CostaSmurfette

There you ago again. Your persist in the belief, if other people break the rules, everyone can break the rules. Bad conduct by others does not justify bad conduct by you.

Exactly....so just cos one person did it and got away with it, does not make it right....but if no-one reprimands for an incorrect action, then it is natural for the next person to believe (misguidedly) that if the action was done and not moaned about, then its fine for them to do it too.

You cannot expect people to accept and work within set guidance if its one rule for one person and different for someone else.

Gabarino's tenure included Giglio....sanctioned or not is moot insofar that anyone following Gabarino on the ship as master could quite understandably assume that since Gabarino was allowed to do it, anyone else could also do it.

Unless Schettino physically saw the order giving Gabarino written permission to take the tighter course in August for this one and only occasion, there is no reason why Schettino would not believe that it was a normal action that was routinely carried out by other captains too.

The furore about the August sailing was only made public after the accident...and many, at the time, made the assumption that if it had been done before, then it must be done routinely.

Infact it was a one-off and not routinely done...but the misunderstanding that it was routine is easy to make...and equally easy to repeat by someone else later on.

Is an action routine or is it a one-off event......unless every captain in the fleet was made aware that it was a one-off event or they were all psychic...only Gabarino and his crew would have known that it had special dispensation.

Schettino could potentially now say "well he (Gabarino) did it with Palombo's blessing, so I (Schettino) naturally thought I (Schettino) could do the same since Palombo knew I (Schettino) wanted to salute him in the same way as he (Gabarino) did last August."

If Costa Crociere did not make it clear that it was a one-off special occasion in August, is it surprising that other Captains assumed that it was an approved route/action?

No you missed the point..this is simply a matter of seamanship. The Master place was on the bridge during an sail bye because:

 

1 His vessel was massive and close in shore.

 

2. Small boat traffic.

 

3. There could be any number of vessel malfunctions that being close inshore' date=' could especially dangerous.

 

 

 

............If the Master of that ship other vessel was not on the bridge during the sail bye...and I was in management, I would have him fired and on the beach at the next port and charges against him for dereliction of duty and unsafe seamanship would be file with the local license issuing board. .......His place was on the Bridge!.

 

and to clear up something..........whether the Master is actually touching the joy stick or not............is not the point..he is either doing it himself or he is giving commands to the person, helmsman or whoever! This same thing is in force when any Officer is in charge.

 

 

That is the point!..again end of story not debate or defense possible

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Basically then, there are no ship's masters who do not break the rules...both written and unwritten...who say they were on the bridge at a given time, when infact they were asleep in the cabin or wherever.

 

Assuming that this is correct for all officer ratings, they are always where they are meant to be, doing what they are meant to be doing....

 

Mikhail Lermontov's master was in his cabin changing his wet clothes when the pilot took the cruise ship down a route known to be risky and off the usual charted route. Despite being questioned by the other senior officers, the pilot carried on....the ship hit rocks, the master then returned to the bridge asking *** was going on (or words to that effect)....the passenegrs were told that dinner would be delayed an hour and that there was no danger...except the crew were wandering about in lifejackets and it was only after the wine glasses used during the wine tasting fell off the table due to the ship going down by the head and listing, did the full evacuation order go out.

 

Luck more than judgement almost everyone got off...an engineer died.

 

Herald of Free Enterprise's master was on the bridge, chuntering a bit cos he was late departing Zeebrugge. Loading completed his 2IC left the car deck assuming the rating in charge of the bow doors would do what was neccessary...ie close the watertight inner door and then the outer shell doors. The 2IC went up to the bridge and told master that all was ready for sea...without physically checking. The ship left the quayside, the master increased the speed and the ship took on water, became unstable and toppled over onto a sandbank...193 dead. Oh and the one who was sposed to be closing the doors....he was fast asleep in his cabin when the ship was loading and did not wake up til after the ship toppled over.

 

Essentially there are way too many assumptions that just cos its the rule of the sea that the master must be at a specific place during a specific time or manoever that the master or any of his officers will indeed be there...

 

Of course, after the event they can SAY they were there, but no-one can actually PROVE that they were there.

We all know that Staff Captain's take the bridge when the Master is off duty or on more public orientated duties with the pax.

 

 

 

 

The Master of the vessels first responsibility is the safety of his vessel' date=' passengers, crew and cargo.

 

any and all other duty's take a far back seat..especially playing pretty boy ihn the MDR!

