Concordia News: Please Post Here

[CostaSmurfette]

6.27pm ... Captain on the Bridge ... Narration .. He relecutantly decides to change the planned route (no reason given)

 

Ships Audio Recording ..

 

Captain Ok just check what speed we need to get out of here and we`ll go by Giglio, let` go and salute Giglio.

 

Officer ... Yes 30 miles from here.

 

Captain ... We need to go by this Bloody Giglio (!)

 

Narration ... Captain agreed to the salute for a colleague onboard. Italian Military police recovered the ship charts .. small charts used .. rocks not marked. Larger charts show rocks .. not required to have Large charts onboard as Giglio is not on the Itinery.

 

OK...

 

A reluctance to go ahead with the sail by.....

 

I know from speaking to pax that were aboard that night and in previous days that the ship was not right, so that in itself is reason to be reluctant.

 

So...the question is, who pressured Schettino into making that sail by...afterall, if you don't want to do something, you're not likely to do it voluntarily anyway unless you feel pressured or obliged to do it are you?

 

His reluctance and his insecurity about going were plain to see by pax and in photographs taken the evening prior....is this where Ferrarini comes into play, perhaps?

 

The unknown phone call tween Schettino and whoever was on the other end...an argument against going to Giglio but having to go on orders?

[Tonka's Skipper]

Thanks Sid and well done!!!, this clears up alot of things, but also raises new and/or leaves unanswered many questions and concerns.

 

Based on this tape,....

 

1. The Captian was on the bridge early enough to have determined his vessels course, speed, position and traffic around etc. I agree with VP he should have had time to avoid the rock!

 

2. The Auto pilot was turned off, a bit late in my thinking , but in time to let the Master correct any problems.

 

3. The watertight doors were immediately closed.

 

 

Now new questions/concerns....

 

1. No vessel is reqiured to have large scale charts of any coast line or harbors, etc, unless they are likely to be going close inshore.

 

Why did the Concordia not have these large scale charts, since the (and correct me if I am wrong) vessel had already done island fly bys before the sinking?

 

If the vessel knew the fly byes were possible they dam well should have had the proper charts.

 

2. What was the Master doing those minutes before he saw the rock????

Entertaining his guests?

 

3. Why did the duty Officers not see the rock and why didnt they see it on the radar??? What was the look out doing? The Radar onboard that ship were said of the art, like the ones on Star Trek!!

 

4. As I asked before, why wasnt the Captioan and duty officer watching the rudder angle indicator??? If they were it is possible they could have corrected the rudder and maybe even avoided hitting the rock.

 

5. Why was the Captian still at such a high speed??? It was like driving a 18 wheeler down a curving country road at 75!

 

 

As I have been saying from the start and as CS points out, the Captain has the final responsiblity, but many other people, including the Bridge watch and some of the office staffs of Costa and Carnival have a peice of this pie!

 

 

AKK

[clive and anne]

Just found this and although not about the recovery I thought people might be interested

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/01/12/Carnival-blames-passengers-for-damages/UPI-10121358035775

[CostaSmurfette]

Back in August, I posted these as potential causal factors....

 

Human error by one and/or more personnel on the bridge.

 

An over-reliance on technology/instrumentation.

 

Inability or unwillingness to question orders or direction between officers & crew on the bridge.

 

Inaccuracy of paper charting (as proven in 2007 with Sea Diamond).

 

Unreliability of instrumentation by design flaw, technical breakdown and/or poor training in its usage.

 

Complacency throughout the cruise industry regarding the "it'll never happen to us" syndrome.

 

Potentially fatal design flaws in the construction, design and general day to day running of the vessel.

 

Maybe I should add....

 

Inability to comprehend the English language.

 

Poor/non-existant bridge resource management.

 

Failures to maintain correct forward training practice in relation to emergency situations.

 

Failures in watch keeping (attached to the BRM issues)

 

And now that I have spent 7 days on Concordia's sister, I also believe that the current SOLAS standards regarding poor signage and internal layout/deck plan design IS flawed, with the priority being made towards revenue and not ease of access or navigation for pax...ESPECIALLY when a ship of the size and capacity of the Concordia class is used on "bus stop" itineraries where pax rarely get used to the layout due to the time constraints placed on them by the itinerary itself.

 

Finally, there MUST be a way of testing the fear factor of all crew. They, like us, are human beings and as such none of us can EVER know how we would react in an emergency until we are IN an emergency.

