Costa Concordia SINKING

[deckofficer]

Experts say crash may have been caused by engine failure triggered by 'harmonic interference'

quote]As yet I have seen no one from the ships company, Coastguard, the Company state that there had been any engine failure, it is still members of CC guessing.

 

The only definate facts are that she hit a rock and that started this horrific event, the proof is the large rock embedded in the side of the ship. The second fact being electric power was lost, hence the lights went out

 

Listen to all the passenger interviews. They state the lights either flickered or went out, then a boom was heard. With sound travelling at 340 meters/second at sea level, and electricity at almost the speed of light, it would make sense that an explosion in the engine room that caused the lights to go out would be heard after the lights went out but in fact happened before the lights went out. Speculation is that when the bridge was able to con, they headed towards shore and then hit the rocks.

[Globetotter]

I am anxiously waiting for them to find the rock formation the ship hit. According to the navigational locations, he did try to go between the rocks...not outside the rocks. If he did try to go between the large rocks, then he must have had a serious problem and was trying to stay in shallow water, perhaps trying to wedge the ship there....but that would have been one of the first things he said. Instead he said they were farther from shore which would mean he thought they were turning outside the rocks. There are some major facts missing here. The black box should pinpoint what happened and where. Was the ship disabled and they were unable to turn in time? Did they know where they were? Were they tracking with the paper charts (if they had them)? etc....

 

Then the next question has to be why was the ship there in the first place.

 

Taking it from all the news I've heard here in Italy: the captain was doing an "inchino" (a sort of salute - the ship greets the islanders, apparently a tradition here) and that's why he was near the island, but still in safe waters, according to nautical charts and instruments... Then the ship hit an uncharted rock that was protruding horizontally: loss of power and panic, big opening on one side of the keel, a huge piece of rock dragged along. He tried to stabilize the ship but after a while he realized he couldn't succeed so he immediately changed the route towards ashore to put passangers to safety, and that is where the ship went between the second group of rocks emerging near the island and hit one of them, (so that was a second hit, on the other side of the keel). At this point the openings in the keel were two, so the ship started slowly to tilt on one side, till it half sanked.

The captain did his first big mistake: the salute was not necessary (but I can see why he did it: my feelings are that he's a bit the show-off kind of person, and since he was a very good 'pilot' (don't know the term for ships in english) he thought what he was doing was safe (wrong!). The unpredictable happend, an uncharted rock and bam!). When he realized what he did, he took the ship ashore to save passangers and then did the second big mistake: living the ship before last passangers left. That is not acceptable and even illegal in Italy for a captain. He was not drunk. It has never been mentioned, not even once.

The news abroad are making a lot of speculations but here in Italy the situation is quite clear. Also the black box will soon reveal exactly what happened.

What I don't like is all those videos and interviews showing passengers blaming the crew for being not efficient and lying about what was happening: can you imagine what would have happend if from minute one speakers were saying "Ok, we're sinking, don't panic"...

I think that in that situation they acted the best they could. To avoid panic was a must, with 4000 people to disembarc. We're not talking about hundreds.... but thousands. There could have been a hundred people killed just because of a multitude in panic. It was not possible to lower lifeboats on both sides of the ship, and even on that one side was difficult because of the tilting slowly getting worse and worse. One crew member has been interviewd about criticism against the crew: he said that passengers don't have a clue of what is right or wrong in emergency procedures, and what seems wrong to them is the right thing to do in certain circumstances. His last phrase was: didn't we take all passengers safely on mainland??

And he is right: I think they did a great job. 5 people dead (realistically there will be others but less then 10, hopefully) and 15 missing among almost 4200 is really a low percentage.

Also, people at Giglio Island have been wonderful: they helped in any way they could, hosting passengers in their homes, even rescuing some of them (many jumped from the ship and swam to shore).

The Captain will be prosecuted, if that is what he deserves. That's for sure.

[Janman]

Are ship officers involved in an accident required to take a sobriety test?

Years ago while sailing on a Costa ship we were in a location where we could observe the entire bridge area. We observed numerous bottles of liquer in full view! Just pointing out what we saw.

