Ratt

The fact that we're having a discussion other than "I will never cruise again if I have to wear a mask" or "Requiring a vaccine and wearing a mask is dumb" is a good sign.

 

I smoked for 25+ years and quit 15 years ago but it was a long time trying. I do miss some aspects of it but the fact that I stunk to high hell all those years and I was nose deaf to it was a detriment to my family. I still don't think smoking should be banned overall but I don't have problem with the cruise lines or any other business banning it if it fits their business model.

 

I was at a casino in OK this past weekend and the place was packed to the limits. The table games had limited capacity (3 people instead of 6 at the blackjack tables as an example) but the slots wear ALL open to play. I never found an open seat at a table game and the slots we almost full everywhere I went. The casino allows smoking in specific areas and while it does make the none smoking areas less smokie there is still some and you also have to walk through the smoking areas. It was never so bad that I felt like my life was being drained out of me as I walk through. The worst part was the next day when I put my mask on and it stunk so bad. I obviously pulled out clean one and put the dirty one aside for the wash.

 

As for the cruise ships allowing smoking, it's like the casinos in Vegas. They like risk taking people because they tend to risk more then their non smoking counter parts. There may come a day when the nicer strip casinos ban it 100% (Park MGM is 100% smoke free) because gambling is and is continuing to be a more secondary reason to visit for many people. The lower end casinos will most likely have it around for a long time. The same can be said about the cruise lines. I see the shorter cruises having more smokers / risks takers and thus those cruises might have casino smoking for a long time.

 

Either way...Let's get back to sea!!!!

3 minutes ago, thewebbys said:

My question is: Who has booked one of these cruises? I can see the cost of airfare going up as we type.

Have you seen airfare lately?

 

I have a Disney trip in June and the fares are $350+. I've also been looking at Vegas in April and they have doubled in the past month.

 

I think it will go up at first but then settle down as more and more flights are opened.

 

We booked a June 2022 cruise out of Galveston so we can drive to the port.

I check in 3 or 4 times a day.

 

But, I don't post when the topic is engineering and sailing issues which I avidly read and learn from those who have specialized knowledge and expertise in those areas.

 

When the issues involve legal matters, I always chime in with answers to queries or to offer my opinions based upon my specialized knowledge and expertise.

 

I'm sure there are more than a few of our thread cohorts who are doing the same.

 

John

 

I've been around since it all start but since I have no expertise in the legal or salvage areas I've been laying low and taking it all in.

 

I would like to say thanks to everyone's contributions to this thread. It's has been an amazing learning experience from the start.

That is hard question' date=' and complicted...

 

My answer had to do with a Carnival lines statement they were going to do a intense, overall review of all their vessels. At first I thought it was all lines but now I understand it to be just Canrivail line.

 

It is not possible to do that kind of intense review in less then a month..It involves a team reviewing the vessls history, and opertions, both at sea and in the yards. The vessels records and manuals and design needs to be examined. The crews performance and ability to do the reqiured every day routine jobs and maintaince and testing.

 

Example, after the Splendour fire, is was found that the vessel's did not have the right manuals for the fire preventions system in the engine room. The USCG had real problems with crews performce in that fire. I know Carnival has ignored requests/questions from the USCG, on the legal basis that the Splendour is registered in Panama, and now there doesn't seem to be any information on the Splendour investigation on the Panama sites.

 

I fairness here, I thought the performance of the Triumphts crew in handling the fire and the problems of the 5 day tow was excellent!

 

 

 

So yes its a joke to announce so soon, the review is over and they are doing all the recommendation.[/quote']

 

I understand your comment now and I get your point.

 

Ok on to your question..........

 

I never said it was all maintiance.........I beleive there is a combination of maintinace' date=' operational policies, and DESIGN issues that have lead up to all these many problems over the last 5 + years.......you have to admit there is a mountian of incidents and problems!

 

Example.......one thing that has been reported is that they are adding dedundance systems, EI back up generators. A good start, I hope they follow though.

 

There has been reported issues with the electrical systems on a number of vessels built in Italy. This is a long time known issue.

 

Add to that the 2 lines of Carnivail Inc., that are having the most problems, are the 2 lines with cheap cruises.....Carnival and to a lessor degree, Costa........It has to make you wonder what is going on................are they cutting corners somewhere?