 

Much has been said about Schettino bailing out early....currently you cannot train against fear reactions...moreso in an industry like cruising where (thankfully) major accidents are rare events.

 

No-one...not even Uniall...can say, hand on heart, that they would NOT be absolutely terrified in the situation that befell Concordia...and no-one...not even Uniall...can say, hand on heart, that they would NOT react in exact same way as Schettino did. We ALL want to think and hope that we would remain calm and in control of our fear but there are no guarantees of that, nor is there a way of knowing that you will fall to bits until that situation presents itself.

 

As for the pax who I spoke to and the alleged panic...again, we are talking human beings and their flight/fight reflex and we all know that in a crowd of people, it only takes a few to get into panic mode for it to spread like wildfire...one person screams, those around them scream and so it continues until everyone is screaming.....it's like catching norovirus....it spreads FAST.

[watertheodds]

Tonka or VP, the ships high speed near the island has always seemed odd to me. I have wondered if the speed was kept up so the deviation from the normal course would not put the ship behind schedule. I am sure you can address my theory. If that is the case then can one assume the salute to Giglio was not standard practice otherwise it would be built into the schedule set forth by Costa?

[Uniall]

.....

Much has been said about Schettino bailing out early....currently you cannot train against fear reactions...moreso in an industry like cruising where (thankfully) major accidents are rare events.

 

No-one...not even Uniall...can say, hand on heart, that they would NOT be absolutely terrified in the situation that befell Concordia...and no-one...not even Uniall...can say, hand on heart, that they would NOT react in exact same way as Schettino did. We ALL want to think and hope that we would remain calm and in control of our fear but there are no guarantees of that, nor is there a way of knowing that you will fall to bits until that situation presents itself.

 

 

Yes I can and I do............ I've met & known many heroes in my life, cops, firefighters, military, construction workers and many other stressful vocations.

 

They all shared one character trait. They went out of their way to help others in their daily routine and were not self absorbed looking for the worship of others.

 

The Captain had a "Coward" tell blazoned on his forehead with his self absorbed need for the adulation of a young paramour taking the place of a self assured command officer putting the safety of ship, crew and passengers as his duty and responsibility.

[Vampire Parrot]

Tonka's Skipper made some interesting points...

Now new questions/concerns....

 

1. No vessel is reqiured to have large scale charts of any coast line or harbors, etc, unless they are likely to be going close inshore.

 

Why did the Concordia not have these large scale charts, since the (and correct me if I am wrong) vessel had already done island fly bys before the sinking?

 

If the vessel knew the fly byes were possible they dam well should have had the proper charts.

Damn right. Being a recently built ship with a modern bridge, I would expect Costa Concordia to have a complete set of electronic charts for the entire region for which she sailed at both large and small scale. To expand TS's question: Did she have the e-charts? If not, why not? If she did, were they used? If not, why not?

 

2. What was the Master doing those minutes before he saw the rock???? Entertaining his guests?

Certainly not paying attention to his course and where his ship was heading.

 

3. Why did the duty Officers not see the rock and why didnt they see it on the radar??? What was the look out doing? The Radar onboard that ship were said of the art, like the ones on Star Trek!!

If the rock only protrudes a metre or two above the sea then it may not be visible... it depends on the declutter setting of the Radar and even at minimum setting, the rock may not have shown up. Given the modern bridge and multiple redundent GPS, the exact position, speed and future position of the ship relative to the rocks was information that was available for many minutes before the collision.

 

4. As I asked before, why wasnt the Captioan and duty officer watching the rudder angle indicator??? If they were it is possible they could have corrected the rudder and maybe even avoided hitting the rock.

Absolutely. Rule 1 when on the conn: Give a command, listen for the command to be correctly repeated back, check that the correct input has been given, check that the machinery obeys the input.

 

5. Why was the Captian still at such a high speed??? It was like driving a 18 wheeler down a curving country road at 75!

Because he was showing off? They had plenty of time to reach their destination at an economical speed.

 

As I have been saying from the start and as CS points out, the Captain has the final responsiblity, but many other people, including the Bridge watch and some of the office staffs of Costa and Carnival have a peice of this pie!

Very true. Some cruise lines have implemented Bridge Team Control and Command (BTCC) in the last few years, which would have required each and every officer on the bridge to actively "be in the loop".

 

VP

[Tonka's Skipper]

There is nothing wrong with being afraid, of feeling like a coward. The difference between being afriad and being a coward is how a person reacts to that fear/cowardice when in a emergency.