 

This is the bases of a Masters job..............no staff caption, which is a glorified chief Mate, can take over that responsibility.. The Master cannot transfer it either! So even if the Staff Captain was on the bridge, it is his job to call the Master to the bridge in plenty of time to take what ever actions are required for the safely of the ship. It is the Master job in this sail bye thing to know that his place was on the bridge early and in plenty of time to make sure the vessels was being handled and navigated safely.

 

 

 

There is no way around this ...There is no room for debate or discussion........end of story!

 

 

AKK[/quote']

 

You missed the point totally.

 

Gabarino is listed as Captain for the August sail-by.

 

However, there is no evidence that Gabarino was on the BRIDGE during the sail-by in August.

 

Ganarino could have been anywhere on the ship and the Staff Captain/First Officer etc was on the bridge during the sanctioned sail-by.

 

And for all anyone knows, that person could have been Schettino or any one of a large number of other officers employed by Costa Crociere.

 

The Captain bio's on the Costa Crociere DO NOT list the officers UNDER their command on the tenures aboard specific ships, there is no way of knowing who had actual digits on the wheel during the August sail-by...just as there is no way of knowing who had their digits on the wheel during the subsequent January one either.

 

You assume it would be the Captain with digits on the wheel at the time, but there is no guarantee of that. It makes no difference who has ultimate responsibility as that is moot...what is unknown is who was "driving", not who had ultimate responsibility. We know who had ultimate responsibility for the ship...we fo not know who was at the wheel on either of the sail-by's.

Not to burst anyone's bubble here but has anyone stopped to wonder if Schettino was on the bridge officer listing as Staff Captain with Gabarino in August?

We all know that Staff Captain's take the bridge when the Master is off duty or on more public orientated duties with the pax.

The bio's on the Costa website only go as far as the Captains....but they do not show the full list of senior officers that served with them during their tenures on each ship.

So just cos Gabarino was LISTED as Captain in August, does not actually say that he was in control of the ship during the sail-by in August...that "priviledge" could have been one of a few officers serving as a part of his crew that week.....and could have been Schettino.

Fully qualified Captains do sometimes take on the part of Staff Captain on occasions, that spot is not always taken by an ex Safety Officer grade training upto Staff Captain.

In the two cruises where I happened to be a passenger with Schettino on the bridge officer list, in June 2008 out of Hong Kong he was listed as Safety Officer and in April 2010 on the Singapore to Savona repositioning he was listed as Staff Captain. Both times it was aboard the significantly smaller (and much loved) Costa Allegra.

The Captain for both of the above cruises was the same man, the very charming Sicilian, Captain Donato (who also took his equally charming wife with him too).

There is also something odd that happened in May this year aboard Classica that I still have yet to understand...given the Concordia accident and the furore that surrounded it.

In April 2011 I spent 3 weeks aboard Costa Victoria from Buenos Aires to Savona, with Captain Pennisi.

Each of the Allegra cruises and the Victoria cruises, we had full evac drills every 7 days...so over the three cruises I attended a total of 13 full evac drills.

But...when aboard Classica this May from Dubai to Venice, a three week cruise, I only attended the one full evac drill, on the day prior to sailing (we had an overnight in Dubai). This was with Captain Derin.

For the life of me I cannot understand why we only had the one full evac drill for a three week cruise whereas on all the other cruises we had them every 7 days without fail.

Which makes me ask the question.....is a 7 day repeat drill under the company's control or the discretion of the Captain?

I haven't watched the Olympics either....much prefer the winter games, much more exciting when they fall over ;)

Curently watching another piece of Italian history that is rife with sullied reputations, blood, gore, a little bit of sexual intrigue, the wonderful and totally non politcally correct "The Borgias".....I do like my history...you can learn so much from it ;)

Earlier there was a comment made about "pals in Messina"...you might be surprised to learn that many of the Captains and senior officers employed by Costa and Carnival Cruise Lines do indeed hail from Messina, and other parts of the beautiful island of Sicily....a tradition of great mariners is continuing from that idyllic little island.

Gli avvocati saranno senza dubbio lavorando sodo per trovare i loro motivi quanto a perché Francesco Schettino dovrebbe essere appeso per le palle... ma non dimentichiamo che nonostante che vogliono giustizia per le vittime, l'unico veri vincitori saranno quegli avvocati a titolo del loro grassi conti bancari e loro commissioni anche più grassi....

