Andrea Doria

[rkacruiser]

I am finishing reading a book published some time ago titled Out of the Fog:  The Sinking of the Andrea Doria.  The book provides some different perspectives and conclusions than I have considered/known about this tragedy.  I'd appreciate learning the reactions of others who have read the book.

[Heidi13]

Haven't read the book, but this is one of many incidents we covered during radar/simulator courses. From memory it was a classic radar assisted collision. Sadly, it was one of many. The key learning we received was not to make collision avoidance decisions on scanty information, especially scanty radar information.

 

The mid-50's was before my time, but even in the 70's we rarely slowed down in fog, unless traffic density was crazy. So not slowing down, while not in compliance with Safe Speed requirements, was common practice.

 

Radar technology at the time was raw radar, with no automatic plotting aids. Therefore, all movement on the radar screen was relative motion, which was a resultant vector comprising own ship and other ship course & speed. If the target was tracking into the middle of the screen you had a collision situation, the target was going to miss, with the distance from the centre being the closest point of approach.

 

If a potential collision/close quarters existed we had to adjust course and/or speed in accordance with the collision regulations. To determine the other vessel's course/speed we had to draw a vector diagram applying our course/distance to the resultant vector.

 

I recall they showed us the predicted radar screens from this collision, but from memory, all I can recall was they identified each other at about 12 - 15 miles, which is fairly close, in an almost head on situation. I believe the Andrea Doria made an alteration of course to port, which was not in compliance with regs at that distance. This other issue I vaguely recall was multiple small alterations of course, which are not easily detected on the radar. Basically both Bridge Teams were at fault.

 

Any action should be made once a full appraisal of the situation is known and should be "bold". The Deck Officer should then monitor the effectiveness of the action. Taking multiple actions make it difficult to monitor the effectiveness.

 

Will have to check out the book to refresh the memory

[rkacruiser]

Your memory is good of what you learned about this accident based upon what I read in the book!  It was a radar assisted collision.  If only the Bridge Officers on Andrea Doria had used the radar plotting chart.  If in those last minutes Captain Calamai had ordered a turn of the rudder to Starboard and not to Port.  If in those last minutes the Stockholm had sounded her whistle as to her turn to Starboard.  If there had not been the fog in which the Andrea Doria was sailing and of which the Stockhom's Bridge Team did not consider.  If the Stockholm had only been sailing in the more Southern traffic pattern for those European bound vessels.     

 

The book was written from a Swedish perspective and I started to read it with "a grain of salt".  But, the information from the preliminary hearings and the out of court settlements surely seemed to be objective reporting.  

 

I had never read,  or even seemed implied,  that errors were made on the Bridge of both ships.  There were.  Unfortunately, despite of the presence on Andrea Doria's Bridge of a much more experienced Master (with two Deck Officers) compared with a sole Third Officer on the Stockholm's Bridge, lives and a beautiful ship were lost.

 

The book reported that Stockholm's Master retired to his cabin allowing the same Third Officer to man the Bridge during a nighttime watch while the Stockholm sailed to New York with her guests/crew and rescued Doria passengers/crew with a damaged bow.  (Had that bulkhead failed en route, the Stockholm's lifeboats could not have held all aboard.)  Captain Nordenson showed confidence in his Third Officer.  But, was that a wise decision for either him or the First Officer to not also be immediately available on the Bridge if that bulkhead failed?

 

The book's technical information as to why Andrea Doria sank are very interesting.  The entire episode was an accident that should not have happened nor should the ship lie on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.  Decisions were made at many levels during the designing and the construction of the Andrea Doria that contributed to her loss and the loss of lives on Andrea Doria.

 

I believe that we cruisers are safer when we sail on our cruises now than in 1956.  We are safer than in 1912.  We are safer since the Costa Concordia tragedy.  It's sad that others have to perish before we humans learn lessons that would have prevented such a loss.  

 

[Heidi13]

With respect to radar plotting sheets, they were rarely used on commercial ships, at least on UK ships. Only time I ever used them was in college, which was consistent with my other fellow cadets. We still completed the vector diagram to determine other vessel true course/speed, but did it on the reflection plotter. When proceeding at 20+ kts, it took way to long to recall a series of bearing/distances, then plot them on a sheet, every 3 minutes.