 

Would not be surprised if alcohol was involved. Good reason for the captain to make himself scarce.

Is there a camera in the bridge area that would be recording who was there and any activity. The bridge area appears to be above the water line so if there were one it should be recoverable.

[BugsyCruiser]

Sounds to ME like Costa went out of its way to put 4,000 innocent people in harm's way, has (so far) taken minimal care of them, and has a 100,000-ton PR problem on its hands.

 

The poster is not responsible for the deaths, Costa is. Costa is also responsible for satisfying the poster. If Costa has a lot of issues on its plate right now it is solely Costa's responsibility, not any of its customers.

 

I never said the poster was responsible and yes I agree Costa has handled this this tragedy terribly. But, in my opinion, I felt that maybe the poster shouldn't have posted something like that when the thread is about what happened, how the passengers are doing, and the aftermath.

[JLC@SD]

I've attached a section of the chart showing the rocks in question south of the port on Giglio. It's from garmin's Bluechart Atlantic 2008.5 chart. The soundings are in feet.

 

Sorry I don't know how to make it bigger.... The range scale on the lower right equals 500 feet.... The depth contour line near the vertical line is 164ft/50meters and the line that juts out is the 328ft/100meter line

 

Aloha,

 

John

 

The rock embedded in the side of the ship is only a few feet below the water line. They should be able to find the rock formation they hit, a few feet below the surface with a freshly broken of section of rock.

[Cruising89143]

 

Listen to all the passenger interviews. They state the lights either flickered or went out, then a boom was heard. With sound travelling at 340 meters/second at sea level, and electricity at almost the speed of light, it would make sense that an explosion in the engine room that caused the lights to go out would be heard after the lights went out but in fact happened before the lights went out. Speculation is that when the bridge was able to con, they headed towards shore and then hit the rocks.

 

If you click on the link below, one of the dancers mentions that she was told that there was a fire on board.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-scene/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[AUDirt]

This was not "another" Costa ship...I can read Costa Concordia lit up, on the forward portion of the ship....;)

 

Yep -- look at -0:50, just above the life boats towards the front of the ship for white lettering on a blue background. No doubt that it says Costa Concordia.

[reallyitsmema]

Taking it from all the news I've heard here in Italy: the captain was doing an "inchino" (a sort of salute - the ship greets the islanders, apparently a tradition here) and that's why he was near the island, but still in safe waters, according to nautical charts and instruments... Then the ship hit an uncharted rock that was protruding horizontally: loss of power and panic, big opening on one side of the keel, a huge piece of rock dragged along. He tried to stabilize the ship but after a while he realized he couldn't succeed so he immediately changed the route towards ashore to put passangers to safety, and that is where the ship went between the second group of rocks emerging near the island and hit one of them, (so that was a second hit, on the other side of the keel). At this point the openings in the keel were two, so the ship started slowly to tilt on one side, till it half sanked.

The captain did his first big mistake: the salute was not necessary (but I can see why he did it: my feelings are that he's a bit the show-off kind of person, and since he was a very good 'pilot' (don't know the term for ships in english) he thought what he was doing was safe (wrong!). The unpredictable happend, an uncharted rock and bam!). When he realized what he did, he took the ship ashore to save passangers and then did the second big mistake: living the ship before last passangers left. That is not acceptable and even illegal in Italy for a captain. He was not drunk. It has never been mentioned, not even once.

The news abroad are making a lot of speculations but here in Italy the situation is quite clear. Also the black box will soon reveal exactly what happened.

What I don't like is all those videos and interviews showing passengers blaming the crew for being not efficient and lying about what was happening: can you imagine what would have happend if from minute one speakers were saying "Ok, we're sinking, don't panic"...

I think that in that situation they acted the best they could. To avoid panic was a must, with 4000 people to disembarc. We're not talking about hundreds.... but thousands. There could have been a hundred people killed just because of a multitude in panic. It was not possible to lower lifeboats on both sides of the ship, and even on that one side was difficult because of the tilting slowly getting worse and worse. One crew member has been interviewd about criticism against the crew: he said that passengers don't have a clue of what is right or wrong in emergency procedures, and what seems wrong to them is the right thing to do in certain circumstances. His last phrase was: didn't we take all passengers safely on mainland??

