Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

[Observer]

It is usually invidious to pre-judge a case with incomplete facts but this is an exception. The facts, substantially not open to dispute, that have emerged so far support a number of totalling damning conclusions about the captain and his actions.

1. He (on his own admission) navigated his ship to 150m (or less) off a rocky coast, with the resulting death of numerous passengers and crew, reckless endangerment of thousands of other lives, total loss of ship, massive one-off and continuing losses to his employers, who entrusted the safety of ship, passengers and crew to his sole charge, disgrace of his family and his profession.

2. He abjectly failed the legal and moral secondary duty of a captain to place his passengers' safety above his own after abandon ship had been ordered. Not just a little bit but by a matter of hours.

The above, it appears very likely, for no better reason than a desire to show off.

Truly staggering. We would roundly and unreservedly condemn a teenage driver who kills a few innocent passengers or other vehicle occupants by reckless driving. This captain is far worse than that. I can't see how anyone can defend him in the slightest degree.

 

[lenseman]

Can anyone post the article where it says the metal was found on the East side of Scola Piccola? The previous article that mentioned this: http://www.corriere.it/Internationa...2/01/17/crew-mutinied-behalf-passengers.shtml
had this to say about it:



Where the underwater gap widens? I know GoogleEarth isn't the best tool, but if by shoreline, they mean Giglio proper then 92-96 metres from the easternmost point is in the middle of the gap.

I think you will find that the CC hit the rocks I mentioned to the east of the islets. This is where a police diving RIB was videoed a couple of days ago on a BBC news article. The quote above has probably been written by desk-bound journalists sitting on leather chairs set upon marble floors in down town Roma.

Having looked at the chart or this area in detail, I cannot see that a ship of that size could negotiate between the two small islets in broad daylight let alone at 2130L at night doing 15 knots!

See my thread #485 and you will see that the depth of 10 metres between the islets extends only for a width of less than 6 metres and the CC was 35 metres wide - Totally impossible.

Think of it this way. You are standing on the bridge of the CC and making 15 knots. It would be like trying to make the lock in at Chichester or Port Solent Marina (SIX metres wide)?

 

[SailorBill]

I've just watched an item on BBC2's Newsnight saying they have evidence that the Costa Concordia took a very similar route past the island on August 14th last year. Someone from LLoyds List was interviewed and confirmed what the reporter had said. The route shown was similar to but not quite as close as the route on 13th January.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16604154

Bearing in mind that the satellite tracking is from point to point rather than continuous, the Costa Concordia's position would have been further to the west of the plotted point to point line during the turn to starboard at the point of collision with the rocks.

 

[lenseman]

An audio transcript of the call between the coastguard (on the mainland in Livorno) and the captain has just been released, in which the coastguard lays down the law: "Get back on board. There are passengers being evacuated. You must go back on board. That's an order".
Later: "There are corpses".
Captain: "How many?"
CG: "How many? I don't know; one at least. You're supposed to tell me that..."

Just because it is on YouTube, it does not necessarily mean it is fact. There will be some Court Of Inquiry and then all the facts will be presented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqWGixgF7xA&feature=watch_response

 

[Cruiser2B]

Having looked at the chart or this area in detail, I cannot see that a ship of that size could negotiate between the two small islets in broad daylight let alone at 2130L at night doing 15 knots!

See my thread #485 and you will see that the depth of 10 metres between the islets extends only for a width of less than 6 metres and the CC was 35 metres wide - Totally impossible.

As you pointed out it's 80 metres between the rocks at the surface and 60 metres between the 5m contours - at this point I don't think it can be ruled out that the captain mistakenly assumed he could get through, be that from macho overconfidence, dutch courage or whatever. After all something definitely went awry.

Does your chart show the swimming area?

 

[lenseman]

As you pointed out it's 80 metres between the rocks at the surface and 60 metres between the 5m contours - at this point I don't think it can be ruled out that the captain mistakenly assumed he could get through, be that from macho overconfidence, dutch courage or whatever. After all something definitely went awry.

Does your chart show the swimming area?

The 10 metre contour is SIX metres wide at the TEN metre contour and no, the swimming area is not marked on my charts (dated 2007) Swim area could be new?

The CC could not have sailed through this gap between the islets, it would have been totally impossible, as it had a draught of 8.2 metres with a beam of 35 metres

 

[Cruiser2B]

The 10 metre contour is SIX metres wide at the TEN metre contour and no, the swimming area is not marked on my charts (dated 2007) Swim area could be new?

The CC could not have sailed through this gap between the islets, it would have been totally impossible, as it had a draught of 8.2 metres with a beam of 35 metres

I am aware of that - please see my post #355. The spot depth between the 10m contours is 10.3 metres. If width was not a consideration, that depth is more than adequate for a ship that's 8.2 m at its deepest point. Could the captain or one of his officers measured incorrectly or just looked at the trackline on the ECDIS and thought it's all good without considering the need for a 35 m wide swath?