 

Deep sea, on cargo ships, the 3rd Officer or senior cadet normally worked the 8-12 watch, which was known as the Master's watch. Before turning in for the evening, the Master writes his "Night Orders" which would normally specify when to call the Master. When I was a cadet, I stood a solo watch on 1 ship, and at first the Master required a call anytime I saw another vessel visually or by radar.

 

However, when operating in restricted visibility, the Master is normally expected to be present on the Bridge. On occasion, I have seen the Master on the Bridge continuously for up to 3 days, when in continuous restricted visibility. You can only imagine how effective the Master was having virtually no sleep.

 

In the case of the Stockholm, was it prudent for a 3rd Officer to be in charge of the watch in restricted visibility, with no supervision - most definitely No. Regardless of how confident the Master was, the 3rd Officer should not have been standing a single watch in restricted visibility.

 

We only covered the radar issues, so don't know anything about bulkhead issues heading back to New York. To ensure the vessel was seaworthy, I would expect the Master to have the bulkhead inspected and braced with whatever dunnage, etc was available. The Master & Chief Engineer should have inspected the work and determined a safe speed, based on sea state. For me, having the 3rd Officer standing the 8-12 watch post collision would not have been an issue, as the Master is frequently awake while the most junior officer is standing the watch.

 

In addition to the ships being safer, the Bridge procedures and training provided to Deck & Engineering Officers is vastly improved and is way above the minimum requirements of STCW - at least on some companies. 

 

Great topic, thanks for starting it.

[rkacruiser]

16 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

In the case of the Stockholm, was it prudent for a 3rd Officer to be in charge of the watch in restricted visibility, with no supervision - most definitely No. Regardless of how confident the Master was, the 3rd Officer should not have been standing a single watch in restricted visibility.

 

Prior to the collision, the Stockholm was apparently sailing in unrestricted visibility, but the Lookouts and the Third Officer did not understand why they could not see Andrea Doria's lights until a very short time before the collision.  The Third Officer did not seem to consider that a fog bank was ahead.

[rkacruiser]

16 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

o ensure the vessel was seaworthy, I would expect the Master to have the bulkhead inspected and braced with whatever dunnage, etc was available. The Master & Chief Engineer should have inspected the work and determined a safe speed, based on sea state. For me, having the 3rd Officer

 

I have read that the bulkhead was inspected by the First Officer at the Master's direction.  I've never read anything that Captain Nordenson or the Chief Engineer was involved.  My guess is that others, other than just the First Officer, would have been involved.

One fact that I found interesting was that the Stockholm had requested the Ile de France to accompany her back to New York.  But, the Ile de France's Master declined due to his desire to try to get back on schedule ASAP.  There were two small Coast Guard boats that accompanied Stockholm, but with an overload of Doria's crew/guests and her own crew/guests, had that bulkhead gave way, Stockholm's life boats/rafts could not have accommodated everyone and the two Coast Guard boats would not have held many.  

16 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Great topic, thanks for starting it.

 

Thank you for your comment.  I debated whether to do so.  Your input into the discussion has provided me with information that I did not know.  I appreciate it very much.

 

 

[Heidi13]

Thanks, that explains why 3/0 was alone. However, the cardinal rule was if you saw something unexpected or didn't see something visually that you saw on radar - call the Master.

[Heidi13]

2 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I have read that the bulkhead was inspected by the First Officer at the Master's direction.  I've never read anything that Captain Nordenson or the Chief Engineer was involved.  My guess is that others, other than just the First Officer, would have been involved.

One fact that I found interesting was that the Stockholm had requested the Ile de France to accompany her back to New York.  But, the Ile de France's Master declined due to his desire to try to get back on schedule ASAP.  There were two small Coast Guard boats that accompanied Stockholm, but with an overload of Doria's crew/guests and her own crew/guests, had that bulkhead gave way, Stockholm's life boats/rafts could not have accommodated everyone and the two Coast Guard boats would not have held many.  

 

Thank you for your comment.  I debated whether to do so.  Your input into the discussion has provided me with information that I did not know.  I appreciate it very much.

 

 

Yes, in those days the Chief Officer would have been more than capable of inspecting the bulkhead and re-inforcing as required. Sadly, some of my Chief Officers couldn't even tie knots.😞

[CGTNORMANDIE]

Great discussion...

