massimo Calisto Gambarino. The exchange of letters suggests to continue the sail-by passage as a tradition.

My speculation is that the company eventually added the sail-by to the routine. This time with a different Captain.

I would not trust the route plotted by the Turkish site unless confirmed officially. My understanding from the accounts is that instead the ship did not go through the narrow channel, but to the East of La Scola which is the island (or rather big rock) to the East of the channel.

 

[Pete R]

and I still reckon that 'rock' embedded in the hole looks metallic.

I suppose you could be right but then wasn't it you that earlier thought a rope ladder was an anchor chain?

 

[Seajet]

Pete R,

and others agreed it looked like a chain; it was identified as a ladder by Elessar, don't recall you posting anything

Have a good look at that 'rock'; it has tears, cracks & holes and a very flat top; someone with access to a close-up on the Times site agreed.

 

[dt4134]

It has been confirmed that it was an event agreed with the Isola del Giglio mayor.

It does seem to have boosted the number of visitors to the island. An increase of about 4,000 this month alone.

 

[haydude]

That scenario brings it back to hitting some mystery object further out, and I still reckon that 'rock' embedded in the hole looks metallic.

The rocks of the area are pink and red colour. It is a rock.

The geological report confirms that the island is 90% granite.

http://www.comune.isoladelgiglio.gr.it/attachments/197_Relazione geologico tecnica.pdf

 

[AuntyRinum]

Seems slightly counter-intuitive that she rolled over away from the damage. Unless, of course, there's worse on the other side.

It seems more likely that, because it's so high, it can't take the ground and just rolled over.

 

[Pete R]

and others agreed it looked like a chain;

That's alright then.

don't recall you posting anything

Just did. Had a lovely lie in thanks and just catching up.

Have a good look at that 'rock'; it has tears, cracks & holes

As I said you could be right. Thanks for making a sunny day even brighter.

 

[Seajet]

It seems more likely that, because it's so high, it can't take the ground and just rolled over.

There is / was the theory that realising the damage on the port side, she was turned hard to port to raise the hole and point to shore, and that's the attitude she was in when she went aground; though there's the distinct possibility there's at least as much damage on the starboard side.

 

[neale]

As everyone else has a theory I thought I'd chuck in mine, as I haven't seen anyone else with the same one

In this pic of the AIS trackposted by MapsiM there is an AIS target right in front of the CC when she turns to port towards the island. Could the turn have been to pass this target on its port side and someone simply forgot to put her back on track a few minutes later? Maybe they even thought that the overtaking manouvre gave them on opportunity for the flyby which they subsequently got wrong.

Just wondered if that target had any bearing at all on the course the CC took that night.

edit. Looks like there is another Target leaving the island and they may have held their course to pass to the stern of that one, and again enhancing the opportunity for a flyby, rather than turning in front of it .

 

[Seajet]

Neale,

you may have something there; certainly there's a contact dead ahead before CC altered to port...

 

[pvb]

you may have something there; certainly there's a contact dead ahead before CC altered to port...

Doesn't the AIS plot show the situation after the ship got to Giglio? So would the "contact dead ahead" have been there half an hour earlier when the ship changed course?