 

 

Now are the senoir staff of Cunard and HAL for example better then Carnivail..........sorry as I said I don't have that answer. In my years at sea and ashore I have found good and bad Officers and managers from all countries. As a general rule..............Officers from ( and this is in no specail order) the US, Canada, UK and northern Europe are the best and best trained.

 

I don't know the background of the engineering staff and the Captians.......all the senoir staff doesn't know everyone else job. All it takes is one thing not to be done and it can lead to a bigger problem

 

A merchant Marine Offiers job is to keep the vessel moving, a vessel makes money moving cargo (yes passingers are cargo) not sitting at the dock.

 

Like all jobs, sometimes they need to *push the thread* to keep things going.

 

However there is a difference between making a reasonable decision to do something based on your expreince and knoweldge and taking a totally off the bulkhead dangerous risk.

 

The Triumpth and the Desteny was operating for awhile with serious mechcanical problems. There is no way that the carnivail shore engineering and mangement staff did not know of the prblems.[/quote']

 

So the fire disabled the generator, was there not a backup as there is on the Dream? If there wasn't a back on the Triumph, how many other cruise ships industry wide don't have a backup?

 

The reason that the Dream didn't sail was that Carnival didn't want to sail using the backup and not have a backup. I wonder if a ship has a primary system failure and then has to rely on the backup, would the ship proceed to the nearest port to repair the primary or would they just continue with the normal cruise and repair after returning to it's home port and thus operate without a backup?

 

Although no one likes to say it' date=' but in all industries and all positions of responsiblity..........if you don't get the job done, the powers that be will find someone else.[/quote']

 

Oh, do I know it first hand.

 

I hope I was clear.....it was a tough question.

 

Completely and I appreciate your response.

You just have to LOL..........they have years of fires' date=' mechcanical problems, sinking.....and a review of 1 month and they have solved all their problems!

 

 

What a joke!

 

 

AKK[/quote']

 

So if it's a joke, what is your opinion of the captains for all of Carnival's (not Carnival Cruise Lines but Carnival corp) ships?

 

Would you say that all of the ships senior staff including maintenance are failing to protect the public by not speaking out about maintenance issues (if there really are issues)?

In fairness I am sure some of them are minor *galley and closet fires..but there is certantly a pattern here......even Carnival line stated this week at the criuse convention' date=' that they need to do a total review of all 24 of their vessels.

 

I am NOT a accountant, but I truly beleive those cheap cruises have to of had a result of cutting corners in design, biulding, maintaince, operation of their fleet. I also beleive it effects some of thier other lines.

 

 

This is now 3 vessels in 1 day..the Dream dead in the water(at the dock in St Martin), passigners being flown home, the legend limping home after missing a port, and the Elegent needing a tugboat escort due to steering problems.

 

 

Right now their stock is going down and down and trading at 2.4 times the normal rate.

 

Carnival is due to annouce a reduced revenues, due to lower booking. I.E. the trumpht...........you have to wonder after today how many are cancelling.......and if they don't permit cancelling...the public reaction........which will likely be further reduction in bookings.

 

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I agree that cheaper means cutting something and many times cuts are across the board. Knowing how most corporations work, there is a much better chance that maintenance cuts took place than executives pay cuts.

 

Something that I haven't researched to get the details for but I've read in a couple of places is that many of the older ships (Carnival has a lot) were built in a way that have more single points of failure. I've also read that some of Royal's ships have had problems but because they don't have the single points of failure they did not become bigger problems.

 

To the best of my knowledge the Triumph issue has never been blamed on poor maintenance. It was related to an item that is to be inspected on a regular basis but again I haven't heard that the item had not been inspected.

 

As for the Dream. The backup / emergency generator failed during a normal test. The reason for testing of backup / emergency equipment is to make sure that the equipment is working. In this case the test did what is was supposed to do and as a result Carnival did the right thing and cancelled the rest of the cruise and is taking care of the passengers.

 

I'm sure the captain's defense team is already trying to figure out how to use the poor maintenance issue at Carnival to take some of the pressure off of the captain. :rolleyes:

FROM CNN

Sen. Jay Rockefeller' date=' the chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, sent a letter Wednesday to Micky Arison, the chief executive officer of Carnival Corp.[/font']

"The Coast Guard has responded to a string of 90 marine casualty incidents with passengers onboard Carnival ships in the last five years," the West Virginia Democrat wrote. "It seems that

Carnival has failed to take any meaningful course of corrective action after these continual incidents. This needs to change."

