Costa Concordia (Titanic 2012)

[wazza]

I think the site avb3 posted was very informative...

http://gcaptain.com/gcaptains-john-k...ncordia-video/

As for the Captain saved lives comment, he cost lives! There, of course, could've been more lives lost but still his actions cost lives, and should be held accountable, without doubt!!!
If it was my mother, father, son or daughter that lost their lives aboard I don't feel I'd be thinking along the lines of how he well acted after his total cöck up!!!!

 

[Observer]

I think the site avb3 posted was very informative...

http://gcaptain.com/gcaptains-john-k...ncordia-video/

As for the Captain saved lives comment, he cost lives! There, of course, could've been more lives lost but still his actions cost lives, and should be held accountable, without doubt!!!
If it was my mother, father, son or daughter that lost their lives aboard I don't feel I'd be thinking along the lines of how he well acted after his total cöck up!!!!

As made clear by the magistrate's interim findings, the actions subsequent to the strike, however well judged (not yet assessed) and even if solely due to the captain (also not certain) are simply due discharge of command responsibility and do not in any way exempt him from or attenuate responsibility for the preceding grave error(s).

 

[Observer]

That is brilliant!

If it had already been posted I'd missed it

Not sure I understand where the data for this has cone from. I thought there were gaps in the AIS record. Is there a new source of continuous position data that has allowed this reconstruction to be made with reliable accuracy? Or is it just a plausible computer model of what may have happened?

 

[RichardS]

Just seen on the BBC that you can still buy £800 cruises on the Costa Concordia departing this April. I somehow don't think the repair will be that speedy!

Richard

 

[mikefleetwood]

As made clear by the magistrate's interim findings, the actions subsequent to the strike, however well judged (not yet assessed) and even if solely due to the captain (also not certain) are simply due discharge of command responsibility and do not in any way exempt him from or attenuate responsibility for the preceding grave error(s).

I don't think anyone here has suggested that the captain's later actions (if it was him) in any way offset his responsibility for the disaster in the first place.

What does seem to be clear though, is that by manouvering the badly holed ship onto shallow water he (or whoever?) prevented the much greater loss of life that would have resulted had she sank in deeper water. If the only propulsion available was bow/stern thrusters (with or without an anchor), then the seamanship, at that point, was pretty impressive (IMHO).

 

[Kukri]

I have a friend, a Master Mariner and solicitor who became the senior partner of P&O's Admiralty solicitors - who has a catch phrase to the effect that, however many points you gain by getting out of a situation, they never add up to the points lost by getting into it in the first place, personally, professionally or corporately.

 

[Seajet]

There is the famous Admiralty report on an officer;

' shows great skill in getting out of situations he should never have got into '

Miles Smeeton of 'Once Is Enough' fame reckoned it refered to him.

 

[glashen]

You can say what you like about the captain for making the original b@lls up.

But it does appear he had the presence of mind to find a way to bring a crippled ship into the shore and to shallow water.

His actions no doubt saved many lives.

Sorry I couldn't disagree more, The original collision with the rock was a catastrophic error and IMHO negligent of the safety of the vessel, but to err is human, it is what happened after, that is to my mind reprehensible. Although all the facts and timings aren't known some key pieces of information are known and in my view reflect very badly on the captain.

1) A mayday call was not made, it was the coastguard who contacted the ship.

2) Passengers and the coastguard were told it was only a power failure and the passengers were told to return to their cabins. It is inconceivable that the captain was unaware that the ship had suffered severe damage from the collision. This could well be the cause of some loss of life.

3) It should have been possible in the conditions to evacuate the ship safely, the loss of life indicates a failure here.

4) The captain leaving the ship whilst survivors were still leaving although not the worst of his offences indicates he had lost control and did not do everything possible to minimize the loss of life.

I am sure there is plenty of blame to go round but the captain is responsible for much of it.

 

[Seajet]

glashen,

I agree with the gist of what you say.

However I'd think evacuating any cruise ship would result in some fatalities, as there will probably be a lot of elderly or disabled passengers, or even younger people not in the best of health.

I can't help wondering if 'escape slides' as fitted to aircraft might be an idea to get people off quickly & relatively gently - lifeboats on davits is very old tech', and proven wanting time & time again - , though one would like to know there's a boat or raft at the other end !

 

[Observer]

I don't think anyone here has suggested that the captain's later actions (if it was him) in any way offset his responsibility for the disaster in the first place.

What does seem to be clear though, is that by manouvering the badly holed ship onto shallow water he (or whoever?) prevented the much greater loss of life that would have resulted had she sank in deeper water. If the only propulsion available was bow/stern thrusters (with or without an anchor), then the seamanship, at that point, was pretty impressive (IMHO).

I think there have been a few posts on here that could be interpreted to imply that the captain does deserve credit for his subsequent actions. It seems that he has himself claimed them in mitigation. I'm afraid I don't find anything notable or creditable in the ordinary, competent exercise by a person who has reached the pinnacle of his profession of the abilities that his position requires that he ought to have and that (presumably) are substantially responsible for his elevation to the position he holds.