The lawyers will no doubt be working hard to find their reasons as to why Francesco Schettino should be hung by his balls...but let us not forget that despite wanting justice for the victims, the only true winners will be those lawyers by way of their fat bank accounts and their even fatter commisions....

This was one of the most popular areas of Concordia, probably the most photographed part of the entire ship...and an image held close by those who prefer to remember her in better days when they cruised aboard her.

It's one of Joe Farcus's better design statements.....it's really quite amazing just how many people literally loved the ship, she was immensely popular...she and those who sailed on her make sure that she, along with what happened to her and her passengers & crew, will not be forgotten.

A fitting memory of Concordia, her once stunning atrium display. Never got to sail on her myself, but I do have friends who worked aboard her and freinds who cruised aboard her and despite her many foibles, warts and diva behaviour, she was a favourite for many people.

These might see life again one day, they have no damage to speak of, so could be recertified for use on another ship...lifeboats and tenders have been known to be swapped across fleets in the past.

They are sat in wasteland on Giglio, the photo's taken in early July.

Mikhail Lermontov, 1986...Sea Diamond, 2007....

Two cruise ship sinkings that on paper should not have happened...Mikhail Lermontov cost the life of a crewman, Sea Diamond cost the lives of two passengers.....

Concordia was another accident that shouldn't have happened if past lessons had been learnt.....

How long will it be before complacency creeps back into the industry and another cruise ship is lost whilst "scenic cruising"....

Wouldn't be surprised if once the hull is removed from Giglio, that memories dim very quickly...whilst she is still there languishing on the rocks, she is a constant reminder of folly...but once no trace is left of her....she'll just join the list of CTL's and she'll gradually fade from memory

Til the next time...

I don't answer questions that are irrelevant or immaterial to the issue at hand. Schittino's guilt does not rise or fall on the results of an in depth investigation. His criminal guilt is based upon his:

gross negligence in ordering the ship close to shore on an ego boosting lark for the benefit of people on shore that set in motion a train of events that killed 32 people.

dereliction of duty in abandoning his post which condemned passengers to their doom.

The complicity or failures on the part of others serves ony to determine their guilt or innocence, not the guilt of Captain Death.

 

This is even more true in Codal Law countries where they tend to work backwards from the results to the causative conduct unlike Common Law which tends to work forward from the causative conduct to the results. While an over simplification, it explains why in Codal countries the odds of being found guilty incease by the greater the damage or harm done. (No Harm, No Foul - Big Harm, Big Foul)

 

Maybe you should consider acting where you could get a roles to work out your secret desire to be a lawyer.:p

Excuse me sunshine...but since you refuse to accept that not only others have a hand in what happened, and that you also refuse to accept outside forces (ie the ship) had a hand in what happened...then that leaves me no alternative but to consider you in the same league as an ambulance chaser lawyer looking for a big fat commission off the deaths of the 32 passengers and crew.

Your refusal/inability to open your mind and stop focussing on the action or inaction of ONE person, surely shows that your alterior motives have nothing to do with finding the truth and the discussion thereof and more to the desire to line your own bank balance.

You come across not as a lawyer who wants to prevent this tragedy from ever happening again, but as a lawyer trying to gain financial gain from it. And that is deeply insulting to the memories of those lost that night in this accident.

Had you any interest in saving lives from a similar tragedy, you would accept the potentially wider aspects of what happened and the ramifications to the cruise industry as a whole.

Something to note re the August sail-by which including the mayor, townspeople and festivities on the island:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster

Now that a similar course was set for reasons still to be discovered (but subject to more supposition and speculation that anything concrete) all went pearshaped in January...which could easily have happened in August when it was "officially given the nod to carry out" instead....does not negate it from being "bad practice".

How can anyone differentiate tween a bad practice that did not go wrong (by chance/luck/divine intervention) and the almost exact same bad practice that did go wrong?

Just as the doors being left open on RoRo's...done all the time, but does not make it right.

You really should stop playing a lawyer. ;)

 

Your like the TV commercial with Alec Baldwin, seated in a plane's cockpit throwing control switches. When the pilot tries to stop him, Baldwin says: "It's OK, I've played a pilot, before." :eek:

So you dodge the question as to whether or not you are involved with Codacons (or some other ambulance chaser) who is looking to make a comfortable earning off this tragedy...hmmm...speaks volumes ;)

I am not, have never said that I was, legally trained (although my late parents were). I am not, have never said that I have, an interested party whether by connection to anyone involved or the company.