And he is right: I think they did a great job. 5 people dead (realistically there will be others but less then 10, hopefully) and 15 missing among almost 4200 is really a low percentage.

Also, people at Giglio Island have been wonderful: they helped in any way they could, hosting passengers in their homes, even rescuing some of them (many jumped from the ship and swam to shore).

The Captain will be prosecuted, if that is what he deserves. That's for sure.

Very well said, Globetotter.

 

Edit to fix spelling of screenname oops sorry.

[scottcruises]

Looking at the chart, based on depth and beam, I also find it impossible that the Concordia would have been able to pass between the rocks.

 

I believe they hit the most southern/eastern outside rock first after the hard starboard turn (i.e. trying to miss the rocks) and then the Captain made the decision to run her aground as close as possible to Port Giglio about a half mile to the north.

 

To me this is simply a navigation error. With the black box, the investigation will easily determine their precise location of the first hit and the crews actions thereafter.

 

I have read that the Concordia also has damage on the port side and may have happened in the final turn and grounding.

 

I have also read conflicting news reports the Captain was not on the bridge at the time of the "initial" accident. As far as the actions of the Captain, the investigation will also determine if his actions were proper and if his decisions were professional. We don't know all the facts yet. Time will tell!

 

As the August video shows this ship has passed very close before. I agree with you they weren't trying to run the channel, they just didn't turn in time. Either winds pushed them further west, weird tides (full moon earlier in the week) or just pure error had them getting too close. They turned too late hitting from midship to the aft and right away they dropped anchor as soon as they could slow spinning the ship.

 

The lights went out because when you rip a hole that massive...I'm going to guess the auto-closing flood doors failed or would do little good when you tear a 100+ foot gouge in a boat this big. Clearly water was able to slosh to the starboard side causing the ship to list, so the integrity of the flood control system failed or was damaged.

[lachera]

I have been lurking this interesting thread, I would like just to add some notes about the captain position in the Italian legal system.

 

According to the prosecution office, the captain is likely to be prosecuted for "omicidio colposo" (something like manslaughter in Anglosaxon codes), having caused a naval accident, and for abandoning the ship (this last charge may be up to 12 years in jail according to the gravity of the case). The captain was reported as being at the port sometime between 11.40pm and midnight. According to the latest Italian media source, port authority officers notified him around 0.30pm that he was already in breach of his duties and asked him several times to go back to the ship to coordinate rescue operation at midnight, but he did not go back. Rescue operation were suspended at 3am when it looked no more people could be immediately saved, to be resumed the next morning.

 

In Italy nobody is guilty till the end of the last appellate trial, but a suspect waiting trial can be arrested under one of three conditions:

1. he/she is likely to repeat the crime or commit further crimes

2. he/she is likely to flee before trial

3. he/she is likely to tamper with evidence

 

While nobody thinks the captain is going to sink another ship, the prosecution office thinks there is a good probability he could flee or try to tamper with evidence, so they arrested him. This decision will be submitted to an indipendent judge in a short time frame - the reviewing judge may confirm the arrest, or set the captain under "house arrest" (he could stay at home without ever leaving it), or set him free pending trial.

[ObscureAllure]

I can't believe that transportation companies don't have rules regarding their employees' behavior 24/7. If your ship encounters an emergency - such as RUNNING INTO AN ISLAND - you had better be "compos mentis" in order to deal with the situation.

 

Which, from all accounts, many of this crew handled pretty poorly. If Costa permits crew members to get drunk on board the vessel - as opposed to on shore leave, where in fact their personal behavior makes no difference - it shows an unbelievable level of incomptetence.

 

So the crew who live on the ship for six months at a time shouldn't do anything other than be "on call" during that time? They shouldn't have a glass of wine with dinner, or stop and watch a show when off duty? Many of them travel with their wives, I've seen it myself, so they shouldn't be allowed to dine with their wife when off duty? This is ridiculous.

 

That's why there are SHIFTS of people. So that everyone on board doesn't work 24/7 (which while would be just plan mean in the first place, it's also completely impossible because working that much with no breaks would make him unable to perform his job due to sheer exhaustion.