When are people going to start making Carnivail linbe be accountable for they operation?

AKK

 

Wonder what the cause of the casualties were?

 

If it's from natural causes, what is Carnival or any other cruise line going to do to prevent them?

Ok, that (Watertheodds) reminded me of this:

 

"The Lighthouse Joke"

 

The following is being transmitted around the Internet as an event that really took place, but it never happened. It is simply an old joke like those found in popular magazines:

Believe it or not...this is the transcript of an actual radio conversation between a US naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The Radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on Oct. 10, 1995.

 

US Ship:

Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

 

CND reply:

Recommend you divert

your

course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

 

US Ship:

This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert

your

course.

 

CND reply:

No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

 

US Ship:

THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

 

CND reply:

This is a lighthouse. Your call.

 

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=174

 

That is funny.

 

I wonder if the master was on the bridge when this happen?

http://news.yahoo.com/uss-porter-collides-oil-tanker-persian-gulf-154316865--abc-news-topstories.html

Captain Schittino has been doing some consulting work with the IBC

(Irish Broadcasting Company) helping with their coverage of the Olympic Sail Boat Race.

 

 

Irish Broadcasting Coverage of Olympic Sail Boat Race

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/08/irishman-gives-expert-olympic-sailing-commentary-video/

 

Freaking awesome!

 

"Watched out for the pole, almost got klacked in the ^&*$ head"

The cause of death is detirmined by the trier of fact (judge in bench trial or jury in jury trial).

 

The police gather gather evidence thru their own evidence techs or employees of the Medical Examiner's office. Now days, Appointed Medical Examiner's Offices have replaced elected Coroners. Where elected Coroners still exist they have have a Medical Examiner's Department.

 

Physcial evidence (like CSI on TV) is processed by techies at either a Police Crime Lab or the Medical Examiners office.

 

The autopsy is performed by Doctors who have varying degrees of expertise ranging from GP pill pushers to Board Certfied Pathologists. They can be employees of the Medical Examiner or contractors paid by the autopsy.

 

The Medical Examiner, in concert with the police investigators and CSI techies, issue a preliminary "COD" Cause of Death. But, it is not admissable in court to prove anything. Then the Medical Examiner or Coroner (where they still exist) issue a death certificate which (regardless of any verbiage) is only good to prove the person died.

 

If the cause of death need be proven, all the techies, investigators, and Docs will testify in criminal court as to what activites they performed. Then, a medical expert(s) will be called to give his opinion as to the COD based upon all the results of the other personell. The Medical expert may or may not have been involved in the investigation. There may be a court room battle of dueling experts for with both sides calling multiple experts. But this is rare because as I've tried very hard to explain, the prosecutor only has to prove the defendant's conduct was "A Cause" not "The Cause." It is very rare for a defense expert to testify "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty" that the prosecutor's expert is wrong in concluding the defendant's conduct had any "casual connection with the death."

 

Finally, the Judge or Jury will decide the legal cause of death.

 

In jury trials, the Judge will instruct the jury that the prosecutor does not have to prove the defendant's conduct was the only COD but only has to prove the conduct was a COD.

 

The grade level of the criminal conduct determines the grade level of the punishment. In some jursidaictions they still use the original:

 

Murder (with sub degrees depending in circumstances: e.g. cop victim, torture killing, etc)

Manslaugter: varying degrees: 1st: Intentional (intended the conduct to injure but not kill) Involuntary (sub degrees: Reckless Conduct, Gross Negligence, Vehicular Homocide etc)

 

Some jurisdictions use the old headings Murder & Manslaughter with sub degrees, while others dropped the main headings and use the old sub heading degrees on a stand alone basis.

 

I hope this answers you query.

 

It sure did.

But, Coroner's inquests have no involvement in criminal cases........... what part of that don't you understand?

 

DUH ????........................................

 

Who determines the cause of death? Is it the police investigator, fire investigator, medical examiner or someone else?

 

If it is determined that a person died in a fire and a person is charged with setting the fire who testifies (if anyone) to what the cause of death was?