 

The Master of all vessels has a legal and moral responsibility to remain on his vessel until everyone is off or until he has done all humanly possible to save the rmeianing people onboard the vessel and his life wasin emitant danger, only then is he allowed to leave his vessel.

 

The Captian of the Concordia left his vessel, one that was aground, not on fire and not even going to sink, with some 4000 people onboard, most of which were scared to death and not knowing what to do.

 

He tripped into a lifeboat and then claimed he couldn't find his way out of it in the 15 minutes it took for it to be launched. On the radio he told the ICG he could not go back becuase it was dark out.

 

That is not only cowardice, but as the Vessel's Master, its criminal in my mind.

[Vampire Parrot]

Tonka or VP, the ships high speed near the island has always seemed odd to me. I have wondered if the speed was kept up so the deviation from the normal course would not put the ship behind schedule. I am sure you can address my theory. If that is the case then can one assume the salute to Giglio was not standard practice otherwise it would be built into the schedule set forth by Costa?

The detour to salute the island was minor and not significant... it added maybe five to ten minutes to the journey time. Even if Costa Concordia had slowed down to say a sensible five knots for the salute (slow enough to be safe, fast enough so the rudders are effective), it would not have been a problem to make up the time given that the average speed for the transit without a salute was around 15 to 16 knots, and Costa Concordia was quite capable of making 20 knots without upsetting the Chief Engineer (i.e. without burning too much fuel).

 

VP

[SomeBeach]

Clive, I read that the other day. Think I linked it in the other Concordia thread. They claim that the letter was taken "out of context."

Carnival Corp is going to do all it can to pay the least amount it has to. Next they will probably try to blame the 2 still missing people, suspected of being between the seabed and ship, of not getting off the ship and swimming away fast enough. :rolleyes:

As for the funnel, does that come up from the bottom of the ship? Could they have to keep bringing it up?

Yeah, I know, out on a limb here. :D

[CostaSmurfette]

To assist in some respects as to what charting is on the bridge, these are video snippets taken from Cruise Ship Diaries filmed aboard Concordia's sister, Serena....alot of what is said/shown is by second officer Cutugno...each snippet lasts around 3 minutes...

 

http://natgeotv.com/uk/cruise-ship-diaries/videos/dont-rock-the-boat

 

http://natgeotv.com/uk/cruise-ship-diaries/videos/the-bridge

[Tonka's Skipper]

The detour to salute the island was minor and not significant... it added maybe five to ten minutes to the journey time. Even if Costa Concordia had slowed down to say a sensible five knots for the salute (slow enough to be safe, fast enough so the rudders are effective), it would not have been a problem to make up the time given that the average speed for the transit without a salute was around 15 to 16 knots, and Costa Concordia was quite capable of making 20 knots without upsetting the Chief Engineer (i.e. without burning too much fuel).

 

VP

 

I totally agree, a minor delay! :D

 

VP... as to the radar, I disagree there. The radars, even the ones I had all those years ago, on a low setting (1/4 to 4 miles) could pick out a bouy and small boats without any trouble. They could certantly pick up the rock.

 

AKK

[clive and anne]

Hi Micki

The sentence that made me sit up was:-

"Carnival denies it has any duty to protect passengers from damages while they are on board"

How anyone could contemplate booking with any Carnival company with this policy is beyond me.

As to the funnel, thankfully on this thread we can have our ideas and listen to other peoples opinions without fear of causing an augument.

The odd troll we have had here has been quite rightly ignored, I just hope this continues.

I have seen the funnel appear and disappear since Ken first mentioned it and I still dont know why it happens but it does and your ideas are as good as mine.

Best Wishes

Clive

[Vampire Parrot]

I totally agree' date=' a minor delay! :D

 

VP... as to the radar, I disagree there. The radars, even the ones I had all those years ago, on a low setting (1/4 to 4 miles) could pick out a bouy and small boats without any trouble. They could certantly pick up the rock.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

The difficulty is that in any kind of sea, spotting a rock or bouy in the clutter can be tricky.

 

But yes, the water was calm that night.... they could/should have spotted the rocks.

 

VP

[CostaSmurfette]

Concordia is not the first accident at sea that raised questions over the charts used.

 

The loss of Sea Diamond was eventually put down to charting error....

 

Errors in an out-of-date chart were to blame for the sinking of the cruise ship Sea Diamond off the Greek island of Santorini on 5 April 2007, a survey has found. Two French passengers died when the Louis Hellenic Cruises-operated ship hit a reef.