I agree with all the above...it was a radar assisted collision...and yes..I have the book. The one thing that sticks out in my mind is how far out of the normal lane the Stockholm was.  Stockholm was in the wrong lane.  I do not think that (Carstens?) was telling the story accurately...just my opinion.

[rkacruiser]

On 5/22/2019 at 10:38 PM, CGTNORMANDIE said:

Great discussion...

I agree with all the above...it was a radar assisted collision...and yes..I have the book. The one thing that sticks out in my mind is how far out of the normal lane the Stockholm was.  Stockholm was in the wrong lane.  I do not think that (Carstens?) was telling the story accurately...just my opinion.

 

Have you read Saved! by William Hoffer or Alvin Moscow's Collision Course ?  I re-read the section of Hoffer's book that dealt with what Carstens said.  (I can't find my copy of Moscow's book; I intended to re-read that part as well.)  But, from what I recall Mr. Moscow wrote concerning Carstens's statements, they agree with what Mr. Hoffer wrote and what Carstens's testimony was at the preliminary hearings as reported in Out of the Fog.

 

As I stated in my Post#3, the book was written from a Swedish perspective.  There is an implication by the author and editors that the Italians wished to get this unsavory matter over with as soon as possible.  It would be helpful if the Italians had written such a book as Out of the Fog in order to obtain their perspective of this tragedy.  I am not aware of such a book.  There once was a web site that a guest on the Andrea Doria created and regularly posted.  (He was an Italian-American, if I recall properly.)  After his passing, a relative attempted to continue it.  But, for several years, it has disappeared.

[CGTNORMANDIE]

2 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Have you read Saved! by William Hoffer or Alvin Moscow's Collision Course ?  I re-read the section of Hoffer's book that dealt with what Carstens said.  (I can't find my copy of Moscow's book; I intended to re-read that part as well.)  But, from what I recall Mr. Moscow wrote concerning Carstens's statements, they agree with what Mr. Hoffer wrote and what Carstens's testimony was at the preliminary hearings as reported in Out of the Fog.

 

As I stated in my Post#3, the book was written from a Swedish perspective.  There is an implication by the author and editors that the Italians wished to get this unsavory matter over with as soon as possible.  It would be helpful if the Italians had written such a book as Out of the Fog in order to obtain their perspective of this tragedy.  I am not aware of such a book.  There once was a web site that a guest on the Andrea Doria created and regularly posted.  (He was an Italian-American, if I recall properly.)  After his passing, a relative attempted to continue it.  But, for several years, it has disappeared.

So many questions were left unanswered but the main idea that the Stockholm was in the wrong area was never explored.  Carstens could never explain that.  My theory is that the Stockholm was way north trying to clip a few miles off their route.  At that time of year the sailing is usually smooth and mostly clear.  I don’t think that Stockholm should have been there.  There was also a question about the Doria’s Radar being set on a 10 mile range when it was actually on 3 and possibly 1 mile.  This is probably why the Italian Line settled quickly which was too bad for Captain Calamai.  He never got a chance to clear himself.  

Edited May 24, 2019 by CGTNORMANDIE

[rkacruiser]

4 minutes ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

So many questions were left unanswered but the main idea that the Stockholm was in the wrong area was never explored.  Carstens could never explain that.  My theory is that the Stockholm was way north trying to clip a few miles off their route.  At that time of year the sailing is usually smooth and mostly clear.  I don’t think that Stockholm should have been there.  There was also a question about the Doria’s Radar being set on a 10 mile range when it was actually on 3 and possibly 1 mile.  This is probably why the Italian Line settled quickly which was too bad for Captain Calamai.  He never got a chance to clear himself.  

 

I simply don't have enough knowledge about radar/technology to form an opinion.  The lack of use of a plotting board on the Andrea Doria:  maybe, if used, it would have made a difference?

 

Unless things have changed as to the navigation of passenger vessels since 1956, it is the Captain that holds a conference on the Bridge with the Deck Officers concerning the sailing plans from the Port prior to sailing and, I would assume, the rest of the voyage.  If this was so in July, 1956, Captain Nordenson chose that route North of the "standard" Eastern bound TA path for ships.  The Stockholm should not have been where she was, I agree.

