BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012

Subject: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 10:59 AM

Last Friday the Costa Concordia cruise liner struck a reef and subsequently sunk near to shore off the coast of Italy. Here's a link to the best story I've been able to find: click here for report!

"The 114,500-tonne Costa Concordia was on a trip around the Mediterranean when it "hit an obstacle" near the island of Giglio off the coast of Tuscany."

The Costa Concordia has the dubious distinction of being the largest cruise liner to ever have sunk.

Over 4000 people were aboard, three are confirmed dead and 17 are still missing according to this report.

The captain safely evacuated the ship after grounding it adjacent to the shore, and is under investigation for manslaughter. He had abandoned the ship before the vast majority of passengers were safely ashore.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Megan L
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 11:53 AM

Lets not start yet another mudcat witch hunt

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: polaitaly
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 01:21 PM

The captain is now in jail (rightfully)
paola

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 01:23 PM

But only while investigations are made. Innocent until proved guilty and all that...

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 01:33 PM

What IS strange is how it came to collide with a large rock in the narrow channel. It's made the passage before, and so have dozens of other cruise ships. It must have been badly off course. Also, I heard (unsubstantiated) that their passenger and crew lists were incomplete. If so, that's a grave fault. In the event of an accident or sinking, how can one be sure all lives are accounted for?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnomad
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM

Known death toll has risen to five, but given some 4000 plus persons on board that is remarkably few. They have even got a handful of people out of her who had been trapped.

As for why it happened, I feel that is best left to the marine investigation authorities. We are, after all, not there, not experts, and only in possession of information filtered through journalists whose main term of reference is what will sell a story.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM

Outside the obvious concerns for those lost, what caused the mishap, and environmental issues, I am very curious as to how the ship will be recovered/re-floated, or salvaged? I suspect someone is devising a plan for that as we post.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 02:03 PM

Absolutely right, gnomad and Megan. Our knowledge of what happened is very limited, and any comments we might make are little more than guesswork. This is best left to those in a position to find out, for the time being.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 02:04 PM

Certainly so. It's all conjecture at this point. "Jailing" the captain is standard procedure. I doubt he's in jail but would ASSUME simply being part of an accident investigation.

As for running agroud, SO many factors come into play...maybe a thruster not responding because of a mechanical or electrical or electronic or... all conjecture.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 02:06 PM

With a 50 meter gash in her, well, I supposed recovery and reuse can be done. Gonna be a big job, though.

I will be interested in the report of the Maritime Commission. I assume that these ships carry the equivalent of airline "black boxes."

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 04:13 PM

No need to find the captain guilty yet and, it's certainly true, that getting the mortally injured ship that close to shore probably minimized loss of life. However, this is a headline story and I'm certainly interested in what conclusions come out of the investigation.

Meanwhile, feel free to speculate, without indulging in a "witch hunt."

It's unclear at this point what the ship hit, whether it was a rock ledge or perhaps a semi-submerged derelict. One would think that the rocks and ledges in the area would be well mapped and, if so, a major factor would be navigational error. The tides in the Mediterranean should not be a factor; they only vary a foot or two. How heavily the ship was loaded, however, could be a factor.

The captain had sailed this route many times before. So there should have been no surprises.

The lack of a lifeboat drill prior to the accident is obviously a lapse in safety procedures.

How well the officers and crew conducted themselves after the accident cannot be determined at this point.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 04:47 PM

She went down last January
On a clear and calm nice day
The skipper he was sober
And the mate was the same way
To close to a sunken something
She was dealt a mortal blow
And Costa Concordia settled low....

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 05:29 PM

Captain says...'oh there were no rocks marked around there.."

Italian Coast Guard says: 'Oh there WERE rocks marked as dangerous in that area!'

Area residents say:'.. various of ship's crew had friends & relatives along that coast, and the ship often sailed 'close' so they could wave. This time they just got too close.'

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 05:42 PM

One of the "alleged rocks" appears still lodged in the ship's starboard side if you look at the photos.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 05:50 PM

salvage projects

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 05:53 PM

Make that the "port side," where the rock is lodged.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 07:42 PM

Here's an update from Al Jazeera:

Maritime authorities, passengers and mounting evidence pointed toward the captain of a cruise liner that ran aground and capsized off the Tuscan coast, amid accusations that he abandoned ship before everyone was safely evacuated and was showing off when he steered the vessel far too close to shore.

The Costa Crociera company, which owns the Costa Concordia cruise ship, released a statement refuting the earlier claims by Captain Francisco Schettino, saying that the captain had "made an error of judgment which has had serious consequences."

"The route followed by the ship was too close to the coast and it seems decisions in emergency management have not followed procedures in line with those followed by Costa Crociere which in some cases go beyond international standards," said the statement, released late on Sunday.

Authorities were holding Schettino for suspected manslaughter and a prosecutor confirmed on Sunday they were also investigating allegations the captain abandoned the stricken liner before all the passengers had escaped.

According to the Italian navigation code, a captain who abandons a ship in danger can face up to 12 years in prison.