My only interest is that whatever the cause(s) of that night's events end up being, that the cruise industry as whole (just as the airline industry have) learns from it and does their level best to avoid a repeat.

The problem is that whisleblowers and other forms of surveilance are frowned upon from all quarters....bit like the aircrews throwing a tantrum after 9/11 against having their bags checked before entering an airliner....NO-ONE should be above suspicion, crew are no less a risk of doing something stupid just by virtue of their training or "status".

In the case of Herald of Free Enterprise, lessons were learnt, procedures that had til then been ignored (bow doors open) were finally recognised as being life threatening lapses.

And we go...its such is life that it takes a death to bring forward these bad practices into the public eye and force those who continually exercise those bad practices without reprimand to sit up and listen and get their collective acts together.

Hang me if you wish for wanting to avoid aiming onto the actions/reactions on a single part of Concordia's demise, but I prefer to look at the wider aspects of it and the ramifications that it has on the industry as a whole in the hope that the 32 did NOT die in vain and that lessons WILL be learnt from all this mess.

9/11 exposed bad practice within the aviation industry and airlines and airports tightened up as a result. It should not have taken 9/11 to force those changes in attitude, but it did...in the same way, Concordia will eventually bring about a change in attitude and procedures within the cruise & ferry industry as a whole.

And to me, at least, any exposure of bad practice is a good thing but only if those bad practices are outlawed and prevented from happening again.

"Schettino, Ambrosio etc on the bridge for carrying out the behaviour more than once knowing that it was risky and potentially life threatening"

 

Sailing on the apporved/planned course was clearly not life threatening or risky otherwise Concordia would have come to grief on the previous sailby last year! the waters there clearly deep enough.

 

The half mile from the approved/planned course is where the problem lay.

Exactly...how did the ship end up off course when in previous fly-by's it had remained on course?

Who miscalculated...or wasn't watching what was going on....and who noticed but did not alert anyone to it til it was too late?

You must be speaking or moral guilt not legal guilt. Your theories of "equal guilt" are not the law in Common Law or Codal Law nations. Your legal opinions are fantasies or incorrect conclusions of law drawn without legal education, training or experience.

 

I suppose, it could be worse. You could be rendering medical opinions in stead of legal opinions. But, that wouldn't render your imaginary legal theories any more accurate.

Trouble is that unless you are personally working for Codacons yourself and have had total access to the actual (not sensationalised media) evidence, you cannot say with any suriety that there will be a case to answer within criminal law.

People would LIKE to think a criminal case will come of this tragedy, but it is by no means guaranteed that there will be.

Civil proceedings have every chance of succeeding, but as to whether or not there is a criminal trial...the jury is still out on that one.

A criminal act must be proven without a shadow of doubt before a criminal trial can take place. Now so far there are considerations of negligence that could be construed as criminal, but as things stand, even a negligence case would be aimed at more than just Schettino alone...it would include all those on the bridge AND any corporate players in the equation.

So as much as you and others would dearly love to see Schettino prosecuted, unless a criminal act (which afterall, has to be proven to be intentional) was made, it may end up as a case of not enough evidence to carry forward.

Cases with far more evidence (not circumstancial) have been thrown out due to not being able to make it stick...or, as often the case, its not in the public interest to continue.

Just out of curiosity...are YOU a part of Codacons?

Afterall, you assume I have some hidden agenda for trying to open up the full aspects of what went on, rather than being focused on one individual in this tragedy...

So...are YOU part of Codacons and that a criminal finding (should there be one) would prove very handsome financially for you, hence your determination not to include any other aspects of the accidents in your personal judgement?

You are correct concerning the possible complicity of Costa. That's the area that I believe has not, yet, crossed the line between possible to probable. In Schittino's case, I think that line was crossed within hours of the tragedy.

 

 

 

The biggest fallacy in many of your posts is your seeming belief that Captain Death's is absolved or diminished if others (junior Officers, Costa Executives, etc.) failed to intervene and stop him or there were other contributing factors that caused the collision. That theory is contrary to Continental Codal Law and Common Law.

Incorrect assumption Uniall.

Schettino, Ambrosio, Costa Executives...the whole load of them all have a measure of guilt in what happened...no one person over another, they are all as guilty.

Costa Crociere for allowing the practice to continue unabated without any form of reprimand - which is obvious since they allowed it to happen a few months beforehand.

