Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

[MapisM]

correction - SWMBO informs me that i'm getting mixed up between two locations.
We did indeed take the main boat through this channel for fun, but it felt quite tight so I still think its inconceivable that anything much bigger could or would get through

Yep N, it's totally crazy, and if (big IF) that's what happened, it can't have been purposedly.
That said, it's indeed a nice passage for any pleasure boat, even a biggish one. Though I wouldn't try it at night, anyway.

 

[Roberto]

But there was not a disaster.

Whilst the loss of life is deplorable, the fact is that this very big ship, carrying ten 747 loads of people, was sucessfully evacuated by almost all of them.

Great credit id sue to the officers, the crew and the owners, I would suggest.

+1
Officially, yesterday there were 3 dead people, 70 missing.
Little by little, the number of missing people went from 70 to 50, then 40, then 20-30 as it seems to be now; so far there are 5 deaths.

Morbid accounting maybe, but >4000 people to be evacuated ? Would anyone compare with any other accident of such gravity involving 4000 people, in places mostly a lot less dangerous than the sea (even if calm, near the shore, etc etc) ?



Personally, hats off to the crew (let justice take care of the captain) and all the rescuers involved, even if one single dead person is too much, the number of people they have saved is what it is

 

[MapisM]

That turn towards the island looked very wierd - maybe more to it ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/int...sta-concordia-italian-cruise-ship-interactive

I read many stupid theories in the last couple of days, but The Guardian beats them all.
How on earth the ship could have hit rocks so badly on port side along the route they are suggesting?

 

[sigmasailor]

Morbid accounting maybe, but >4000 people to be evacuated ? Would anyone compare with any other accident of such gravity involving 4000 people, in places mostly a lot less dangerous than the sea (even if calm, near the shore, etc etc) ?
s

Agreed; was it luck or had it to do with competence of at least part of crew and SAR?

 

[Giblets]

I read many stupid theories in the last couple of days, but The Guardian beats them all.
How on earth the ship could have hit rocks so badly on port side along the route they are suggesting?

+1

 

[Sailfree]

I've been in many cruises and lots of the ships have a window where you can view the helm station. In my experience it's rare that once at sea there's anyone at the helm (or watching the radar / plotter). The most you will have is someone on lookout with binoculars watching for yachts and the like. If someone screwed up the way points then it would not surprise me if a ship ran aground.

My limited experience of Cunard bridges is that there was a helmsman in a chair (no wheel!), a lookout and an officer of the watch.

I am surprised by your comment- if you are suggesting that reputable cruise ship lines are prepared to risk the lives of 2-4k with only one person on the bridge as they may suddenly collapse.

!!

 

[westernman]

"We should have had deep water beneath us," he told Italian TV. "We were about 300 metres (1,000ft) from the rocks more or less. We shouldn't have hit anything."

He, the captain, who was on the bridge at the time and in command, planned to be less than one boat's length from the rocks

300m can easily be swallowed up by chart inaccuracies and GPS error.

Were they steaming at cruising speed on autopilot at 300m from rocks relying on GPS and the digital charts????

 

[MapisM]

was it luck or had it to do with competence of at least part of crew and SAR?

Why, do you think that this Friday 13th will go down in history as a lucky day...?

 

[photodog]

I read many stupid theories in the last couple of days, but The Guardian beats them all.
How on earth the ship could have hit rocks so badly on port side along the route they are suggesting?

They havent a clue have they?

I cant help but think.... have they actually been reading the wire copy and doing any research???

Thats the theory we were all exploring yesterday!

They appear to have totally missed the fact the guy was doing a flyby... and had done so in the past...

 

[SailorBill]

He, the captain, who was on the bridge at the time and in command, planned to be less than one boat's length from the rocks

300m can easily be swallowed up by chart inaccuracies and GPS error.

Were they steaming at cruising speed on autopilot at 300m from rocks relying on GPS and the digital charts????