A French couple who boarded the Concordia in Marseille, Ophelie Gondelle and David Du Pays, said they saw the captain in a lifeboat, covered by a blanket, well before all the passengers were off the ship.

"The commander left before and was on the dock before everyone was off," said Gondelle, 28, a French military officer.

Schettino is sticking to his claim that the rocks which sank the vessel were not marked on the nautical charts.

"I firmly believe that the rocks were not detected as the ship was not heading forward, but sideways," he said in an interview. "I don't know if it was detected or not, but on the nautical chart it was marked just as water, at some 100, to 150 meters from the rocks, and we were about 300 meters from the shore."

Evidently the damaged ship was floating for about an hour before launching lifeboats was attempted. By that time her list was too extreme to launch them all.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 15 Jan 12 - 08:20 PM

a retired captain spoke on the radio this morning & said in modern ships people are so busy watching screens that they forget to use Eye Mark 1 - no visual observations are made as crew do not look up from their screens & so don't notice anything that is not being scanned for.

Eyes were invented long before computers & are so good they haven't been improved.

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 12:58 AM

I was under the impression that the vessel was not under control, since all control systems were down, because the electrical power was down. Perhaps I err.


I also don't quite see the wisdom of the decision to abandon ship rather than at least to wait until daylight. It seems that although listing the ship was firmly aground so not going to sink any further, and there were many areas above water.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Little Robyn
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 04:26 AM

And she ran aground on a lump of coal
That wasn't marked on the charts.

Was the Captain named James E Duff?
The Mary Ann McHugh did this a long time ago!
Robyn

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Silas
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 06:39 AM

What a bunch of armchair experts we have here.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 07:08 AM

Yes indeed, with nothing useful to do other than to pontificate!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 07:33 AM

It all seems very restrained by mudcat standards - until Silas and Bozo inveighed.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: JennieG
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 07:34 AM

My son spent a few years working on cruise ships (he's a musician) and knows of this line. He said it doesn't have a good reputation in the cruise ship world.....as in all industries, people talk amongst themselves.

Cheers
JennieG

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 07:36 AM

Sating with Charley, who kicked the thread off with this: "The captain safely evacuated the ship after grounding it adjacent to the shore, and is under investigation for manslaughter. He had abandoned the ship before the vast majority of passengers were safely ashore." Which is plainly wrong one way or another, whatever the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Silas
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 07:50 AM

Richard, please don't mention me in the same sentance as that w**^k3r

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 08:07 AM

Was it the first time that the Captain had ever sailed that route? If he truly was not aware of the dangers or experienced in that stretch of water the shipping company should share some of the blame but then if they admit to that they could loose a fortune from lack of bookings or cancelled bookings.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 10:01 AM

As mentioned above and in the reports the captain had navigated this route in the same ship many times before. This time he obviously came too close to the shore. The captain claims he was 300 meters out, not 100 meters from shore as some allege, but we'll see what the recovered black boxes have to say about that.

"I was under the impression that the vessel was not under control, since all control systems were down, because the electrical power was down." Marine experts claim that major cruise liners have redundant back-up systems in case of the lose of power; loss of power should not be a major factor in explaining how this accident happened.

I also agree that most of the posters on this tread have been fairly restrained, unlike Megan, Silas and Bozo. What witch hunt? This is a major marine catastrophe and merits discussion. References to on-line reports would be appreciated.

But look at the side of the rock lodged in the port side of the Concordia. That was not a random encounter nor an aggressive move on the part of the rock. Someone blundered.

There are more reports this morning, one from an Italian Coast Guard official who met him on shore and one from a military officer who was a passenger, reinforcing the case against the captain's early departure from the mortally stricken ship.

It is a miracle that no more than a dozen or so lives were lost in this accident.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Silas
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 10:16 AM

Now I am getting a bit pissed off with my name being brought into this. I only posted to make the point that far too many people were making crass judgements on no evidence. 'This time he obviously came too close to the shore' HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM

Rescue efforts were suspended today after the hull began to shift again.

Here's an update from Al Jazerra: click here for report!

Anyone find other interesting reports?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Silas
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 10:40 AM

OK, you think all this is reasonable?

The captain is now in jail (rightfully)

It's made the passage before, and so have dozens of other cruise ships. It must have been badly off course.

lso, I heard (unsubstantiated) that their passenger and crew lists were incomplete

"maybe a thruster not responding because of a mechanical or electrical or electronic or... all conjecture."

"One would think that the rocks and ledges in the area would be well mapped and, if so, a major factor would be navigational error"

"there should have been no surprises."

"This time they just got too close."

"He said it doesn't have a good reputation in the cruise ship world.."

"This time he obviously came too close to the shore"



Did no one see the report about sysmic activity in this area and the possibility of a seabed movement?

Why not give it a rest and allow the proper authorities to do thier job.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 11:01 AM

Silas-

You are the one who is obviously trolling this thread. Happy?

Either do your own homework or give it a rest.