Schettino, Ambrosio etc on the bridge for carrying out the behaviour more than once knowing that it was risky and potentially life threatening.

They all had a hand in what went on, they all need to take equal measures of blame and accountability for it.

And another important point about Lermontov vs Concordia...in many ways Lermontov was even worse cos the person responsible for where the ship ended up was a ship's Pilot, who is held in even higher esteem than a Captain. Ship's Pilots & Captains are seen to be holier than thou, they can do no wrong.....well, hello...yes they CAN do wrong...they CAN make mistakes of judgement.

I have been trying to find out what happened to the Captain, Pilot and bridge officers from the Lermontov in respect to accountability, but have drawn a blank as to whether or not they faced any form of legal punishment. At the time of the accident it was before the breakdown of the USSR and the Captain & crew were spirited away to the USSR and nothing more was heard from them.

As to any legal action taken against the owners, operators, crew or the errant Pilot of Lermontov...especially in view that a crewman died and many others hurt...is unknown. That is a pity since it might act as a guide to possible outcomes this time around.

Questions on this thread about the watertight doors....

Again, Lermontov could answer those questions...

According to the crew account, watertight doors were "sprung" shortly after the ship left the beach and the list increased. Various sources suggest that the list of the ship or the pressure of flood water caused the opening of watertight doors at this time. Both explanations seem unlikely however as watertight doors are designed to close and remain sealed even under the adverse conditions existing in a damaged ship. It's possible that the Russian accounts refer instead to cracking and failure of bulkheads and frames around the doors, but this portion of their account lacks detail and was never clarified during the Preliminary Inquiry that was to follow. Flooding had by then occurred as far back as the forward bulkhead of the Auxiliary Engine Room, so presumably it was a watertight door in this bulkhead that was referred to as failing. In fact the engine rooms had supposedly been evacuated at 7:30 p.m. in a dry state, so it is hard to understand who could have reported their failure. No questions were asked at the inquiry regarding this point and no further clarification has been forthcoming.

The similarities tween Lermontov and Concordia are building....

Captain Vorobyov justified leaving the bridge on the grounds that he had to change his wet clothes, yet he was still absent from the bridge over an hour later when the ship struck the rocks. He had instructed the Chief Navigator to call him when the ship reached Ship Cove. He was called at this time but merely acknowledged the call and did not return to the bridge. By informing the Chief Navigator that the Pilot had changed the planned course and would stay close to shore he had effectively handed control of the ship to the Pilot who now had a free reign in the navigation of the vessel.

 

The Captain's decision to leave the bridge while the ship was in restricted waters was unusual. A captain has overall responsibility for the safety of the ship even with a pilot on board and under the Soviet system could expect to be held completely accountable. Another Ex-Soviet captain has commented that leaving the bridge under such circumstances would have been unthinkable to him.

http://www.petemesley.com/LermontovHistoryKD.htm

At 5:30 p.m. when the ship was off Waihi Point, Jamison ordered a second turn to port, now heading the ship directly at the Cape Jackson Lighthouse. This change of course with only 7 minutes to run until the ship reached the lighthouse necessitated a further change of course within a very short period of time. In placing the ship on this course one assumes that Jamison had considered what he would do before reaching the lighthouse. The only reasonable order would have been a turn to starboard to clear the lighthouse and Walker Rock. The Cape Jackson inner channel ahead of the ship was clearly visible through the forward bridge windows and had been since the ship rounded Waihi Point.

 

Gusev indicated to Stepanishchev that the ship was heading towards danger. Stepanishchev questioned Jamison about his new course and was told he was going to show Cape Jackson to the passengers.

 

At 5:34 p.m. with the ship rapidly approaching the lighthouse Jamison made a sudden, spur of the moment decision and ordered a further turn to port committing the ship to a course through the Cape Jackson passage, rather than turning to starboard to clear the dangerous reef.

 

Second Mate Gusev told the Chief Navigator that he saw currents meeting in the area between Cape Jackson and the lighthouse. The Chief Navigator then asked Jamison whether the passage through there was possible. The Pilot answered with words to the effect that he intended to pass through there, that he knew that place, and that everything would be alright.

If these passages were not known to be that of the Lermontov, it could easily be considered as that of the Concordia...it is frighteningly similar in so many ways.