Arguing that CC couldn't pass between the islets unscathed is rather moot, given that the only solid evidence we have at this moment is that CC did not get through whatever path it took unscathed.

 

[Metabarca]

I agree with Mapis: the CG was not having a 'hysterical rant', he was being forceful and trying to get some action out of the captain. And we shouldn't forget that he was himself under stress, trying to coordinate a rescue operation from the mainland and unable to find anyone in responsibility to talk to aboard the CC. Interesting though the call is, I feel it should not have entered the public domain, however, as it is pretty damning for the captain.

 

[photodog]

Just because it is on YouTube, it does not necessarily mean it is fact. There will be some Court Of Inquiry and then all the facts will be presented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqWGixgF7xA&feature=watch_response

Do you watch the BBC, Sky, ITN, etc?

 

[RichardS]

It is usually invidious to pre-judge a case with incomplete facts but this is an exception. The facts, substantially not open to dispute, that have emerged so far support a number of totalling damning conclusions about the captain and his actions.

1. He (on his own admission) navigated his ship to 150m (or less) off a rocky coast, with the resulting death of numerous passengers and crew, reckless endangerment of thousands of other lives, total loss of ship, massive one-off and continuing losses to his employers, who entrusted the safety of ship, passengers and crew to his sole charge, disgrace of his family and his profession.

2. He abjectly failed the legal and moral secondary duty of a captain to place his passengers' safety above his own after abandon ship had been ordered. Not just a little bit but by a matter of hours.

The above, it appears very likely, for no better reason than a desire to show off.

Truly staggering. We would roundly and unreservedly condemn a teenage driver who kills a few innocent passengers or other vehicle occupants by reckless driving. This captain is far worse than that. I can't see how anyone can defend him in the slightest degree.

Unless it turns out that the Captain is suffering from an undiagnosed medical condition which has affected his brain function, then I would suggest that he was suffering from reckless imbecility. He is/was a highly-paid professional skipper and, excepting for the medical diagnosis, has committed a truly basic navigational error in a well-charted area with negligible tide. I agree with Observer.

Richard

 

[photodog]

I agree with Mapis: the CG was not having a 'hysterical rant', he was being forceful and trying to get some action out of the captain. And we shouldn't forget that he was himself under stress, trying to coordinate a rescue operation from the mainland and unable to find anyone in responsibility to talk to aboard the CC. Interesting though the call is, I feel it should not have entered the public domain, however, as it is pretty damning for the captain.

It does sound rather rant esque.... I wonder what communications were made with him before this call... (that went unrecorded..) I note that there does also appear to be another transcript from the local HM that also demands he get back on the boat...

The problem that the Italians... (And Costa ) have is that this incident will have a very substantial negative impact on the long term reputation of the Italian Merchant navy... Historically there is already the Italian Navies reputation.. (Unfairly earnt..) from the war that they were cowards and ran away from any sort of fight...

So I think that this guy is really gonna get hung out to dry... and you are going to see more stuff like that tape I suspect as the authorities seek to limit the damage to their reputation...

And rightfully so. He shouldnt have stuck his ship on the rocks.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I am aware of that - please see my post #355. The spot depth between the 10m contours is 10.3 metres. If width was not a consideration, that depth is more than adequate for a ship that's 8.2 m at its deepest point. Could the captain or one of his officers measured incorrectly or just looked at the trackline on the ECDIS and thought it's all good without considering the need for a 35 m wide swath?

Arguing that CC couldn't pass between the islets unscathed is rather moot, given that the only solid evidence we have at this moment is that CC did not get through whatever path it took unscathed.

Sorry but is there any evidence that the CC went through the gap between the islands? The reports so far state that debris was found east of Isola Le Scole which is most definitely not between the 2 islands. Looking at at OpenCPN chart of the area, there appears to be a shallow reef about 50-70m ESE of Isola Le Scole and inside the 10m contour line. Its possible that the CC hit this reef during the starboard turn. Lets not forget that the captain was apparently at the helm at this time and supposedly knew these waters well so the idea that he was planning to take the CC between the islands is very unlikely. My best guess is that he was using Isola Le Scola as a mark to turn north past the island and filled with bravado he wanted to cut it as fine as he could but misjudged the amount of sea room he needed to make the turn

 

[Sandy]

It does sound rather rant esque...

I disagree. I've only visited Italy as a tourist and quickly realised that they speak in a way that this Scot finds very "dramatic"; you need to take in the cultural differences in language. Additionally, the press have very diffrent rules about interviewing people who are subject to a criminal investigation.

 

[idpnd]

The problem that the Italians... (And Costa ) have is that this incident will have a very substantial negative impact on the long term reputation of the Italian Merchant navy... Historically there is already the Italian Navies reputation.. (Unfairly earnt..) from the war that they were cowards and ran away from any sort of fight...

It will do nothing for classic Italian stereotypes, first the macho showing off bit, then running away and calling his mother..

