Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

[toad_oftoadhall]

I think the info re legal duty appears further up this thread from an Italian resident forumite (Mapism or Metabarca?).

It may be somewhat unfair to judge him harshly on his post-abandon ship actions. Quite possibly overwhelmed by guilt already by then and in no fit state for anything much.

However this is overwhelmed by responsibility for being there in the first place.

Re your charges 1, 2 and 3:

On 1 - I think a skipper may expect some latitude here. There is a arguable case that a flyby at a safe distance is good PR / advertising. But obviously only if done safely with proper planning which self evidently wasn't the case.

On 2 - well it's beyond argument.

On 3 - already covered

Rather boringly it sounds like we're in total agreement.

What's your favorite anchor?

 

[chewi]

Rather boringly it sounds like we're in total agreement.

What's your favorite anchor?

It's behind you!

retreats to another thread...

 

[Observer]

1) He deviated from course against company policy. - IMHO it will transpire that he was allowed to deviate from his course at will.

Specifically on this point -

Say a captain in this position had got his senior officers together and said "Look chaps. I want to put on a bit of a show for the passengers, the locals and our head waiter who comes from this little town we'll be passing. So let's plan a nice pass at safe but impressively close distance to wow them all. And make damn sure there are no f*** ups or I'll be in deep poo."

Don't know if the professionals on here would think that is a plausible scenario. I'd think it is quite possible with resources available to do something that looks impressive to the incognoscenti but is actually well within more than reasonable safety limits.

I'd expect that sort of latitude.

 

[MapisM]

Is there *really* a legal duty for the captain to be the last off an Italian ship? What is the wording?

Well, if you think that the law wording alone can be so crystal clear to establish in a forum whether the captain is guilty or not, I have two words for you: good luck.
Anyway, if you're really interested, the text is as follows:

Art. 1097 - Abbandono di nave o di aeromobile in pericolo da parte del comandante

Il comandante, che, in caso di abbandono della nave, del galleggiante o dell’aeromobile in pericolo, non scende per ultimo da bordo, è punito con la reclusione fino a due anni.
Se dal fatto deriva l’incendio, il naufragio o la sommersione della nave o del galleggiante, ovvero l’incendio, la caduta o la perdita dell’aeromobile, la pena è da due ad otto anni.
Se la nave o l’aeromobile è adibito a trasporto di persone, la pena è da tre a dodici anni.

 

[BrendanS]

no comment on the legal aspect, but the machine translation is


Section 1097 - Abandonment of ships or aircraft in danger by the master

The commander who, in case of abandonment of the vessel, float or aircraft in danger, not down the last edge, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years.
If the fire comes from the fact, or the sinking of the ship sinking or floating, or a fire, loss or loss of the aircraft, the penalty is two to eight years.
If the ship or aircraft is used as a transport of persons, the penalty is three to twelve years.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Well, if you think that the law wording alone can be so crystal clear to establish in a forum whether the captain is guilty or not, I have two words for you: good luck.
Anyway, if you're really interested, the text is as follows:

Art. 1097 - Abbandono di nave o di aeromobile in pericolo da parte del comandante

Il comandante, che, in caso di abbandono della nave, del galleggiante o dell’aeromobile in pericolo, non scende per ultimo da bordo, è punito con la reclusione fino a due anni.
Se dal fatto deriva l’incendio, il naufragio o la sommersione della nave o del galleggiante, ovvero l’incendio, la caduta o la perdita dell’aeromobile, la pena è da due ad otto anni.
Se la nave o l’aeromobile è adibito a trasporto di persone, la pena è da tre a dodici anni.

Does that say he has to be physically the last person? "not down the last edge" doesnt help me much. What's a better interpretation?

 

[MapisM]

no comment on the legal aspect, but the machine translation is...