What report of sysmic activity?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 11:03 AM

Oh, and make that "seismic activity" for clarification.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Silas
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 11:09 AM

Ok Charley boy, you carry on with your groundless speculations if thats what floats your boat. What good it will do is a mystery to me, but it could do a lot of harm and cause people a lot of needless heartache.

But its up to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 11:16 AM

I'd be somewhat surprised if a seismic movement big enough to put the land in the way of the ship had escaped hitherto unnoticed. If one can rule that out, then it is inevitable to conclude that the ship was too close to the shore (rather than the other way round).

The question then remains "why"?

If the ship was under control, with systems functioning, then there seems little possibility other than human error.

If the ship did not have systems functioning but was navigable, a close-to-shore course would seem rash - and one wants to know why the systems were out of kilter, too.

If the ship was not navigable - well, hell, I've had a number of Italian cars and their electrics were crap - and I've had a number of hi-tech Italian electronics gizmos and their reputations are crap too. BUT the second that control was lost maydays should have gone out.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Silas
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 11:23 AM

Lots and lots of 'ifs' there Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 11:47 AM

Ah, but if you read carefully you'll see that there is a tree structure with alternatives in it. One path OR the other, the law of the excluded middle.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Silas
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 11:52 AM

Ah, I didn't spot that! Are you using Trumpington's Variations?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 12:46 PM

No

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Greg B
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 01:27 PM

"Ok Charley boy, you carry on with your groundless speculations if thats what floats your boat."

Seems like what we're talking about is rather the opposite of floating one's boat, now isn't it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Silas
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 01:32 PM

Irony is just lost on some people...

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 01:50 PM

Seems captain went close to the shore to wave at a friend, "showing off" as one crew member put it.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: foggers
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM

Surely any evolving news story is a fit topic for a mudcat BS thread? And it is quite restrained by 'catter standards!

Just seen a channel 5 TV news bulletin; the vessel was supposed to take a route to the west of the island. However it had become a habit to pass to the east of the island, close in, in order to be a bit of a spectacle for local tourists. The captain says he was 300m from shore and that there were no rocks on the charts. He is under arrest pending the investigation and the cruise company seem keen to attribute it to human error.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM

Megan did about what I would do as mod: express a concern that this thread not turn into the usual conjecture filled with snide, personal remarks, etc.

I can't see that anyone person has any first-hand knowledge and can tell what really happened.

I am constantly amazed at how much like "Faux" news the BS section has become, at least by a glance of thread titles. It used to be we would have some rousing grand debates about major news items, but now it seems as if any "news" is fair game to flood Mudcat with rancourous sniping, etc. I am NOT saying this thread is that way, just mentioning how ugly the BS section seems, sometimes, due to the posting of so much polarising, non-important news crap, imo.

katgrumpy - mod

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 03:15 PM

Until the report of investigation becomes available some months from now, all is conjecture, anecdote, BS.

The only item that now seems certain is that the ship went off the charted course, according to satellite images, veering west towards Isola del Giglio. (BBC News).

No black box data will be revealed to the press.
Why the ship ran aground is not known.

All else seems to be speculation by passengers and crew members who were not part of the bridge, thus not party to navigational or instrumental information.

The captain says he was not at fault. The company official in an interview said it was human error and seemed to imply that it was on the part of the captain. What else would you expect them to say?

There will be legal actions on the part of the company, insurers, passengers and crew (Those on contract involved in entertainment, etc.).

My wife enjoyed cruises, but never were on board a vessel of this size. Some 3800 passengers plus a large crew (many on short-term contract), it seems to me, cannot be safely managed in case of accident.

In any case, I do not have any stock in Carnival (the overall manager of this ship and many others), which dropped some 20 percent, nor did I have any friends or relatives aboard the ship, so I will not lose sleep over the accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 03:29 PM

Kat... I say it's the winter blues affecting posters... or it could be... >;-)

All conjecture all over again.

As far as a Cap'n goin down with the ship after the abandone ship order is given, that might be a discussion. But, that discussion would have nothing to do with this thread at this point in time. And, a new thread on that topic would be rife with conjecture and postulations which would make that thread a piece of complete BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 03:59 PM

What a shame to lose that beautiful ship! And it's sad about the lives that were lost too...but it's very fortunate that almost everyone got off the ship okay.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 05:01 PM

There still may be some prospects of successful salvage, which is under assessment now.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Jan 12 - 07:25 PM

Ya think, gnu?:-> Could be, still...naw, not going there.*bg*

What I've just read is they are trying to salvage fuel, etc. to keep it from leaking out and harming the environment. I hope they are successful. What a nightmare the whole thing must be, in so many ways.

I guess one good thing is there are no polar bears asking if they've got any news of the iceberg.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: mayomick
Date: 17 Jan 12 - 03:49 PM

I think that speculation on this thread is legitimate ,but the head of Costa Cruises was much too quick to publicly put all the blame on the captain and the media was too quick to go along with that . The ship was obviously too close to the shore , but according to reports on Reuters yesterday the Costa Concordia often sailed close to that island honking its siren to entertain tourists there . Did the owners of the ship know about this ? If they didn't , why not? That's something that an inquiry should determine.