Directly after the impact there was shocked silence on the bridge. Because the ship suffered only a glancing blow and had carried on through the channel the seriousness of the incident was not immediately apparent but there would certainly be some damage. Each senior officer on the bridge experienced the sinking feeling of knowing they were partly responsible and there would be hell to pay for such a blunder.

 

Why are we in this place?

 

The Russians claimed Jamison then ordered a further turn to port, although the Pilot himself could not recall giving such an order after the impact. The helmsman had attempted to correct the jolt to starboard and this action may have been misinterpreted by some as a further turn to port.

 

Alarmed officers began hurrying to the bridge. A large patch of dirty water could be seen astern marking the point of impact.

 

When the Captain returned to the bridge he was furious and immediately took control turning the ship to starboard and towards open water. He asked the Chief Navigator to explain why the ship was in its present position. The Chief Navigator replied that on the recommendation of the Pilot they had steered the ship between the cape and the lighthouse. The Captain asked if he had agreed to that and was told that the Pilot had insisted the passage was safe.

 

The Captain then asked the shocked and confused Pilot what had happened and received the reply: "I don't know."

 

It was obvious that the ship had hit something but the extent of the damage was not yet known. It had been a glancing blow and there was some doubt that the hull had been penetrated. Usual practice when a submerged object had been hit would be the immediate closure of all watertight doors. However even before this could be done considerable amounts of water flooded from damaged compartments into adjacent ones.

Costa Crociere distanced themselves from the sailing close to Giglio, effectively stating that their Captains do not do things like this and that they would not condone or support actions of this nature...

But they obviously didn't mind Schettino doing the same fly-by in August 2011..

Can't have it both ways...either they accepted it as "normal" and therefore "safe" practice or they advised against it by way of some form of reprimand or retraining (and that does not mean a memo to the effect of a slapped wrist & do not do it again please).

He did it in August 2011 and no-one batted an eyelash....he did the same thing again in January 2012, albeit with a .5 of a mile difference in position, and came a cropper to which the corporate chorus sang "oh we never allow such things, we expect our crew to abide by the navigational rules and regulations at all time and we do not condone this behaviour in any way, shape or form"...

One corporate entity, two faces changed to fit the situation.

Another part of the Lermontov story, that has similarities to Concordia....

About 5.37 p.m. there was a thud and the ship started to list as the sea flooded through a 40 foot long gash in the hull, penetrating three water-tight bulkheads. The water short-circuited the electrical system, thereby stopping the engines. It is reputed that at 6.03 pm a Mayday call was broadcast, but this is disputed by local VHF operators. Presumably, because of language problems, no announcements were made to passengers to advise them of the position and tell them what to do, although many passengers were alerted to the problem by the fact that the crew were wearing life-jackets. In the meantime there was an announcement that dinner would be delayed an hour and the wine tasting session that was in progress would be extended. The band continued to play, but the wine tasting stopped when the list sent glasses sliding off the tables.

 

The L.P.G. Tanker Tarihiko turned towards the scene on receiving the Mayday call, but a signal that no further assistance would be required was received. Nevertheless Captain Reedman decided to press on. In gathering darkness the Tarihiko arrived as passengers were being evacuated into rafts and ship's boats from 8.45 p.m. Many elderly people were hurt in their leap from the ship to the lifeboats.

 

The Russian captain had endeavoured to beach his ship, but without the assistance of engines this manoeuvre was unsuccessful, and the ship, by now down at the bow and listing, floated towards Gannet Point in Port Gore. The sea was choppy but not rough and the Tarihiko was able to get her boats to the stricken ship. 356 passengers and 164 Russian crew crowded every inch of space in the LPG ships quarters, eventually to be deposited at the Overseas Passenger Terminal at Wellington in the early hours of the following morning.

The other thing about using the Lermontov as a comparison is that she went down after rocks penetrated her side despite her being an ice class cruise ship.

Her one remaining sister, Marco Polo, is still in service now.

Lermontov was an ocean liner before she was changed to cruise ship, unlike Concordia, she was a V hull, not a flat bottom ship like Concordia.

The circumstances tween the two ships are similar in many ways....incorrect course, impact/penetration into hull by rocks...the Lermintov proven to have struck charted rocks in a channel that the ship should not have strayed into (thus off the normal course taken by ships).

Therefore, Lermontov is a reasonable example to look at when trying to disect what happened to Concordia....questions were asked at the time why a well qualified Captain effectively took a shortcut....echoes of what happened in January this year.

