Ship crashes into Genoa port control tower - several deaths

LittleSister

LittleSister

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Nov 2007
Messages
20,379
Location
Me Norfolk/Suffolk border - Boat Deben & Southwold
Visit site
From the BBC_

At least three people have died and several are missing after a ship crashed into a control tower in the Italian port of Genoa, reports say.

Part of the tower was said to have crashed into the water when it was hit by the Jolly Nero container ship.

About 10 people were in the tower at the time of the accident, and some of them are feared to be in the water.

Four people have been taken to hospital, says the Corriere Della Sera newspaper.

The Jolly Nero is almost 240 metres (787 feet) long and weighs over 40,500 tonnes.

It was bound for Messina, Sicily, at the time of the crash, reports say.

The accident is said to have occurred at about 23:00 on Tuesday night (21:00 GMT), when a shift change was taking place in the control tower - meaning more people were inside.

Genoa's prosecutor is investigating the incident, Corriere Della Sera says. The ship has been impounded and the captain is being questioned.
 
It should be possible to design a large concrete structure like that against ship impact. Just pretend that it is a bridge pier. Poor design and/or construction I would say.
 
Thats interesting, you learn something every day. I thought that a vessel is under the command of the pilot whilst on board.
 
The legal status of the Pilot depends on which country you're in - Pilotage law can be fiendishly complicated.
I'm not sure of the situation in Italy, but in the UK if a vessel is in a compulsory pilotage area (most ports are), then legally the Pilot has the conduct of the ship, but the Master retains command. That means it's the Pilot who gives the orders and effectively navigates the ship in the pilotage area, but that does not relieve the Master and OOW of their responsibilities to their vessel - they still retain command and therefore responsibility. The Pilotage Act of 1987 effectively forces the Master to give the Pilot the con - the notion of of Pilots advice is something of a legal nonsense which has persisted for many years. Add VTS and port authorities into the mix who give traffic orders (this is also legally called advice!) and you get a legal mess, all aligned to the disadvantage of those onboard ship. Pilotage law is long overdue a total overhaul.
In reality, what occurs is that should there be an incident because the Master ignored the orders/recommendation of the Pilot, then the Shipmaster will be prosecuted for doing so. By the same token, if an incident occurs because the Pilot made a mistake and the Master DIDN'T ignore him and take the con himself, then he will also be prosecuted. Pilots can and are prosecuted for negligence, but over the years it could be argued that they've got off lightly in many cases, that's changed these days what with the blame culture we now live in.
Compulsory pilotage isn't usually compulsory for all vessels, normally warships, auxiliaries and government operated ships are exempt, as of course are vessels under a certain size.
 
Last edited:
A chum of mine is in charge of pilots into Portsmouth and Southampton, as I - as a yottie - understand it the pilot makes ' valuable comments ' including berthing for big ships which the skipper agrees to but the skipper is always in overall charge and takes the overall responsibility.

Vessels like ferries may show pilot flag ' H require a pilot ' on it's side horizontal to show the skipper is pilot-trained and experienced.
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
Vessels like ferries may show pilot flag ' H require a pilot ' on it's side horizontal to show the skipper is pilot-trained and experienced.
Click to expand...

White over red (same thing as "H on its side") is the general flag for "pilot on board" - note its similarity to the white-over-red lights at night. Pilot boats fly it as they bring the man out, the ship hoists it as soon as he's on board (we did on Stavros, anyway).

I didn't know that masters with an exemption certificate could fly it, but I suppose it makes a kind of sense.

Pete
 
Looking at the photos on the Beeb's website, it's not just the tower that collapsed, but the four storey building alongside. Seven dead, and three missing.
According to reports, the ship was being assisted by tugs, in flat calm weather.
Two of the dead were pilots, three coastguard officers,
Tragic.
 
Last edited:
tobermoryphil said:
Looking at the photos on the Beeb's website, it's not just the tower that collapsed, but the four storey building alongside. Seven dead, and three missing.
According to reports, the ship was being assisted by tugs, in flat calm weather.
Two of the dead were pilots, three coastguard officers,
Tragic.
Click to expand...
I think your correct, the whole blgd & Tr demolished
_67471946_3c8e3465-7aaf-4477-bfef-4bf306631913.jpg

The video (in the bbc link) shows that container crane clearly with no building in front
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22444421
the bldg was even built out into the hbr on stilts, assume parking under it
 
Last edited:
Yes, the whole thing collapsed. It seems reckless - to put it mildly - to put up a building that depends on columns planted on blocks BEYOND the quayside for its structural stability in an area with large ships moving about. But I don't have much hope in seeing the architect or any public yes-man in the dock (as in court) any time soon...
 
Metabarca said:
Yes, the whole thing collapsed. It seems reckless - to put it mildly - to put up a building that depends on columns planted on blocks BEYOND the quayside for its structural stability in an area with large ships moving about. But I don't have much hope in seeing the architect or any public yes-man in the dock (as in court) any time soon...
Click to expand...

There is no reason why it couldn't have been designed and built to resist ship impact. We do it all the time with bridge piers. It was either overlooked in the design or there were faults in the construction.
 
Metabarca said:
Yes, the whole thing collapsed. It seems reckless - to put it mildly - to put up a building that depends on columns planted on blocks BEYOND the quayside for its structural stability in an area with large ships moving about. But I don't have much hope in seeing the architect or any public yes-man in the dock (as in court) any time soon...
Click to expand...

I would imagine that lack of space forced the design.
 
DJE said:
There is no reason why it couldn't have been designed and built to resist ship impact. We do it all the time with bridge piers. It was either overlooked in the design or there were faults in the construction.
Click to expand...

But to construct a building in the same manner would result in it being more of a bunker than a building, would it not?
 
I am not so critical of its position. It is inside the main breakwater, in an area where any vessel should be moving very slowly. Maybe the mistake was not in its position or construction, but in the absence of protective works beyond the main structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top