 

[stillwaters]

Unless it turns out that the Captain is suffering from an undiagnosed medical condition which has affected his brain function, then I would suggest that he was suffering from reckless imbecility. He is/was a highly-paid professional skipper and, excepting for the medical diagnosis, has committed a truly basic navigational error in a well-charted area with negligible tide. I agree with Observer.

Richard

I don't claim to be an expert on Italy but I have been there on holiday a number of times and it has been impossible to miss the competitive psyche that exists both on the road or on the water. There are numerous examples I could give of this but maybe the nearest one to this situation would be my experience of the ferry drivers on Lake Maggiore. These passenger ferries,which are a fair size,run a very regular service both clockwise and anti-clockwise around the second biggest lake in Italy in order that passengers can hop on and off much like a bus service so,in season,there are a number of them regularly on the go. Usually,when I have used them they have arrived at speed towards the jetties going into reverse just at the moment that they can achieve a high-speed drift ending up with mooring bollards perfectly aligned when they stop.Typically,the skipper will have at least two other crew with him as he does it and it will be clear for all to see amidst the banter that has yet again accompanied this amazing manouevre,the esteem the skipper receives and revels in. Alternatively,go to any city in Italy and take a taxi ride,Fiumicino airport into Rome is a good one,if you dare.

 

[dharl]

As you pointed out it's 80 metres between the rocks at the surface and 60 metres between the 5m contours - at this point I don't think it can be ruled out that the captain mistakenly assumed he could get through, be that from macho overconfidence, dutch courage or whatever. After all something definitely went awry.

QUOTE]

remember that the vessel had a draft of 8.2m. This is before you add in the squat calulation, which in open water would be in the region of 10% of the draft for that speed, and this in turn is magnified by the shallow water as well, possible increasing to a 20% increase.

While I have never sailed in those waters, I have sailed as a Senior Deck Officer on large vessels worldwide and would never have produced or sanctioned a passage plan that would pass so close to shallow waters with known dangers. Less than a ships length away from a known shallow spot, traveling at close to full speed in congested waters with no room for any error......?

I think when it is looked into in greater depth there will be a series of errors which added up to cause this disaster rather than just one big error. It is very sad and my thoughts go out to the family of the victims.

 

[Seajet]

I don't think anyone suggested the Captain was intending to go between the rocks; there was a strong theory for a while that the power blackout had briefly disabled steering ( and presumably engine control, or anyone with a brain would have slowed or stopped ) and when power was restored he was presented with rocks ahead, so went for the gap in a literally last ditch effort - the damage on both sides of the hull seemed to give this credence.

However as plating has been found on the outside, Eastern rock it seems safe to say she didn't attempt the gap.

If there's hull damage to starboard other than that caused by the final grounding, that's another big question mark.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I disagree. I've only visited Italy as a tourist and quickly realised that they speak in a way that this Scot finds very "dramatic"; you need to take in the cultural differences in language. Additionally, the press have very diffrent rules about interviewing people who are subject to a criminal investigation.

I've been to Italy many times for business and holidays and yes, the Italian way of speaking can appear very demonstrative and usually accompanied by significant arm and face gestures, so much so that often it can appear as if the people talking are having an argument when in fact they're just having a friendly conversation. Also raising one's voice to make a point is something you hear a lot between Italians which is why restaurants in Italy are often v noisy compared to the library like atmosphere in many UK restaurants.
However, I detect real tension in the conversation between the CC captain and the harbour authorities and I am a bit puzzled by it. What business is it of the Giglio harbourmaster to repeatedly tell the CC captain to return to his vessel? I wonder whether there is some previous antagonism between the 2 people concerned and even whether the Giglio harbourmaster had previously voiced concern about these unauthorised fly bys

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I don't think anyone suggested the Captain was intending to go between the rocks; there was a strong theory for a while that the power blackout had briefly disabled steering ( and presumably engine control, or anyone with a brain would have slowed or stopped ) and when power was restored he was presented with rocks ahead, so went for the gap in a literally last ditch effort - the damage on both sides of the hull seemed to give this credence.

However as plating has been found on the outside, Eastern rock it seems safe to say she didn't attempt the gap.

If there's hull damage to starboard other than that caused by the final grounding, that's another big question mark.

More on this story here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16607837 As it happens, I think the BBC's graphics are wrong both in the angle of the track of the ship approaching Giglio and the location of the incident which seems to have been further south off Le Scole

 

[BrianH]

However, I detect real tension in the conversation between the CC captain and the harbour authorities and I am a bit puzzled by it. What business is it of the Giglio harbourmaster to repeatedly tell the CC captain to return to his vessel? I wonder whether there is some previous antagonism between the 2 people concerned and even whether the Giglio harbourmaster had previously voiced concern about these unauthorised fly bys

My understanding of the released exchange is that it is between the CC captain and the Livorno (mainland) coastguard, who implies that because the order to abandon ship has been given he, the coastguard captain, now has responsibility.

Perhaps you refer to another conversation, that I have not heard and which I do understand occurred, between the Giglio port authorities who also told the CC captain to return.