[cls711]

eh.... i don't agree with that, I'm not about to form a lynch-mob against or anything but i believe that the captain of the ship/plane is ultimately responsible for his/her passengers, there for he/she should make sure everybody got off the ship/plane safely before they themselves evacuate. However, i know if it was me, i'd panic and run around in circle screaming 'we're all gonna die!' or curl up in fetal position and cry, and that's why i'm not a captain of anything (though i'm a fierce dictator at home :D)

 

The Captain's responsibility is for the safety of all passengers. Once the rescue evacuation has begun and the Coast Guard is on scene what good is a Captain standing on a crippled ship with limited communication? He can do more good on land to help orchestrate the rescue effort. Also at a point where there are more passengers ashore than on the boat it would be advantageous for the Captain to be ashore with his passengers to aid with the rescue effort. Just my opinion.

[Krazy Kruizers]

Just heard that they found 2 more bodies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16568760

[peterhof]

My apologies if the ship hit a recently submerged hazard to navigation yet to be reported and the 2nd Mate was unable to update his charts to reflect that. But I suspect that it was a navigation error or wanting the passengers to enjoy at a closer distance the view of the coastline.

Hi Bob,

I for one welcome your expert input regarding this disaster, however, I disagree (perhaps you do also) that the huge boulder could not be a recent submerged hazard. Looking at the images I would say that it is granite and weighes many hundreds, if not a not a thousand tons. Unless an earthquake happened recently right beneath it, nothing could have ever shifted or dropped it! Getting it out of the side of the ship may prove to be impossible even. Already in another thread (P&O but why them?) a salvage specialist says that in his opinion it will take months to salvage and the ship will be scrapped.

[nothomeonacruise]

What strikes me as odd is how the crew did not know how to unleash or release the rescue boats. We practice muster, but the crew doesn't practice lowering the boats.. shocking!!

[deckofficer]

Hi Bob,

I for one welcome your expert input regarding this disaster, however, I disagree (perhaps you do also) that the huge boulder could not be a recent submerged hazard. Looking at the images I would say that it is granite and weighes many hundreds, if not a not a thousand tons. Unless an earthquake happened recently right beneath it, nothing could have ever shifted or dropped it! Getting it out of the side of the ship may prove to be impossible even. Already in another thread (P&O but why them?) a salvage specialist says that in his opinion it will take months to salvage and the ship will be scrapped.

 

Peterhof,

 

Thank you and you are correct, as I just wanted to cover the bases. Of course I believe they were sailing with constantly updated charts and only acknowledged the very remote possibility of a recent hazard to navigation.

[Red Mini Stapler]

The Captain's responsibility is for the safety of all passengers. Once the rescue evacuation has begun and the Coast Guard is on scene what good is a Captain standing on a crippled ship with limited communication? He can do more good on land to help orchestrate the rescue effort. Also at a point where there are more passengers ashore than on the boat it would be advantageous for the Captain to be ashore with his passengers to aid with the rescue effort. Just my opinion.

 

“Normally the commander should leave at the end,” said Mr. Du Pays, a police officer who said he helped an injured passenger to a rescue boat. “I did what I could.”

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

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/15/third-survivor-rescued-stricken-cruise-ship/

 

maybe avoiding 12 years in jail might give them some motivation to stay on board whether coast guard is there or not

[JLC@SD]

]As an objective observer (not on the ship), I think the Captain did a phenomenal job in reducing the hazards at hand… most important of which was getting the ship to shallow waters for evacuation[/color]. It is a miracle that the loss of life wasn’t more than has been reported so far. Yes, he was on the bridge when the ship struck the rock. And he acted accordingly to minimize the consequences, IMO.

How people react during a true emergency shows one’s character. I was appalled & embarrassed to read of the immediate whining of certain passengers wanting immediate Princess treatment from Costa Cruise lines. It takes TIME to gather the resources necessary to take care of survivors. I applaud the generosity of the people on Giglio in opening their homes to strangers!