Now, if he had put his personal safety at substantial risk in order to save or attempt to save the persons for whose safety he was responsible, that would be creditable. That appears not to have been the case. So, respecting Minn's post below yours, I don't think he wins any points at all for the subsequent actions, regardless that they displayed (if they did, which is still conjecture) a high degree of professional competence. That view echoes that expressed on this point by the examining magistrate, the gist of which appeared in my post.

http://gcaptain.com/grave-imprudenc...-inquiry-into-costa-concordia-disaster/?37904

Further, I think it is disingenuous (I don't suggest deliberately) to assert that it is clear that the manoeuvring (if it was manoeuvring) to the final resting place "prevented ...greater loss of life". After the strike had happened, the action that would (almost certainly) have prevented the loss of at least some lives that were lost was a more timely order to launch the lifeboats and evacuate the passengers, whilst the ship was still upright. From the starting point of the ship being in deep water, fatally holed and no evacuation under way, the action (if it was an action) to bring her to shore was simply and no more than the least worst option available. It prevented a greater loss of life but that was more preventable at an earlier stage. Starting from that point, I accept that the loss of life would have almost certainly been greater if she had remained in deep water/further from shore whilst the actual abandoment was still under way.

 

[trapezeartist]

I have a friend, a Master Mariner and solicitor who became the senior partner of P&O's Admiralty solicitors - who has a catch phrase to the effect that, however many points you gain by getting out of a situation, they never add up to the points lost by getting into it in the first place, personally, professionally or corporately.

Broadly, I disagree with your friend. Problems happen in all walks of life, and I am more inclined to judge people by how they solve those problems (provided the problems don't happen too often).

However, there is always an exception to the rule. Captain Schettino and the Costa Concordia are clearly a shining example of the exception.

 

[trapezeartist]

I don't think anyone here has suggested that the captain's later actions (if it was him) in any way offset his responsibility for the disaster in the first place.

What does seem to be clear though, is that by manouvering the badly holed ship onto shallow water he (or whoever?) prevented the much greater loss of life that would have resulted had she sank in deeper water. If the only propulsion available was bow/stern thrusters (with or without an anchor), then the seamanship, at that point, was pretty impressive (IMHO).

If the pre-impact seamanship had been just half as good as the post-impact seamanship, we wouldn't be discussing the topic now.

 

[glashen]

glashen,

I agree with the gist of what you say.

However I'd think evacuating any cruise ship would result in some fatalities, as there will probably be a lot of elderly or disabled passengers, or even younger people not in the best of health.

You may be right given the size of these ships, but if you are and it became widely known I am sure it would seriously damage the cruise market. I think I should have the scale of the loss of life indicates a failure here.

It does seem to me that there was a attitude of "It will never happen" and the result of that state of mind is almost always the same, in this case compounded by denial when the unthinkable did happen.

 

[trapezeartist]

Not sure I understand where the data for this has cone from. I thought there were gaps in the AIS record. Is there a new source of continuous position data that has allowed this reconstruction to be made with reliable accuracy? Or is it just a plausible computer model of what may have happened?

I wondered that as well. It's certainly a compelling and convincing account of what may have happened or what did happen. The track shows many labels with times on them, implying that they are based on AIS or other similar data. There is also the label attached to the ship icon which shows continuously varying values for heading, SOG and COG, suggesting to me that they are interpolations from the known points. Oddly, the rate of turn is always zero, and I'm not sure what to make of that.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Oddly, the rate of turn is always zero, and I'm not sure what to make of that.

That function on the AIS transmitter was not enabled.

 

[westernman]

That function on the AIS transmitter was not enabled.

Weird. The AIS unit receives continuously heading information. It can very easily calculate rate of turn from that. No reason for it not to.

 

[Seajet]

Weird. The AIS unit receives continuously heading information. It can very easily calculate rate of turn from that. No reason for it not to.

If I was an officer / Captain on a big ship, I'd want to be transmitting
rate of turn and any other info if it might help avoid a collision

 

[Thistle]

very clear track on QPS site, the originators of the other pictures

http://www.qps.nl/display/qastor/2012/01/17/20120117_stranding

Interesting. Is this based on actual or extrapolated AIS data? Did the ship just fail to turn at WP002, possibly because everyone on the bridge was distracted? Or was it really intended as a "fly past"? If the latter, why didn't they get onto a course parallel to the coast a bit earlier (ie further south) so that there was room to correct any errors?

 

[nigel1]

glashen,



I can't help wondering if 'escape slides' as fitted to aircraft might be an idea to get people off quickly & relatively gently - lifeboats on davits is very old tech', and proven wanting time & time again - , though one would like to know there's a boat or raft at the other end !

Thats been tried and tested in the past. Basically it was similar to the sort of chutes you see at building sites in which they send down the rubbish.
On a passenger ship, the chute ended in a liferaft.
This system came about for the reason as many have pointed out, how do you safely evacuate a few thousand people from a ship.
Unfortunately, during the trials there was an incident, if I remember correctly, a young lady died during the descent through the chute when somehow she ended up bent doubled and jammed in the chute.

 

[Kukri]

Thats been tried and tested in the past. Basically it was similar to the sort of chutes you see at building sites in which they send down the rubbish.
On a passenger ship, the chute ended in a liferaft.
This system came about for the reason as many have pointed out, how do you safely evacuate a few thousand people from a ship.
Unfortunately, during the trials there was an incident, if I remember correctly, a young lady died during the descent through the chute when somehow she ended up bent doubled and jammed in the chute.

Yes, I remember that too. Just Googled the MAIB report, here:

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/aquitaine-chute.pdf