 

After conducting a seabed survey of the accident area, the Hydrographic Service of the Hellenic Navy, the official provider of chart data for Greek waters, discovered that the fatal reef was 131m from the shore and not 57m as shown on the chart used by the Sea Diamond’s crew to approach the island. At the point of impact, the depth was only 5m, not 22m as shown on the chart.

 

This confirmed the results of a survey undertaken in 2007 by Akti Engineering. Louis Hellenic Cruises, which maintained that the area’s charts were faulty, commissioned Akti to survey the approach to Santorini on behalf of the defence team of the ship’s master, who awaits trial on criminal charges.

 

The admission from the Hellenic Hydrographic Office that its charts were incorrect contrasts with HHO’s earlier refusal to accept Akti’s survey results.

 

http://www.safetyatsea.net/login.aspx?reason=denied_empty&script_name=/secure/display.aspx&path_info=/secure/display.aspx&articlename=sane20081204013ne

 

Begs the question as to how many ships....not just cruise ships...have out of date, inaccurate or the wrong type of charts on their bridge...Concordia cannot be the only ship afloat with this problem.

 

And another point regarding Sea Diamond, she took 3 hours to evacuate despite being daylight (against Concordia in the dark) and she, like Concordia, was close to shore.

 

A fascinating insight from a survivor from Sea Diamond...especially from paragraph 12 onwards :

 

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/the-sinking-of-the-sea-diamond.html

[Tonka's Skipper]

The story of charts not being totally correct is a old one.

 

I am more interested as to why the Captian had his vessel only 74 meters from where the reef was charted as being, not to mention why he was only131 meters off the cliffs?

 

Fly bys, sailing close in shore when not needed, is wreckless and imprudent navigation, especial a cruise ship with so many souls onboard.

 

AKK

[Tonka's Skipper]

I have been sitting here thinking(something that often gets me in trouble).

 

Please answer me this. I tend to think in terms of paper charts, with chart corrections being sent to the vessel each week, or as able.Thats what we had back in the day.

 

These new fangaled electronic charts...........aren't chart corrections and /or whole charts able to be sent by electronic signal to the vessel? So there really is no reason for the Concordia NOT to have had the proper close in chart onboard????

 

 

AKK

Edited January 14, 2013 by Tonka's Skipper

[Tonka's Skipper]

there is nothing wrong with being afraid' date=' of feeling like a coward. The difference between being afriad and being a coward is how a person reacts to that fear/cowardice when in a emergency.

 

The master of all vessels has a legal and moral responsibility to remain on his vessel until everyone is off or until he has done all humanly possible to save the remaining people onboard the vessel and/or his life was in emitant danger, only then is he allowed to leave his vessel.

 

The captian of the concordia left his vessel, one that was aground, not on fire and not even going to sink, with some 4000 people onboard, most of which were scared to death and not knowing what to do.

 

He tripped into a lifeboat and then claimed he couldn't find his way out of it in the 15 minutes it took for it to be launched. On the radio he told the icg he could not go back becuase it was dark out.

 

That is not only cowardice, but as the vessel's master, its criminal in my mind.[/quote']

 

akk

[SomeBeach]

I have been sitting here thinking(something that often gets me in trouble).

 

Please answer me this. I tend to think in terms of paper charts' date=' with chart corrections being sent to the vessel each week, or as able.Thats what we had back in the day.

 

These new fangaled electronic charts...........aren't chart corrections and /or whole charts able to be sent by electronic signal to the vessel? So there really is no reason for the Concordia NOT to have had the proper close in chart onboard????

 

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Wouldn't asking for an electronic chart be admitting to going off course. If the Captain didn't want Costa to know he was doing it, he wouldn't request it.

I keep remembering an email that was supposedly sent to another Captain about Schettino attempting to get closer to the island.

Now the fact that he didn't really want to do so that night ("go by Bloody Giglio") doesn't mean he wouldn't do some showboating.

[SomeBeach]

Carnival and the various lines that sail under the Corp do have an abligation to protect their passengers. If they didn't, why have Muster Drills. :rolleyes:

In this situation, where many passengers were left behind by the Captain, they did what they had to do. What did Carnival expect them to do, just stand there whilst the ship went down! Those people were fighting for their lives whilst the Captain "fell, tripped," whatever to save his backside.

Just like their letter to survivors telling them not to come to Giglio, this is another poorly written letter and a PR nightmare. Doesn't instill confidence in how they run their business.

[watertheodds]

Wouldn't asking for an electronic chart be admitting to going off course. If the Captain didn't want Costa to know he was doing it, he wouldn't request it.