Schittino killed 32 people. He is primarily responsible (not soley respsonsible) for their deaths. Anyone who denies that is absolutely bonkers. Just listen to yourself. You equate one captain with another as if the actions are all that matter and the results shouldn't affect the outcome. I'm telling you that you know nothing about the law. Your are arguing a theory that is contrary to the law in every western nation.

 

If Schittino had not ordered the ship close to shore no one would have died. It's the deaths that make it homicide. You seem to believe that the same actions should be judged the same even if they have different consquences.

 

You shouldn't give legal opinions until you go to law school. The first thing they teach you is the general rule only applies when specific facts are present. Delete one fact or add another, the rule changes.

 

You guys are demonstrating how western society has destroyed the concept of responsiblity for your own actions. If you cause the deaths of 32 other people gthrough negligence or reckless conduct you will go to prison. If it only causes property damage you may get a fine or a warning.

 

So what is considered reckless conduct? Who gets to decide what is reckless conduct?

 

I'm sure that the attorneys representing passengers and crew are going to say that every party involved acted in a reckless manor, the attorneys for the captain and other officers are going to say that they didn't not act in a reckless manor and or will say that Costa's management acted in a reckless manor by ordering the sail by and of course Costa is going to say that the Captain acted in a reckless manor and did not following company policies and procedures. In the end someone is going to have to make a judgement call on what is reckless and what is not.

I'll be glad when the hull has been removed and life can return to normal again....I doubt many of the people on Giglio will miss that hull or the frenzy surrounding it too.

 

I can see at least 4-8 of the below potential causes being cited.....

 

While I'm not ready to lay all of the blame on the captain and I will wait for all the facts, I do agree with others that there is more than enough information to hold the captain responsible for the majority of the problems that happened to the Concordia that night. Weather you agree with the sail by or not the fact is that the ship was going way to fast and was way to close to the island to not have an accident happen. If and I think it's a pretty big if, the captain is found to not have been the primary cause of hitting the island, he is most defiantly responsible for making sure all passengers and crew are cared and I don't think most people think he did that. From the information we already know he didn't pass relative information to the proper authorities, he waited to long to declare an emergency and he waited to long to order an abandon ship. While there is still information that we don't know about the facts are pretty well laid out in front of us and I don't believe there will be any startling revelations when the investigation is complete.

 

I do think there is a difference of opinion and it comes down to if a person thinks the captain is guilty with the facts we have now or if he is convicted once a judge / jury has heard and seen the facts and then decided that he is guilty. I'm taking a guess here but I believe that Uniall has prosecuted cases in the past and if so it would be his job to look at the facts he has at the time and decided if the person is guilty, and if so they would then be charged. Even if a jury decided that the person wasn't guilty it doesn't mean that Uniall would change his mind and believe the person is not guilty. On the other hand sidari is looking at it from the stand point that the captain is innocent until he is found guilty by a jury. On the other hand, I don't think sidari is saying that the captain is innocent and not responsible, but rather that he wants to wait for all of the facts and information before making a decision as well as letting the legal system do it's job in deciding the captain's fate.

 

While we all have differences of opinions, I do think we all can agree that the most important thing that comes from accidents like this is that we learn what can be done better.

The first place a trained investigator would look would be to see if Costa Cruises paid a lot more money to the property owner to order the camera removed that the camera people were paying to keep it there.

 

The next place to look would be local government pressure put on the porperty owner to end bad press for the town.

 

Don't forget the possibility that a production company has been hired or given the rights to document the salvage operation. They might have had or want to have their own camera(s) setup and recording and don't want any competition.

Here is a video of the game on the Pride and it includes someone winning @ the 2:04 mark.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbiq9w7PCsc&feature=related

Michelle,

 

Found this on the interview you posted earlier. It quotes you in the article - we can't see the videos in the US (says they are not available in our area).

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/14243519/captain-breaks-his-silence

 

While searching for this video I found other news - this of course has not be substantiated but there are rumors that the reason Schettino took so long to give the abandon ship order was that he was negotiating with Costa on the phone the official reason for the accident - he wanted it to be an electrical failure instead of running aground. :eek: Unbelievable if true!

 

Good luck with your ordeal. Hope you get everything resolved.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

I'm not saying I do or don't believe it but I do believe that the captain knew that his career was over and at some point he was trying to limit the amount of time he would spend in jail.

 

I'm NOT defending anyone but I do think that most people that found themselves in a situation as serious as this one would be deflecting as much responsibility as possible. The captain and Costa are in a no win situation and they are doing everything they can to lesser the damage to themselves.

