Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

SailorBill said:
I noticed that either side of the 16 minute gap the positions were plotted more frequently. I wondered if the AIS transmitter had been deliberately turned off prior to turning towards the island for the sail-by, before the AIS transmitter was turned on again?
Click to expand...

That assumes that the AIS track you are looking at is either from the onboard 'black box', or alternatively that the track is generated by receiving stations with complete geographic coverage our area of interest; there could well be reception drop-outs dependent on the local terrestrial topography etc. Certainly I've seen ship tracks going well inland along the Morayshire coast on some of the web based internet products;; and in this case it is simply gaps in receiving station coverage.
 
VicS said:
What do you reckon the beam dimension includes? The Bridge wings ?

Should be able to make a guesstimate from THIS PICTURE

The text with this picture gives the beam as 38m
Click to expand...


I don't know, that's why I asked. Estimating from your pic I reckon that the waterline beam is about 4m less than the maximum hull beam, but if the bridge wings are taken then the difference could be a lot more.
 
Latest from La Reppublica: apparently the captain made several calls to the bosses at Costa after the accident, and was on the phone beforehand to a former captain of Costa, before whom it is assumed he wished to show off. Course was set for 278° but a at certain point, the captain went to manual and took the helm himself. With the result we know. After the accident, he was always on the phone and control of the ship and order for evacuation was taken by the first officer and the captain was effectively sidelined. The ship was on an even keel for 40 minutes before the first officer decided to take over.
In Marseille a few months earlier, he had also effected a manoeuvre which was hazardous, but that time got away with it.
 
Metabarca said:
Latest from La Reppublica: apparently the captain made several calls to the bosses at Costa after the accident, and was on the phone beforehand to a former captain of Costa, before whom it is assumed he wished to show off. Course was set for 278° but a at certain point, the captain went to manual and took the helm himself. With the result we know. After the accident, he was always on the phone and control of the ship and order for evacuation was taken by the first officer and the captain was effectively sidelined. The ship was on an even keel for 40 minutes before the first officer decided to take over.
In Marseille a few months earlier, he had also effected a manoeuvre which was hazardous, but that time got away with it.
Click to expand...

Metabarca, was the Costa Concordia in Monfalcone a few months ago for refit as I thought I saw her on the way into Hannibal?
 
Deleted User said:
I have been boating around the Med for a few years and whilst I agree that Med digital charts are often less accurate than the UK and certainly not infallible, I have never come across a bloody great sticky out rock so far out of position that it is a hazard to navigation. You would think that if that was the case, it would have been hit many times by other vessels and either corrected on the charts or at least a buoy placed there. Also you mentioned radar. Shouldn't somebody have been keeping a radar watch, if only to identify small boats, and shouldn't they have seen a return from the rock on the screen? Wouldn't the guard alarms be sounding off as well?
IMHO this is not an accident that can be blamed on GPS or charting errors. More likely fatal inattention on the bridge or simply underestimating the sea room needed to turn a ship of this size to starboard to make the 'fly by' past the harbour and maybe aggravated by wind and currents. All conjecture but I think if I was the skipper, I'd be blaming an uncharted rock too!
Click to expand...

One 'expert' did mention such an uncharted rock - due the seismic activity known in that area.
 
AIS track: why speculate?

I've never seen/heard such complete ignorant rubbish as I have seen on the news sites including the BBC, even from the Lloyds "expert" this morning.

The AIS track was available on www.marinetraffic.com (I have a screen shot) and various charts have been on the web with speculative tracks. Has anyone been able to plot the track on a detailed chart? The last position (some way offshore from its final resting place at Giglio port) is 42.3717N, 10.92602E. It was then travelling at 1.1kt on a heading of 013T. One could project this back to see where it had been.

Surely that would put an end to the speculation about whether the ship tried to pass between the Le Scole islets as some have suggested.
 
tony_lavelle said:
I've never seen/heard such complete ignorant rubbish as I have seen on the news sites including the BBC, even from the Lloyds "expert" this morning.

The AIS track was available on www.marinetraffic.com (I have a screen shot) and various charts have been on the web with speculative tracks. Has anyone been able to plot the track on a detailed chart? The last position (some way offshore from its final resting place at Giglio port) is 42.3717N, 10.92602E. It was then travelling at 1.1kt on a heading of 013T. One could project this back to see where it had been.

Surely that would put an end to the speculation about whether the ship tried to pass between the Le Scole islets as some have suggested.
Click to expand...

iain789 said:
As I said yesterday in the Lounge.

'There's a 16 minute gap between the second and third last AIS positions during which anything could have happened. The 'track' is simply a line joining these two positions, the ship could have been anywhere between them.'
Click to expand...

look at the AIS positions
 
Hilariously bad graphics of the ship at the moment on Sky news, showing the bulbous bow dangling way below the rest of the hull. The accompanying story is about as accurate too.
 
tony_lavelle said:
I've never seen/heard such complete ignorant rubbish as I have seen on the news sites including the BBC, even from the Lloyds "expert" this morning.

The AIS track was available on www.marinetraffic.com (I have a screen shot) and various charts have been on the web with speculative tracks. Has anyone been able to plot the track on a detailed chart? The last position (some way offshore from its final resting place at Giglio port) is 42.3717N, 10.92602E. It was then travelling at 1.1kt on a heading of 013T. One could project this back to see where it had been.

Surely that would put an end to the speculation about whether the ship tried to pass between the Le Scole islets as some have suggested.
Click to expand...
Yes thanks,the marine traffic tracking has been done already on this and other forums. However,this doesn't show the actual course a ship steers between fixes so the system just inserts straight lines in between. I'm not sure just how accurate this data is as both charts and equipment can sometimes be inaccurate (I've been overland a few times myself due to electronic chart error) however,following Metabarca's prompt on here earlier,I notice that La Repubblica are giving the time of collision as 21.42,which one assumes is local time,yet the AIS shows the ship a little over 2 miles away from Le Scole,the most likely rock to hit,at 20.37 UTC (or 21.37 local time). And,as the ship was doing just over 15 knots at this point and bearing in mind her top recorded speed ever on marine traffic is given as below 17 knots,just how did the ship get there in 5 minutes?
 
Out of curiousity. Does anyone know whether the ship immediately lost power after the impact? iread reports that the 1st officer effectively took over 45min after the impact and am wondering what he hsd to work with or had the Captain already turned the ship and put it aground?

With respect to AIS tracks as these ships take vast distances to stop or turn i doubt whether the straight line between fixes will be that inaccurate. Cruise linners are not ribs!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

MontyMariner
Battery failure
2
Replies
20
Views
815
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top