Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

[mikefleetwood]

Some interesting comments in that lot thanks. "Technical problem" & "Requesting a tow" suggest that the captain didn't really expect to sink. It must have been only when the 2nd Officer came back from damage assessment to say the the water was already "up to his neck" that the realisation started to filter thro.

I guess that up to that point the captain thought (hoped?) that the contact with the rocks was no more than the kind of "ding" that might happen with a "firm" arrival at a quayside?

His initial comments "...a rock that shouldn't have been there.." remind me of those oft-quoted insurance claims - "I turned into the wrong driveway and hit a tree I haven't got...". (thank you Jasper Carrott, about 20 years ago)

 

[tony_lavelle]

Another perspective

I have a growing sense of unease about the way the captain has been tried and found guilty in the media, including this forum. However there are better-informed people here than in the news bureaux of the TV companies which are having a feeding frenzy with little respect for accuracy.

Let's for a moment give the guy the benefit of the doubt and consider:
1. Fly-by's are a normal part of a cruise itinerary and do not require company approval, despite the Costa/Carnival CEO's obvious attempts to hang the captain out to dry.
2. It would be normal, even prudent, to steer manually rather than on auto-pilot when close to shore.
3. In the Med there is usually deep water close to shore, especially steep/rocky ones, so it is normal see big ships close to land.
4. In familiar waters and with good visibility the captain would have used his eyes and maybe radar more than the chart, which may have been zoomed out and not displaying the rock SE of Le Scole at 6.6m depth. So his statement about the "uncharted" rock may be almost true.
5. Clearly he misjudged the turn and he has admitted that.
6. The ship was supposedly designed to withstand rupture of its hull. The awful reality did not set in until he got the report from down below, after which he concentrated on deliberately grounding the ship as close as possible to the harbour. He succeeded in this despite damage to the ship's steering and electrical systems.
7. Who among us could be sure we wouldn't have a mental/emotional melt-down once we had done all we could?

The captain should take the blame but let's not rush to judgement on him.

There are parallels with the Titanic: scape-goating of the captain, over confidence in the huge ship's relatively untested design, out of date lifeboat provision, fatal delay in evacuating the ship and so on.

Despite the modest loss of life this incident may go down in maritime history if lessons are learned.

 

[jonjo]

I guess that up to that point the captain thought (hoped?) that the contact with the rocks was no more than the kind of "ding" that might happen with a "firm" arrival at a quayside?

I wish people would stop trying to empathise with this thoroughly despicable captain.

We all know how a random wave can cause a ship to shudder and reverberate. The damage evident on the hull is orders of magnitude greater than a large wave slapping the hull, there is no way a seagoing marine pro could mistake the impact as a technical problem to be sorted out later in port.

 

[AuntyRinum]

Nonsense.

By the time of that CG conversation the captain was not capable of rational thought, he was lost in his own world of denial compounded by the personality disorder which motivated his risk taking. No2. recognized that fact hence the mutiny on the bridge and No2. ordering the abandon ship.

I particularly admire the way that the captain claims that he "tripped and fell into a lifeboat". It puts me in mind of the heroic Italian officer in Allo Allo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHAs7nO95Ks

 

[jonjo]

7. Who among us could be sure we wouldn't have a mental/emotional melt-down once we had done all we could?

The point is most of us would not apply for the job and we expect better from those who do. But talking about professional behaviour under stress, I am often amazed by accounts of inflight emergencies and how they stay focussed on theflight deck and work through engine restart procedures for the n'th time under extreme circumstances.

At the end of the day, if the captain had any shred of decency then basic principals would have permeated his distressed brain and he would have stayed with the ship.

The fact that he deserted his ship tells us a lot about the character of the man.

 

[fergie_mac66]

I particularly admire the way that the captain claims that he "tripped and fell into a lifeboat". It puts me in mind of the heroic Italian officer in Allo Allo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHAs7nO95Ks

Got to admit might be a bit non pc but he seems to have made an effort to conform to old stereo typical Italian standards

 

[Observer]

I have a growing sense of unease about the way the captain has been tried and found guilty in the media, including this forum. However there are better-informed people here than in the news bureaux of the TV companies which are having a feeding frenzy with little respect for accuracy.

Let's for a moment give the guy the benefit of the doubt...

In many or nearly all circumstances of an 'accident' I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

In this case, I'm afraid, the self-evident, undisputed and (in some cases) self-admitted facts (putting aside other reported facts that have been less conclusively proved) brook no interpretation other than that the captain, in disregard of "any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen"), recklessly imperilled the ship, passengers and crew by knowingly, deliberately and completely unnecessarily navigating the vessel (of which he was in sole command) in a way that brought it far, far closer to shallow water and rocky ledges or outcrops (that he knew existed) than any reasonably competent amateur seaman, far less a highly qualified and experienced professional ship's captain, charged with the safety of vessel and >4000 passengers and crew, would have countenanced under any but the most threatening circumstances.