Good morning Ratt!

 

I sailed out of Port Arthur and Houston' date=' Texas for years with Texaco and Sabine Transportation.

 

My opinion, you would have to be a minimum of 1 to 1 1/2 NM off the shore line, further if water shallowed up away form the shore. Speed about 5 knots. This way if anything went wrong :eek:you have a choice to try and steer yourself away form the shore, reverse engines or at least have the time to free the anchors( I would have the crew on standby at the anchors) and drop them before your hard aground.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

That is very interesting to know. Would you consider your opinion to be in line with the majority of people commanding and operating large vessels? If so, that makes me wonder why Costa (executives and command officers) would consider something like the sail by.

 

What is your opinion on the Alaska cruises? They do get pretty close to the land / glaciers.

 

We sail out of Galveston most of the time and I'm always fascinated with the ships that are sitting just outside of the entrance to the Houston ship channel. I've noticed that the ships are flagged in many different countries and that got me thinking about the requirements to command a large ship. Are there standards throughout the world or is it up to each country / port? Are there different standards for those that command cruise ships?

The Half mile track that was plotted and previously used by concordia and no doubt other costa ships would have been no problem that night had the ship not gone beyond it' date='[/color']

 

 

This is my point, even at 1 /2 NM it was NOT safe. If everything went the way it was supposed to...........yes.............the vessel could have safely passed!.. However things did not go right and the vessel was so close to shore she could not be maneuvered away from the dangers and she sank! A real seaman never (if at all possible) puts his vessel in the position where if something goes wrong he has no way to maneuver away from the danger...........especially for something so silly and useless as a sail-bye!

 

There was at least, a major mistake in navigation(and maybe vessel equipment failures).......not only by the Captain but based on what we know at this time, a major error in not turning in time by a Deck Officer or Officers.

 

As previously discussed and admitted to by the Captain, he was not in command and was busy being a *social captain* and not the vessels Captain.

 

He should have been on the bridge and in direct and manual command of the vessel when she was 4 NM away from that turn.

 

Costa operations had permitted these unsafe sail-byes in the past and that makes them responsible as well!

 

There are a lot more questions it be answered in time............

 

AKK

 

With all the comments about the sail by not being safe, as a seaman what to you considered a safe passage?

 

Would you say that this type of navigating is not done in other places?

[quote name='Vampire Parrot']Just watching that had me sweating...... enough said.

VP[/QUOTE]

I know there are different opinions of the captain and other officers of the Concordia but watching the video of the radar reminded me of something that I thought about when the whole thing happened, and that is how the captain and other officers felt and reacted at the moment they realized just how bad the situation was. They had to basically freak out and I believe that the captain was to some extent in shock. I also believe that as the events unfolded it got worse.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions for the actions of the people that were charged with the safety of the passenger and crew but that I think the captain wasn't thinking correctly once the accident happened.

I know a person who was responsible for an auto accident that killed another person. Less then a half hour after the accident the police had to call a family member of the person to go to the hospital as the police had the person transported to the hospital due to the fact that they had gone into shock. They were in a state of shock for a couple of days and depression lasted for months. Thankfully they went to counselling which made a huge difference and helped them get past a very terrible situation.

[quote name='sidari']Uni ... I have a question for you.

Are you happy that Free speech can also condemn someone to a life of torture and possible harrasment despite being found not guilty as a wrongly accused innocent person? as i said previously mud sticks.

ie a person is alledged to be a paedophile but a court finds him not guilty, that person now has to live the rest of his life with the fact that he has been accused of this particular crime and the issues that will follow him for the rest of his life.

Meanwhile the rest of society carry on with their Free speech while this person is left to suffer! how can that be right ?[/QUOTE]

I know you asked Uni directly but I thought I'd share my opinion.

Free speech is a wonderful thing and like many good things, there are negatives aspects. While it's not something that I wish on any person, I do accept the fact that there can be times when the right to free speech can have a negative impact on an innocent person. The right to bare arms is no different. There are many guns owners (most) that use them in a way that does not harm innocent people, but there are those people that do use them to harm others. Just because there is a negative aspect to something, it doesn't mean we should do away with it.

[quote name='Uniall']Sidari

Your never said you wanted to surpress Free Speech. Only a fool would do that. Sidari, you may be many things but you are not a fool.