I was tempted to reply and say, don't be ridiculous, but it's looking increasingly like something ridiculous happened. I heard on BBC News24 a few minutes ago that the Captain's employers have said he made "significant human errors".

 

[Kukri]

If you take, for example, a ferry from mainland Sweden to Aland, you will find that she is making full speed on autopilot within a very few metres of rocks, but that is a special case.

 

[ITH]

The above plotted route is likely to be a speculation. I cannot believe how on the Internet fantasy becomes quickly reality.

The 'plotted route' is taken from the ship's AIS Vessel Traffic records, as reported on the Turkish Maritime News Site "Deniz Haber;" so it is difficult to see how this can be described as speculation or Internet fantasy?

 

[Searush]

I was tempted to reply and say, don't be ridiculous, but it's looking increasingly like something ridiculous happened. I heard on BBC News24 a few minutes ago that the Captain's employers have said he made "significant human errors".

That's the first thing the RAF say when a plane goes down too. It is a matter of covering ones own posterior. Sacrificial employees are easy enough to replace these days.

 

[janeczku]

Moderator where are you?

My posts still dont show up 2 days after posting.

 

[SailorBill]

That's the first thing the RAF say when a plane goes down too. It is a matter of covering ones own posterior. Sacrificial employees are easy enough to replace these days.

Yes, I know and I hate it when "pilot error" (as in the case of the Scottish Chinook crash for example) is stated as being the cause, especially when the pilots are dead. As we know the MOD eventually accepted it wasn't pilot error.

However, the captain of Costa Concordia is capable of giving TV interviews and speaking up for himself, but he made no mention of any technical problems in the interview I saw on the news. Although I accept the interview will have been edited, if anything significant about the serviceability of the ship's systems had been said, I'm sure it would have come out by now. I also find it hard to accept that there are uncharted rocks in that area as it's a very well used stretch of water.

Obviously commercial interests are at work because of several identical/very similar designs of cruise ships still in operation, but from what we know so far, I am inclined to think that "significant human error" is the most likely cause.

 

[stillwaters]

Because this thread is so long I don't know if anybody has picked up on the following website www.marinetraffic.com - from this you can follow the costa concordia's course with loads of detail. If of any interest,you can find exact details of how to access on the motorboat forum under Cruise ship runs aground off Italian coast page 4. The details are in two consecutive posts of mine .

PS. you'll understand why I missed a bit of detail off the first post if you read it - I was that close to Katherine Jenkins a few hours ago - poor Gethin. mmmmmm!

 

[Stingo]

A few photos of the starboard side are now here
http://www.ilgiornale.it/fotogallery/costa_concordia_foto_sub_/id=3671-foto=1-slideshow=0

 

[Sybarite]

According to the BBC the ship owners have now stated that the Captain was at fault and that he ventured too close to the island.

That has always seemed the most likely explanation but it will bring no comfort to anyone that the stupidity of one man has led to, potentially, so much loss of life.

Richard

There are news reports here that the Captain was on the quayside at midnight whereas passengers were still being evacuated at 5am. The Italian coastguard requested that he go back on board to faciltate the rescue operation but he refused. So he is also being charged with abandonning his ship.

 

[VicS]

Because this thread is so long I don't know if anybody has picked up on the following website www.marinetraffic.com - from this you can follow the costa concordia's course with loads of detail. If of any interest,you can find exact details of how to access on the motorboat forum under Cruise ship runs aground off Italian coast page 4. The details are in two consecutive posts of mine .

PS. you'll understand why I missed a bit of detail off the first post if you read it - I was that close to Katherine Jenkins a few hours ago - poor Gethin. mmmmmm!

Difficult finding page 4 in thread that only runs to 2 pages .... the pagination depends on how many posts one has selected to appear per page

However got there in the end.

 

[peterb]

That ship is 290 m long and 35.5 m beam !

I wonder what her waterline beam is.