Not the funniest automatic translation I've ever seen, but obviously not very accurate, too.
I would ament it as follows:
The commander who, in case of abandonment of the vessel, floating unit or aircraft in danger, is not the last to leave the unit, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years.
If as a consequence of that follows an onboard fire, or the sinking of the ship or the floating unit, or a fire or loss of the aircraft, the penalty is two to eight years.
If the ship or aircraft is used for passengers transport, the penalty is three to twelve years.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Specifically on this point -

Say a captain in this position had got his senior officers together and said "Look chaps. I want to put on a bit of a show for the passengers, the locals and our head waiter who comes from this little town we'll be passing. So let's plan a nice pass at safe but impressively close distance to wow them all. And make damn sure there are no f*** ups or I'll be in deep poo."

Don't know if the professionals on here would think that is a plausible scenario. I'd think it is quite possible with resources available to do something that looks impressive to the incognoscenti but is actually well within more than reasonable safety limits.

I'd expect that sort of latitude.

Obviously this is guesswork but I *expect* Cruise captains are allowed/encouraged to deviate from their route at will to show the passengers scenery etc. thus enhancing the trip.

So I've no doubt that sailing past a pretty island with a port at dinner time in a full moon is perfectly acceptable and if he'd been a safe distance offshore he'd have had no explaining to do whatsoever.

So I'm saying I *think* (in contrast to the media accusation) deviating was allowed.

I'm sure that there were other rules against 15knot pass 93m from the island but he was allowed to shift of his default course.

All my opnion, I haven't checked.

 

[Stork_III]

Does that say he has to be physically the last person? "not down the last edge" doesnt help me much. What's a better interpretation?

Section 1097 - Abandonment of ships or aircraft in danger by the master

The commander who, in case of abandonment of the vessel, float or aircraft in danger, not comes down last from aboard, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years.
If the fire comes from the fact, or the sinking of the ship sinking or floating, or a fire, loss or loss of the aircraft, the penalty is two to eight years.
If the ship or aircraft is used as a transport of persons, the penalty is three to twelve years.

 

[MapisM]

Does that say he has to be physically the last person? "not down the last edge" doesnt help me much. What's a better interpretation?

See above for a more or less literal translation.
Also the alternative suggested by Stork_III is a good one, btw.
But don't ask me for a proper interpretation!
I'm also curious to hear the end of this story, but it will be up to the court to decide.
All the rest is, well... forum talk.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Not the funniest automatic translation I've ever seen, but obviously not very accurate, too.
I would ament it as follows:
The commander who, in case of abandonment of the vessel, floating unit or aircraft in danger, is not the last to leave the unit, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years.
If as a consequence of that follows an onboard fire, or the sinking of the ship or the floating unit, or a fire or loss of the aircraft, the penalty is two to eight years.
If the ship or aircraft is used for passengers transport, the penalty is three to twelve years.

If that's the law in full it's a stupid bit of legislation. Anyway, taking that at face value and assuming there are no exceptions/precedents for trapped passengers, I'm wrong about accusation 3 and there's no doubt he's guilty. He's off and there are 30 people still on board and for sure one or more of them will have lived on for a day or so.

12 years max. Ouch.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

All the rest is, well... forum talk.

Well this is the right place for forum talk!

 

[Observer]

If that's the law in full it's a stupid bit of legislation. Anyway, taking that at face value and assuming there are no exceptions/precedents for trapped passengers, I'm wrong about accusation 3 and there's no doubt he's guilty. He's off and there are 30 people still on board and for sure one or more of them will have lived on for a day or so.

12 years max. Ouch.

"Stupid" is unwarranted We can't judge other countries' law by the conventions and standards (that are not necessarily superior anyway) of UK law. In English law, I'd expect a prescriptive statement of that nature to be qualified by "without lawful excuse" or a subsequent specific section "A person shall not be guilty of an offence under the preceding section if .....". For all we know the latter may exist. Or it may be customary that the court has discretion to find mitigation or excuse on the facts.

 

[misterg]

Obviously this is guesswork ....

....So I'm saying I *think* (in contrast to the media accusation) deviating was allowed.

I'm sure that there were other rules against 15knot pass 93m from the island but he was allowed to shift of his default course.

All my opnion, I haven't checked.

Have a look a the requirements of SOLAS V - unless he can prove he had a passage plan for the manoeuvre, he's goosed, regardless of company rules.