But the cessation of Freech Speech is a natural consequence of your regimine to guarantee a fair and impartial trial. As the old adage says, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".

In this case there are many ways to gaurantee a fair and impartial trial without resorting to curtailment of free speech. For you, curtailment of Free Speech is your one and only remedy to protect a fair and impartial trial. That seems over reaching, at best, and tyranical, at worst, to those of us in a society where the populaion has never been called "subjects".[/QUOTE]

Do you consider it a violation of the right to free speech when a judge issues a gag order?

I do understand that your discussion revolves around the media and not people directly involved in a case, I was just wondering how you feel about it.

I'm well award of the animus some have toward lawyers, sometimes including myself. I tell some of the best lawyer jokes you've never heard.

 

But, the concept of attacking the speaker rather than debating the ideas is rather juvenille. In logic it's called the "ad hominum" defense and has been rejected as irrational since Plato and Aristotle.

 

As long as we're debating issues involving water, I'm reminded of the old Wyoming attorney who was approached by a rancher client. The rancher complained that his upstream neighbor's cattle were drinking the creek bed dry. He asked, who owns the water rights? The lawyer replied: "the guy with the most Winchesters."

 

The moral of the story is: If you did away with all the lawyers, you'd better pray you still have your second amendment rights.

 

I always make the statement "everybody hates lawyers until they need one".

 

Don't take my comments as bashing all lawyers but rather the one in this case who is doing nothing constructive. He is trying to turn public opinion against the big bad cruise line or even the cruise industry as a whole. From the way he talks you would think that half the cruise ships in the world are rusty buckets that are about to sink at any moment and that the cruise industry doesn't care at all about safety.

 

As for attacking the speaker, isn't that the exact thing that happens in many legal cases? One side makes the other look bad or at least look worse than the themselves.

That sounds just alot of lawyer talk....to get attention and get the public upset' date=' for his suit......nothing more.........

 

AKK[/quote']

 

You keep beating me to it and I agree 100%!

 

That is nothing more than posturing, showboating, grandstanding or whatever you want to call it.

Agreed!:D

 

 

The Master today cannot just take a vessel anywhere..........He does have the right to change course for traffic' date=' weater, new circumtances, change ports for safety of the vessel, passingers (IE illness),etc.

 

However, these sailby's have been approved by the line managers! How does that figiure in your opinon?..Does the line have to state in writing somewhere that sailbys may happen?........just to make them *legal?*.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I was thinking this myself.

 

Would that be any different than a ship changing an approved and scheduled itinerary because of a mechanical problem or issue with the weather and then an accident occurs? Would there be more liability than if the original itinerary was followed?

 

I seriously doubt that there could be approved courses for every possible situation that could come up.

 

I think the issue for Uniall is not that the sail-by's need to be approved but that they are an unnecessary risk to the passengers and therefore should never be allowed.

 

I completely respect their opinion that they shouldn't be allowed but I do disagree.

Thank you for posting that link.

 

I have quickly looked through the report, which appears to be a print out of a Powerpoint or similar presentation. The most important thing I found is this:

 

"Organization of the abandonment of the ship was on the whole appropriate to manage an emergency such as the one that occurred a Giglio Island"

 

As I have been contending from day 1, the degree of chaos occurring in the abandon ship process was to be expected. Quite frankly, I believe the crew (not necessarily the officers and certainly not the captain) did a very good job of getting folks off the ship in a reasonably efficient manner.

 

Anyway, I want to see the final report and I would like to be able to read an English language version of both the final and this interim report.

 

Doc

 

Well said Doc!

 

I was about to say almost the same thing but decided to refresh the page to see if someone else had already responded.

 

I also noted the following.

 

"The Ship’s Integrated Navigation System (Nautical Chart nr. 6 - scale 1:100.000 of Italian Hydrographic Service and the Electronic Cartography – ECDIS ) reports the planned course."

 

"The Yaw Radius is such that the Ship is situated 0.5 miles south-west off the planned course - much more close to the coast compared to the planned route"

 

There are still many questions to be answered as is evident with the many items listed under "Issues still under investigation". But I do find it interesting that the "planned course" is not currently considered an issue. Of course that could change as the investigation continues.

 

For the record, I've always felt that the planned route was safe if conducted under the appropriate conditions.