 

I keep remembering an email that was supposedly sent to another Captain about Schettino attempting to get closer to the island.

Now the fact that he didn't really want to do so that night ("go by Bloody Giglio") doesn't mean he wouldn't do some showboating.

 

I think his "go by bloody Giglio" was just a cover comment for others while preparing the course making it appear it was a request from "above" instead of his bright idea. I can't imagine others in his command wouldn't wonder why the captain would want to do a fly by to an island in the middle of winter at night with less than 600 locals. They would unlikely question it if they thought it was an higher executive decision. JMO

[CostaSmurfette]

Thinking back onto Tonka's statement about never going on board a Carnival Corp ship...

 

Think on this for a moment.

 

Concordia was not 100% functional, there was a repair crew that were to board her in Savona on January 14 and remain with her for 7-10 days to repair the depth sounder, radar and autopilot...items that had either failed completely or had suffered intermittant failures in the days and weeks leading up to what happened. Added to this Concordia was experiencing higher than average power outtages...this was confirmed to me by many of those aboard her the fateful night and who had been aboard her in the 10 days prior.

 

The itinerary is a very high revenue one, 5 ports of call, 5 debark/embark points over 7 nights, so you have a high turnover of pax but also of crew...the crew are literally "on the clock" 20 hours a day, every day. It is a high earner, hence why they have the biggest ships doing it, often in tandem...Costa Serena was doing a modified version at the same time.

 

The repairs required would normally take a ship out of service for a few days, Carnival Corp permit or not this to happen...Costa Crociere apply to Carnival Corp since it is Carnival Corp who ultimately organise drydocking/repair times...Costa ask, they are not allowed to do it themselves.

 

Taking one of the fleet's largest ships out for a few days and having NO replacement...bearing in mind that the other big ships were in South America & Middle East at the time...was going to be a revenue hit. She was to be repaired on the hoof.

 

Directly after the accident, Serena took up some of the slack but that was not going to be possible for long since it is a high capacity route.

 

Once all ships were back into the Med from South America and Middle East, Costa Magica was due to reposition to her usual Baltic Capitals itinerary. Costa neoRomantica was due to take up the bus stop route with Concordia and Serena since the extra capacity would be needed during the summer.

 

However, due to the loss of Concordia, Magica was swapped with neoRomantica and it was Magica that took up Concordia's place...bigger ship, more capacity...so again you had large capacity ships running those itineraries...the Baltic capitals, although popular, could make do with the much smaller neoRomantica.

 

Carnival Corp sent their second in charge to Genova to over see everything after the accident. He will have instructed which ship to go where and when in order to continue the flow of revenue onto that route.

 

Carnival Corp ultimately own the ships, they pull the purse stings and they have final say as to which ship is deployed to which itinerary. Speak to any of the crew and they all agree that the ships are too big for the route, especially with the multiple embark/debark points...it is incredibly tiring for the crew...I saw that for myself on Pacifica...even without the buoy kiss, they worked extremely long hours staying on top of an almost daily changeover of pax...there is only one or two sea days and those are used to catch up with jobs around the ship and to try and get some rest.

 

Bottom line...revenue played a part in Concordia's demise...she was not fully functioning, her captain had been pressured into doing a sail by knowing the ship was going to be met by a repair crew the next day...makes for an accident waiting to happen.

[SomeBeach]

Here's our weekly pictures. Looks like they are the platforms.

http://www.giglionews.it/2013011459380/news/isola-del-giglio/rimozione-relazione-settimanale-dal-5-al-11-gennaio.html#addcomments

 

Click on Visualizza.

[CostaSmurfette]

Carnival and the various lines that sail under the Corp do have an abligation to protect their passengers. If they didn't, why have Muster Drills. :rolleyes:

In this situation, where many passengers were left behind by the Captain, they did what they had to do. What did Carnival expect them to do, just stand there whilst the ship went down! Those people were fighting for their lives whilst the Captain "fell, tripped," whatever to save his backside.

Just like their letter to survivors telling them not to come to Giglio, this is another poorly written letter and a PR nightmare. Doesn't instill confidence in how they run their business.

 

Muster drilling is maritime law and has nothing to do with the cruise lines per se...they have to do them along with all the other safety recommendations and procedures otherwise they are not certified to operate...SOLAS.

 

However, there are countries that are not member states of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), these ar mainly in Asia and other areas such as some of South America and Africa, where the SOLAS rules do not apply...hence why many older ships go out to these regions and carry on operating despite not being "legal" in IMO/SOLAS governed countries.