If I had to be on a ship that went down, I’d choose this one over the Titanic…and this Captain to be the one making the decisions. No, I wasn’t there & I don’t know all the facts. Until then, innocent until proven guilty. As far as the unfortunate passengers, it had to be a positively terrifying experience & I’m sure that as adrenaline begins to fade, most will begin to be thankful & see more objectively. One would hope. As one would also hope that they’d all be compensated accordingly, without lawyers involved. In a just world, so it would be.

 

As an objective observer (not on the ship), I think the Captain did a criminal job in causing the hazards at hand… most important of which was intentionally sailing the ship to shallow waters recklessly.

 

My take at what the investigation will prove....and they have done it before.

 

http://video.corriere.it/nave-concordia-al-giglio-/9dfa5ea6-3e9b-11e1-8b52-5f77182bc574

[christi1805]

This was not "another" Costa ship...I can read Costa Concordia lit up, on the forward portion of the ship....;)

...and that is confirmed! Costa Concordia, August 2010

[sollan]

A lot of speculations and rumors are going around. In due time we will know what really happened.

Let's hope that they will find the missing persons in good health and that Costa will have the capability to handle this awful accident!

[golfusaofcs]

Im not really sure if this has been brought up. Isn't the Concordia the same design as the Carnival Splendor? What if it had a similar problem which caused the Vessel to lose power and drift. Maybe being covered up. When I was on the Destiny earlier this year I went on the Behind the fun tour. I asked one of the engineers what happened with the Splendor and he basically said they have kept him in the dark on the situation and resolution

[ObscureAllure]

What strikes me as odd is how the crew did not know how to unleash or release the rescue boats. We practice muster, but the crew doesn't practice lowering the boats.. shocking!!

 

 

Considering from the pictures every lifeboat (and all but a few life rafts) were released, I'd say that they knew how. (Or the fact that 4000 some odd people got off board, and there is video of people on the lifeboats and of crew releasing the boats...)

 

Also - Muster drill is performed on every cruise, yes, but a lifeboat drill (the actual filling and lowering of the lifeboats by the crew) is completed often also (not EVERY cruise, but often enough. I know it happened on the Conquest in the last month there about because my grandfather was a part of it and actually got on the lifeboat and was lowered into the water)... so YES, they know how to operate them and have done so in practice NUMEROUS times before.

[ObscureAllure]

Would not be surprised if alcohol was involved. Good reason for the captain to make himself scarce.

Is there a camera in the bridge area that would be recording who was there and any activity. The bridge area appears to be above the water line so if there were one it should be recoverable.

 

 

Actually - scarce or not - all it takes is a blood test. Yes, breath analyzers may only work immediately after, but blood tests can be used DAYS after. So I sincerely doubt he was running due to "being drunk."

 

Globetotter - GREAT POST!!

[peterv]

If you are looking for some pictures that I haven't seen mentioned before, go to this website. They have some taken by the onboard passengers, divers and the rescue personnel. Site is in Italian.

[missfrankiecat]

So the crew who live on the ship for six months at a time shouldn't do anything other than be "on call" during that time? They shouldn't have a glass of wine with dinner, or stop and watch a show when off duty? Many of them travel with their wives, I've seen it myself, so they shouldn't be allowed to dine with their wife when off duty? This is ridiculous.

 

That's why there are SHIFTS of people. So that everyone on board doesn't work 24/7 (which while would be just plan mean in the first place, it's also completely impossible because working that much with no breaks would make him unable to perform his job due to sheer exhaustion.

 

Firstly, I think there is a difference between crew and staff (officers). The most senior staff, who make operational decisions are, in a real sense, never 'off duty'. If there is an emergency the Captain and his deputy will have to take immediate control, be capable of making sober decisions and of convincing others that they are so capable, whatever the time of day or night. Their behaviour in public and crew areas is watched by passengers and crew 24/7 whether on duty or off. In that sense they are only 'off duty' when on leave, which is part of the reason they are well paid to enjoy relatively long periods of leave. Whether a Captain abstains totally from alcohol even in social situations is usually a matter for him or her but I have met several who do, and have admiration for their self-control. By never drinking and never being seen to be drinking they show respect for the high level of responsibility they carry and also protect themselves against the sort of questions which are now being asked of this Captain.