 

What information the Swedish author and editors provide about the Andrea Doria's stability issues are unchallenged in the book.  (I do think that is significant, however, that the Vatican chose to pack the Pieta in a package that would not sink should Cristoforo Colombo meet Andrea Doria's fate when the work of art was shipped to New York for the World's Fair.)

 

Reading the testimony provided in the book during the preliminary hearing is tantalizing to me.  What else might have been learned if the case had gone to trial?

 

 

 

 

[CGTNORMANDIE]

I did read both books and others.  

 

There was was a great special on (I think) National Geographic And one of the instructors from a maritime academy.  He demonstrated exactly what happened with both radars.  Again...Carstens should have turned the Stockholm as soon as he detected the Doria on his radar...since he was too far north.  I believe Carstens never looked at the radar because he was sailing on clear seas.  That is the only explanation I can think of that makes sense.  Why did Carstens continue on without changing course?  Carstens never answered that question either.  

 

Nonetheless...fascinating stuff.

 

 

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

I did read both books and others.

 

Are you aware of any book written with the Italian perspective of the accident?

[CGTNORMANDIE]

1 minute ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Are you aware of any book written with the Italian perspective of the accident?

No...I have never seen a book that was written from a strictly Italian view point.  The Italians were devastated and poor Captain Calamai became a recluse until his death...so sad.  They were overjoyed when the Leonardo DaVinci finally replaced the Doria.  I always thought the DaVinci was their best ship ever built.  

 

[rkacruiser]

1 hour ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

No...I have never seen a book that was written from a strictly Italian view point.  The Italians were devastated and poor Captain Calamai became a recluse until his death...so sad.  They were overjoyed when the Leonardo DaVinci finally replaced the Doria.  I always thought the DaVinci was their best ship ever built.  

 

 

Thanks for your reply.  

 

After I had read Collision Course, I had much sympathy for Captain Calamai.  And, still do.  The Italian Line seemed to "throw him into the dumpster" after so many years of good service.  If the Captain's (and other Andrea Doria Deck Officers) radar skills were deficient, who was responsible for that?  Captain Calamai's reluctance to abandon his ship reflects his commitment to his ship for a couple of reasons.  Only when he understood that his other Officers would remain with him until the end and endanger their lives did he agree to board a lifeboat.  Captain Calamai grieved at the loss of Andrea Doria just as we would grieve at the loss of any relative with whom we have know for many years.  The Italian Line never recognized this.

 

I was never privileged to sail on an Italian Line vessel.  Timing/itineraries never worked for me.  When it was possible to do so in New York, I was able to visit Raffaello before a Trans-Atlantic sailing.  I was much impressed.  The only time that I might have sailed on Leonardo da Vinci was when she sailing out of Port Everglades on very short cruises in 1975 for maybe a spin-off of an Italian shipping consortium.  Italian Lines was defunct, I am fairly certain at that time.  The "consortium" at that time was having financial issues:  would the ship sail?  Or not?  It was too risky financially to book a cruise on her.

 

I sailed on Statendam from Pier 21 and remember seeing Leonardo da Vinci docked at Pier 18 across from us.  She was in 1975 a very beautiful ship.

[CGTNORMANDIE]

On 5/25/2019 at 7:36 PM, rkacruiser said:

 

Thanks for your reply.  

 

After I had read Collision Course, I had much sympathy for Captain Calamai.  And, still do.  The Italian Line seemed to "throw him into the dumpster" after so many years of good service.  If the Captain's (and other Andrea Doria Deck Officers) radar skills were deficient, who was responsible for that?  Captain Calamai's reluctance to abandon his ship reflects his commitment to his ship for a couple of reasons.  he understood that his other Officers would remain with him until the end and endanger their lives did he agree to board a lifeboat.  Captain Calamai grieved at the loss of Andrea Doria just as we would grieve at the loss of any relative with whom we have know for many years.  The Italian Line never recognized this.

 

I was never privileged to sail on an Italian Line vessel.  Timing/itineraries never worked for me.  When it was possible to do so in New York, I was able to visit Raffaello before a Trans-Atlantic sailing.  I was much impressed.  The only time that I might have sailed on Leonardo da Vinci was when she sailing out of Port Everglades on very short cruises in 1975 for maybe a spin-off of an Italian shipping consortium.  Italian Lines was defunct, I am fairly certain at that time.  The "consortium" at that time was having financial issues:  would the ship sail?  Or not?  It was too risky financially to book a cruise on her.