The website about the Lermontov sinking has some excellent photo's and accounts, its well worth reading right the way through.

 

What am I missing? Can some one please just give me "some for instances" of how or why Costa could be held responsible , especially if it could be gross negligence, other than the few things I mentioned above? Could Unheeded complaints about the captain be one? Have there been other cruise ship disasters just because they went to close to land, deliberately for a "sail by" ?

Another accident with some similarities is the sinking of the Mikhail Lermontov cruise ship off New Zealand in 1986. The account of what happened is featured on this website...

http://www.nzmaritime.co.nz/lermontov.htm

A quote from the site...

Passengers reported that the ship had gone between the Light-house and the end of Cape Jackson (above) instead of clearing the rocky reef which extended past Walker Rock and was clearly shown on the charts. The vessel was drawing about 27 feet and Captain Jamison claimed his understanding of the depth in the channel to be 35 to 40 feet. It can be seen from the above chart that there was ample room for the Mikhail Lermontov to have passed through the channel had she missed the major rock pinnacles. However it would have been a very foolhardy course to take for anyone aware of the presence of the rocks.

In relation to the culpability of the company...in Concordia's case, Costa Crociere...as in the case of the RoRo ferries, it was proven that companies like Thownsend Thoresen, P&O et al allowed Captain's and their crews to routinely leave port with the bow doors still wide open. The companies did not instruct, nor did they enforce any instructions to close the doors before departure...thus the companies were seen as liable and therefore culpable for any accidents due to in full or in part to the doors remaining open after the ferry had left the quayside.

Costa Crociere knew about the sail by (as did all the other cruise lines) that effectively turned a blind eye to the practice. They allowed it to happen, albeit "unofficially" on the apparent understanding that if anything went wrong, it would be on the head of the Captain and crew and that the company would distance themselves from it.

P&O/Townsend Thoresen tried to "get out" of being held responsible for Herald of Free Enterprise by effectively saying that their crews departed the ports with their bow doors open without the company saction allowing them to do so....they typical "nothing to do with us what our captains do". The problem is that when something like this does go wrong, the company stance of "don't know nothing, gov" doesn't stand up when it can be seen that they have allowed it to happen many times in the past without anyone doing anything to stop the practice.

At least you are consistent. It was all the Jr officers fault but now you are adding that it was not only, not Schettino's fault, but you are now adding that he is a martyr for "falling on his sword" and taking the blame for his crew. That's incredible.

I was thinking Ambrosio was staying quiet because he is going by the theory that if you don't have any thing good to say, don't say any thing. You have to be careful if you know what you are saying will be throwing your boss under the bus.

Obviously, Schettino is your hero.

The only heroes in this were the grass roots crew...the bridge, no....none of them acted appropriately...none of them questioned what was happening, none of them stepped up to the plate and tried to avoid what happened...

The chain of command did not exist when it was most needed.

As to why no-one corrected the course deviation or even noticed it until it was too late, is the biggest question that no-one has answered yet.

Schettino requested to go to manual control once the severity of the situation was understood, which means the wrong course was entered into the autopilot...who programmed the autopilot before the ship left Civitavecchia.....Schettino, Ambrosio...or someone else?

Schettino isn't falling on his sword. He is facing 2500 yrs in prison (give or take) if he is found guilty of the charges. He claims that Ambrosio didn't warn him they were "off course." Ambrosio, who is also under investigation, is undoubtedly listening to the advice of his attorney.

 

Unfortunately, the majority of the testimonies made public thus far are of little help in discerning the facts re:what took place from the time Schettino arrived on the bridge to the time of the collision and after. They are inconsistent recollections told through the fog of fatigue, shock, chaos, and perhaps, fear of charges. The times and timeline are inexact at best - "I can't recall exactly." "Time vanished." "I did not notice the time - there was so much chaos."

 

The initial testimonies raise even more questions than answers.

 

Did Ambrosio notice that they were veering toward disaster beforehand and fail to do anything about it or mention they were going to close? It depends on who you believe. The VDR should shed more light on the truth and bring some clarity to the he-said-he said-she-said testimonies.

Confirms the old addage that an eyewitness is often the worst witness, hence the absolute need for forensically verifiable material evidence such as taped voice recordings, CCTV etc.