 

Going back to Carnival Corp...from what I saw aboard Concordia's sister, Pacifica, a few weeks ago it was fairly obvious that the bare minimum is done in regard to SOLAS...afterall the IMO only legislate against operators who flout or refuse to abide by the rules...NOT those who do the bare minimum requirement to pass.

 

For example...

 

Costa Pacifica's muster stations are on outer decks 3 and 4..primary being 4.

 

To access the muster stations you have to go through one of several sets of double doors operated by a push bar...all well and good.

 

These doors, on Pacifica at least, are a very dark chocolate brown in decor with a black pattern. On the top outer corner (that is, where the doors meet), there is a 4" square dark green muster station sign. The sign is not illuminated, nor is it fluorescent.....unless you look closely, you completely miss it when glancing at the doors.

 

Deck 4 on a Concordia class ship is a rabbit warren...many pax were getting hopelessly lost tween the entrances of the midships and aft dining rooms...the signage was extremely poor to the extent that additional signage had been made up to go into the landing area of the aft and miships stairtowers, these extra signs were cardboard printout, not permanently affixed signage.

 

Lighting is also quite dim...along with the dark decor this exacerbates the feel of being closed in and adds to the confusion in regard to where everything is on board.

 

It therefore became obvious that although these ships are built and maintained to IMO/SOLAS standard....the owners are doing the bare minimum to maintain that standard simply cos they can.

 

Costa Crociere have no say in their fleet newbuilds and this was evident when I sailed aboard Classica, Victoria and Allegra...three ships built long before Carnival too the company over. Signage is much larger, much easier to see, it is illuminated and the interior spaces are considerably brighter on those older ships that the newer Carnival Corp owned/ordered vessels.

 

There is a vast difference tween the older pre-Carnival ships and those post-Carnival in their interpretation and use of the SOLAS regulations and procedures....which is possibly why Carnival want to either be rid of or remodel the older stock (yes, I am deeply cynical when it comes to the shenanigans of large corporations).

 

The fact that Carnival maybe doing the bare minimum does not mean that other corporations are not doing the same thing to a degree...afterall if one can get away with it, the others might be too.

 

The big thing now is that come April/May this year, the IMO is going to be ratifying much tougher SOLAS standards in the wake of Concordia...this can only mean that standards are improved both in safety but also in design of the ships...and the smaller items such as signage will inevitably fall under those changes.

 

As usual though, it took bodybags to force these changes to be made.

[sidari]

Tonka ....

 

Now new questions/concerns....

 

1. No vessel is reqiured to have large scale charts of any coast line or harbors, etc, unless they are likely to be going close inshore.

 

Concordia according to the Narration of the programme did not need Large charts to be carried for Giglio because it was not an Itinery stop.

 

Why did the Concordia not have these large scale charts, since the (and correct me if I am wrong) vessel had already done island fly bys before the sinking?

 

If the vessel knew the fly byes were possible they dam well should have had the proper charts.

 

2. What was the Master doing those minutes before he saw the rock????

Entertaining his guests?

 

The Narration says that the Guests on the Bridge were standing in complete silence and pinpoints where they were standing, this was confirmed by the Hotel Manager who was there and who thinking back to last year was maybe the one who asked about going by Giglio! It would be interesting to hear Schettino`s answer to the comment "go by Bloody Giglio" Strange thing is on the other programme which shows some of the Salvage, the Hotel Director is shown as the Purser!!

 

3. Why did the duty Officers not see the rock and why didnt they see it on the radar??? What was the look out doing? The Radar onboard that ship were said of the art, like the ones on Star Trek!!

 

Again the narration says that due to the small amount by which Le Scole reef protrudes from the sea that the likelyhood is that Radar would not see it.

The Lookout was steering the ship! which begs the question as to why there was only one!

 

 

4. As I asked before, why wasnt the Captioan and duty officer watching the rudder angle indicator??? If they were it is possible they could have corrected the rudder and maybe even avoided hitting the rock.

 

From the programme i can only guess that they were watching it or Schettino would not have corrected the Helmsman when he said 340, he was corrected to 350 by Schettino.

 

5. Why was the Captian still at such a high speed??? It was like driving a 18 wheeler down a curving country road at 75!

 

Only he will know that i think.

 

As I have been saying from the start and as CS points out, the Captain has the final responsiblity, but many other people, including the Bridge watch and some of the office staffs of Costa and Carnival have a peice of this pie!