 

[Kukri]

I have a growing sense of unease about the way the captain has been tried and found guilty in the media, including this forum. However there are better-informed people here than in the news bureaux of the TV companies which are having a feeding frenzy with little respect for accuracy.

Let's for a moment give the guy the benefit of the doubt and consider:
1. Fly-by's are a normal part of a cruise itinerary and do not require company approval, despite the Costa/Carnival CEO's obvious attempts to hang the captain out to dry.
2. It would be normal, even prudent, to steer manually rather than on auto-pilot when close to shore.
3. In the Med there is usually deep water close to shore, especially steep/rocky ones, so it is normal see big ships close to land.
4. In familiar waters and with good visibility the captain would have used his eyes and maybe radar more than the chart, which may have been zoomed out and not displaying the rock SE of Le Scole at 6.6m depth. So his statement about the "uncharted" rock may be almost true.
5. Clearly he misjudged the turn and he has admitted that.
6. The ship was supposedly designed to withstand rupture of its hull. The awful reality did not set in until he got the report from down below, after which he concentrated on deliberately grounding the ship as close as possible to the harbour. He succeeded in this despite damage to the ship's steering and electrical systems.
7. Who among us could be sure we wouldn't have a mental/emotional melt-down once we had done all we could?

The captain should take the blame but let's not rush to judgement on him.

There are parallels with the Titanic: scape-goating of the captain, over confidence in the huge ship's relatively untested design, out of date lifeboat provision, fatal delay in evacuating the ship and so on.

Despite the modest loss of life this incident may go down in maritime history if lessons are learned.

+1.

Meaning - I agree.

 

[Twister_Ken]

+1.

The prime fact is beyond dispute. The vessel under his sole command is now lying on its side due to a manoeuvre carried out on his instructions. Therefore, he must be culpable. He is where the buck stops.

 

[dharl]

Let's for a moment give the guy the benefit of the doubt and consider:
1. Fly-by's are a normal part of a cruise itinerary and do not require company approval, despite the Costa/Carnival CEO's obvious attempts to hang the captain out to dry.
2. It would be normal, even prudent, to steer manually rather than on auto-pilot when close to shore.
3. In the Med there is usually deep water close to shore, especially steep/rocky ones, so it is normal see big ships close to land.
4. In familiar waters and with good visibility the captain would have used his eyes and maybe radar more than the chart, which may have been zoomed out and not displaying the rock SE of Le Scole at 6.6m depth. So his statement about the "uncharted" rock may be almost true.
5. Clearly he misjudged the turn and he has admitted that.
6. The ship was supposedly designed to withstand rupture of its hull. The awful reality did not set in until he got the report from down below, after which he concentrated on deliberately grounding the ship as close as possible to the harbour. He succeeded in this despite damage to the ship's steering and electrical systems.
7. Who among us could be sure we wouldn't have a mental/emotional melt-down once we had done all we could?

The captain should take the blame but let's not rush to judgement on him.

QUOTE]

1. 'Fly Bys' normal cruise ship behavour:- Yes but a suitable passage plan would need to be in place saying how far off the coast to be, turning distances, speeds etc. Company would have to authorise is it is considered part of the cruise experiance, however they would have strict protocol on how they are done and impose conditons on them.
2. Helm manned :- Yes I would expect that in enclosed water to have a QM on the wheel...however not he vessels Master as you are unable to manage the situation if concentraining on steering the vessel rather than monitoring the vessels position
3.See above re Passage Planning
4.See above re passage planning
5.Glad he admited it, however if he had produced a passage plan and stuck to it he wouldnt need to be apoligising.
6.A better option would have been to drive the ship direct up the beach to stop her listing, however he may not have know the full damage or had full control by that stage.
7.Fully agree, it is more than a huge shock to the system, no one will know how they will react until they are in the same situtation.


As a seperate point, cruise vessels of that side would have had the OOW (officer of the watch) qualified as a Master Mariner as well as at least one other qualified deck officer on the bridge, quite possible a fellow Master Mariner. It is hard to understand why the officers on duty did not question the Master at an earlier time when first going off the passage plan.

only my views as a maritime professional!

 

[FishyInverness]

+1.

-1

I have swayed to and fro on my opinion of the captain with various arguments presented, then presented from a different angle, trying to discount press hyperbole and exaggeration, 'too' emotional conversations from witnesses, half-truths and "apparentlies"

...but having now seen or heard, at least 4 different "admissions" direct from this captain's mouth, which directly contradict each other, I am firmly in the camp believing he is entirely to blame and a very irresponsible character.

 

[maxi77]

I have a growing sense of unease about the way the captain has been tried and found guilty in the media, including this forum. However there are better-informed people here than in the news bureaux of the TV companies which are having a feeding frenzy with little respect for accuracy.