 

I sailed on Statendam from Pier 21 and remember seeing Leonardo da Vinci docked at Pier 18 across from us.  She was in 1975 a very beautiful ship.

 

We cruised on the LDV in 1976...from NY.  That was the last year she was under the Italian Line management...we were so lucky.  I also sympathize with Captain Calamai.  He was thrown under the bus by the Italian Line.  If the Doria had come out of the fog 1 minute earlier the whole thing would never have happened.  Carstens and Stockholm had no business being where they were and I believe Carstens never even looked at the radar screen as he was sailing in clear conditions.  

[rkacruiser]

6 hours ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

We cruised on the LDV in 1976...from NY.  That was the last year she was under the Italian Line management...we were so lucky.  

 

Thanks for that bit of information.  I remembered that the Italian Line had been combined into a consortium of other Italian shipping companies that were also under financial duress.  Had that already happened in 1975 with Italian Line being the Manager?  Or, did that combination happen  after 1976?  Or, is my memory simply faulty?  (Which wouldn't be the first for that!)

[CGTNORMANDIE]

I believe the change happened in 1977.  They changed the name to something like Italian Cruises or something like that.  

[rkacruiser]

23 hours ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

I believe the change happened in 1977.  They changed the name to something like Italian Cruises or something like that.  

 

"....or something like that."  I remember the word "International" being in the title of the company and did some Googling to see if I could find the firm.  No luck so far.  I have one more possible source for information and I will pursue that as my time allows.  Knowing the approximate time frame for when the company existed could be helpful.

[CGTNORMANDIE]

The LD started service under Italia Crosiers in 1977 and was laid up in 1978.  She stayed at anchor in La Spatzia Harbor until catching fire on July 4, 1980.  She was refloated and scrapped in 1982.  

Edited May 28, 2019 by CGTNORMANDIE

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

Italia Crosiers in 1977

 

I Googled this and came up with zip.

 

The source whom I contacted said that there was a firm called Italian International Cruises that produced brochures for Leonardo da Vinci's sailings from Fort Lauderdale.

 

Starting that service in 1977 and ending in 1978 confirms my memory of how short that cruise service was.

[CGTNORMANDIE]

Hi RKA,

While I was digging up the info on LDV I found out the reason why LDV could never be profitable...she was a fuel hog.  Evidently, after she was built, she was deemed a bit unstable in rough seas so they added something like 200 tons of steel in her bottom and that put a drag on her speed and caused her to guzzle fuel.  Her engines did not handle the extra load with fuel efficiency.  They had built her with the intention of converting to nuclear power so I don’t think that they gave too much thought to fuel consumption.  Remember fuel was selling for little money when she was built and then sky rocketed in 1974.  So sad...but all we can do now is collect some of the memorabilia so we can remember the past.

[rkacruiser]

2 hours ago, CGTNORMANDIE said:

Hi RKA,

While I was digging up the info on LDV I found out the reason why LDV could never be profitable...she was a fuel hog.  Evidently, after she was built, she was deemed a bit unstable in rough seas so they added something like 200 tons of steel in her bottom and that put a drag on her speed and caused her to guzzle fuel.  Her engines did not handle the extra load with fuel efficiency.  They had built her with the intention of converting to nuclear power so I don’t think that they gave too much thought to fuel consumption.  Remember fuel was selling for little money when she was built and then sky rocketed in 1974.  So sad...but all we can do now is collect some of the memorabilia so we can remember the past.

 

Thanks for this information.  Converting her to nuclear power?  That was certainly a leap into the future for that time!  And still is.  LNG seems to be the "wave of the future" now.  If I am still able to cruise, one on the new Carnival Mardi Gras sailings out of Port Canaveral during her inaugural season is something that I would like to do.

[CGTNORMANDIE]

4 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Thanks for this information.  Converting her to nuclear power?  That was certainly a leap into the future for that time!  And still is.  LNG seems to be the "wave of the future" now.  If I am still able to cruise, one on the new Carnival Mardi Gras sailings out of Port Canaveral during her inaugural season is something that I would like to do.

Go for it...life is too short.  I am in “dry dock” for the time being.  I have dialysis three times a week.  Hopefully I will be able to cruise again in 2020...fingers crossed.