Andy

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Have a look a the requirements of SOLAS V - unless he can prove he had a passage plan for the manoeuvre, he's goosed, regardless of company rules.

Andy

Nope, the onus is on them to prove there *wasn't* a passage plan and since the passage plan doesn't have to be written they will find that difficult. *I think*.

 

[MapisM]

If that's the law in full it's a stupid bit of legislation.

Well, it's been around for 70 years or so, it's well known to anyone who has a license for helming boats (which in IT is mandatory for any vessel above 40hp), and I've yet to meet any commercial or pleasure boater concerned by that.
Fwiw, I'm also subject to it, when I'm helming my own boat and I have some friends onboard.

At the end of the day, the application/interpretation of such law is what really matters.
I don't think anyone would have argued if the captain left the boat after the completion of the evacuation, even if some souls were still missing.
It's pretty obvious that there must be a sort of "cut off" between the "normal" evacuation procedures and the job of Navy trained rescue divers.

Again, all this is well beyond what we can know/understand/evaluate at the moment.
I surely wouldn't want to be in the captain's boots, but also the job of lawyers and judges from now on won't be trivial, I reckon.

 

[Seajet]

Specifically on this point -

Say a captain in this position had got his senior officers together and said "Look chaps. I want to put on a bit of a show for the passengers, the locals and our head waiter who comes from this little town we'll be passing. So let's plan a nice pass at safe but impressively close distance to wow them all. And make damn sure there are no f*** ups or I'll be in deep poo."

/QUOTE]

Getting people together to discuss a proposed idea like that would be the professional way to go.

Going by UK experience there may be the school of thought on the lines of ' elf'n'safety won't agree to anything ever and have zero on the job knowledge, all they care about is covering their arses so I / we will wing it ' ...

As mentioned, I doubt the CRM sytem was robust enough to countermand the Captain before he proved to any toe-curled doubters that they were right.

However I don't see anything in this that makes it an attempt to entertain the passengers, in the dark, while sitting down to dinner; it was showing off to a colleague who apparently wasn't even there...

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

"Stupid" is unwarranted We can't judge other countries' law by the conventions and standards (that are not necessarily superior anyway) of UK law. In English law, I'd expect a prescriptive statement of that nature to be qualified by "without lawful excuse" or a subsequent specific section "A person shall not be guilty of an offence under the preceding section if .....". For all we know the latter may exist. Or it may be customary that the court has discretion to find mitigation or excuse on the facts.

"If that's the law in full"
"assuming there are no exceptions/precedents for trapped passengers"

Not much point in me putting caveats all over the place if you don't read them is there?

I'm sure MapisM would have mentioned if there were exceptions mentioned in the legislation - it would be somewhat dishonest if he hadn't. Clearly he won't be aware of any legal precedents so that's anybody's guess.

I *think* English law also has a standing defence of necessity - wonder if Italy does too. In which case could he just say "I had to leave before the others - I might have died otherwise." (Wonder if any legal types could confrim if that would work in uk law.)

 

[Kukri]

Specifically on this point -

Say a captain in this position had got his senior officers together and said "Look chaps. I want to put on a bit of a show for the passengers, the locals and our head waiter who comes from this little town we'll be passing. So let's plan a nice pass at safe but impressively close distance to wow them all. And make damn sure there are no f*** ups or I'll be in deep poo."

/QUOTE]

Getting people together to discuss a proposed idea like that would be the professional way to go.

Going by UK experience there may be the school of thought on the lines of ' elf'n'safety won't agree to anything ever and have zero on the job knowledge, all they care about is covering their arses so I / we will wing it ' ...

As mentioned, I doubt the CRM sytem was robust enough to countermand the Captain before he proved to any toe-curled doubters that they were right.

+1.

But it's twenty years since I was responsible, ashore, for a cruise ship.

 

[alant]

Nope, the onus is on them to prove there *wasn't* a passage plan and since the passage plan doesn't have to be written they will find that difficult. *I think*.

I think for a ship of that type/size, there would definitely be a detailed passage plan, approved by the owners + any other parties beforehand. Its a complete nonsense to even think it wouldn't be written down.