The bridge CCTV, thankfully, has yet to be leaked to the media...there has been some visual recording taken by a mobile device (phone, netbook) from the back wall of the bridge but it was such poor quality and at such a low angle it was hard to discern who was where and when, if anything it hinders the process rather than assisting it, but so far the actual installed CCTV has not been seen outside of the investigation. That along with the voice recordings and black box should answer the questions....but then with the black box being faulty, added to the power outtages, questions will doubtless arise as to the continuity of all those official recording devices that would normally be essential to the investigative process.

If she does break her back during the righting process, it potentially opens up another can of worms.

On one hand the salvors could get the blame...but on the other hand, it could be seen as an inherrent design flaw, which would land Carnival Corp and Fincantieri into the doo-doo.

If the alleged debris that Codacon suggests shows that the hull could split could be from two directions of thought...one being debris from the cutting away of hull to extrictate the rock and other parts of the ship that would impede the righting process...or...she may well be straining too much and her hull plates (read welds) are indeed giving out slowly but surely.

If the debris is from the preparations - ie the cutting away of plating and other potential obstructions, then that is, to a degree, to be expected and can be easily cleared up once the hull is completed removed from the shoreline...so long as the back doesn't break in the process.

However, if the hull is splitting at the weld points...it is totally possible but not quite as common a problem to be splitting mid plate as there is little to weaken an otherwise undamaged plate.....or, the least wanted scenario, it could show that the build quality of the hull is potentially questionable, something Codacons will probably be hoping for as it would strengthen their case that the ship was not fit for purpose. This was tried and dismissed in the more recent investigations into build quality of Titanic.

Fincantieri and other shipbuilders have used the welding technique for decades, its well practiced, the technology is perfectly fine and afterall said and done, if there was a problem with the system, no ship built in the last 30+ years would have been certified as fit for use.

That said....there are those who see Fincantieri as producing ships as if on a conveyor belt, with fast build and delivery...under pressure from their customers.

This latest report is in the hands of the metalurgists, ship architects, builders and others who are au fait with ships and their construction. It could just be the "simple" explanation of debris caused by the preparations...in all likelihood it will be something very simple and easy to explain, but where there is even the tiniest of a shadow of doubt, there will be those on the sidelines who will be watching very carefully...some biting their nails and others rubbing their hands together with dollar signs in their heads.

english translation via google:

 

AGI) - Rome, August 10 - "Tonight people will see what 'that no one has yet shown them on the Costa Concordia." And 'the announcement of Codacons reporting of "strange dust in the bottom of Concord to 30 meters deep', which even the Mayor of the Lily seems to ignore." The images speak for themselves: the 23 or so, TV7 (Rai1) will be transmitted pictures of the raid made ​​by divers Codacons that assists survivors in the waters of the island of Giglio, the point where 'stranded Concordia. The blitz was on August 3, divers have resumed the status of the seabed and that of the submerged part of the ship. The recorded images, says Codacons, are currently being examined by experts appointed by the association in order to assess any critical 'in the ship is not visible on the surface. The purpose of the blitz and diver 'is "to ensure transparency in the operations of removing the ship and get some answers about the status of safety and sealing the hull and environmental conditions in the sea and the rocky coast submerged." Following the movie Codacons' ask 'ARPA to make more' in-depth analysis of sea water to a depth 'of 30 meters and more.' "(AGI).

Or to put it another way......

http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201208032050-cro-ren1079-concordia_codacons_alarm_ship_risks_splitting_apart

(AGI) Grosseto - An odd fine dust has been found at the bottom of the Concordia. Is there a risk that the ship could split apart? This is the question Codacons is asking after having carried out an underwater inspection this afternoon off the Island of Giglio, on the site where the wreck of the cruise ship has been sitting since January. With a team of divers and experts, the association has filmed the submerged portion of the ship in the water, to verify the conditions of the vessel and eventual problem situations. "The images gathered," the president of Codacons, Carlo Rienzi, on the site during inspection, explained, "will be analized by a group of experts, and the results will be communicated to the Prosecutor's Office." . .

The beauty of translation tween Italian and English often leaves alot to be desired.

The OPs clive and anne over at the Salvage thread report this morning the

Giglio port camera has been moved although no longer in the center of operations. :(

They might not want the world watching when she is raised incase they have got their calculations wrong and she breaks her back as she is lifted....

Lets face it, she is the biggest ship to ever be salvaged from that position, she is balancing on rocks to bow and stern with bugger all inbetween...its understandable that they are nervous...anyone would be nervous doing what they are about to try and do. Having the world watching them just adds to the pressure.