Let's for a moment give the guy the benefit of the doubt and consider:
1. Fly-by's are a normal part of a cruise itinerary and do not require company approval, despite the Costa/Carnival CEO's obvious attempts to hang the captain out to dry.
2. It would be normal, even prudent, to steer manually rather than on auto-pilot when close to shore.
3. In the Med there is usually deep water close to shore, especially steep/rocky ones, so it is normal see big ships close to land.
4. In familiar waters and with good visibility the captain would have used his eyes and maybe radar more than the chart, which may have been zoomed out and not displaying the rock SE of Le Scole at 6.6m depth. So his statement about the "uncharted" rock may be almost true.
5. Clearly he misjudged the turn and he has admitted that.
6. The ship was supposedly designed to withstand rupture of its hull. The awful reality did not set in until he got the report from down below, after which he concentrated on deliberately grounding the ship as close as possible to the harbour. He succeeded in this despite damage to the ship's steering and electrical systems.
7. Who among us could be sure we wouldn't have a mental/emotional melt-down once we had done all we could?

The captain should take the blame but let's not rush to judgement on him.

There are parallels with the Titanic: scape-goating of the captain, over confidence in the huge ship's relatively untested design, out of date lifeboat provision, fatal delay in evacuating the ship and so on.

Despite the modest loss of life this incident may go down in maritime history if lessons are learned.

And if you add to that the selective releasing of edited sections of audio to the press by unknown parties in the authorities the captain has been stitched up well and good long before any trial.

 

[haydude]

I particularly admire the way that the captain claims that he "tripped and fell into a lifeboat". It puts me in mind of the heroic Italian officer in Allo Allo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHAs7nO95Ks

I am afraid that is yet another inaccurate translation.

The captain said clearly that "he felt in the water" and swam to the rock before being picked up by a lifeboat.

The boat was listing, the cockpit dipped in the water. There was nothing to hang on to climb to the dry section above.

They have got squadrons of Alpine climbers and cave explorers searching the ship right now, because there is no way to walk the corridors and get into rooms just merrily walking.

If anything I hope that they will change ship designs to include concealed steps under the decks soles that open up with gravity when the ship lists.

 

[tony_lavelle]

Devil's Advocate

It's good to have the knowledgeable views of a master mariner. I wonder how much passage plans are kept to in practice and how rigidly they are followed. If deviations are routinely tolerated or even encouraged by the company, as seems to be the case, then the situation is rather different from what is being portrayed.

 

[sunquest]

+1.

+2 The truth will out at an official enquiry, beware the armchair commodores!

 

[chewi]

It is hard to understand why the officers on duty did not question the Master at an earlier time when first going off the passage plan.

only my views as a maritime professional!

I also would hope that there will be evidence that his close approach was questioned by the officers, or they may as well not have been there, but the captain had the con, and rightly so. He no doubt uttered resounding confidence in his plan, so here we are.


Given that Fly-bys now appear to be frequent practice, at what point do the officers interfere with the authority of the captain?

They either do it beforehand , (ie being insubordinate, when the Captain has done nothing abnormal yet), or after its too late (putting yourself on the helm at a time when disaster is inevitable!) , or perhaps more reasonably afterwards, when you realise that the captain cannot cope with the consequences, which may well be the case.

It would take some time, apparently too much, to realise that he was not coping, and for officers to override the captain, but they spent some of that investigating the position at a time when the captain should have coped.

 

[dharl]

Chewi you are correct and that the problem..at what stage DO you as a Jnr Officer say to the Captain that you think what he is doing is incorrect? It takes a brave man to do that as it could be the end of your career. OF course hindsight is a wounderful thing!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Given that Fly-bys now appear to be frequent practice

I think you're a few days out of date, there.

"Given that fly-bys were once frequently practised," maybe.

I bet every cruise liner in the world now has a notice taped up in plain view on the bridge saying something like:

ON NO ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER, EVEN IF ORDERED TO DO SO BY GOD ALMIGHTY, WILL THIS VESSEL PERFORM SAIL PASTS BY DEVIATING FROM A COMPANY APPROVED PASSAGE PLAN. ANY OFFICER SEEN BREACHING THIS RULE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM POST AND CONFINED TO HIS CABIN FOR THE DURATION, UNTIL THE CEO CAN PERSONALLY REMOVE HIS TESTICLES.

 

[haydude]

I also would hope that there will be evidence that his close approach was questioned by the officers, or they may as well not have ben there, but the captain had the con, and rightly so. He no doubt uttered resounding confidence in his plan, so here we are.

I am afraid that is a cultural issue. In the UK people are used to question everyone all the time. That is not only frowned upon in Italy but it can be also be severly punished. The consequence is that it happens only in extreme circumstances, especially where there is a clear hyerarchical structure.

Most men there will have served in the former compulsory armed forced service, which is where they will have learnt to their expenses to never question the authority and do as they are told.

 

[chewi]

I think you're a few days out of date, there.

You're quite right. just shy of a week!