Concordia News: Please Post Here

 

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.

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.

Sorry I will not contribute to the other thread.

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.

"You did'nt say that, but you seem to be in the camp that thinks it's not Schettinos fault"

Max ... Maybe you came to the discussion late and that would explain why you do not know that i am in the wait until all the evidence is produced camp along with some of the others! :)

she seems to be trying to protect is Schettino. That's why I think she is either a lover, a family member, very good friend or a paid professional on his legal defense team.

Ha Ha so funny ....

Is'nt the captain held responsible for the safety of the ship? Can corporate office order him to do anything unsafe?

At my work, we have rules as to how to do a job safe. This often makes the job more difficult and taks 10X longer. Of course, the bosses don't want to say it's ok, they don't want to know how we did it, we often do it the easy way and get it done much faster. We are not risking anyone but ourselves but if we would get hurt, the bosses would say we were not doing it according to policy; but we are not risking others.

I appreciate Captains that want to make our cruise more interesting and take us closer to interesting sights. I think the cruise lines know this also. I also believe most of us always thought the captain and crew were professionals who knew exactly what they were doing and certainly would not risk all these passengers and the billion dollar ship they were responsible for. I never realized these huge, luxurious ships could have captains who were just taking a chance. I've never heard of this happening just because of a "Sail By". Has any one else?

Unfortunately, if you like sail bys, they may be over for a little while because Concordia pushed it beyond the limits and I'd think the cruise lines and captains would think 'this is not a good time to take any chances.

Does any one think Costa ordered Concordia to sail so close to Giglio in January at 9:30PM or so without even announcing to the passengers to "check Giglio out" through the window?

Assuming not, I guess Costa could be held responsible because they trusted, hired and promoted Schettino to captain.

I don't believe it was a factor at all but some have said the Concordia had some electrical issues, maybe other problems before the crash into the rocks. If this is true , I'm sure the capt. would have known about them. If they were any factor at all, it was an even dumber move to decide to do a daring sail by at night with a ship that had problems.

I mean, come on, does any one think Schettino was directed to zoom in there real close to Giglio at dark; and for what reason? the passengers did'nt even know they were close to land, did they? Was it announced?

 

I am such a rookie at this as compared to so many of you here. I get so envious when I see all the cruises you've been on and have booked for the future. I see former captains posting here.

 

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" ?

Max

What's wrong with you? The times are a changing. Don't you know that in the modern world: No One Is Respsonsible For Anything. It's always someone else's fault. It started with politicians and wormed it's way thru all levels of society. Get with it..........;)

On a serious note, the CostaSmurfetteS are partially correct. As I've been saying from the very beginning, (including the now closed threads) the Captain is responsible criminally, civilly, and in public opinion.

Costa Cruise Lines is responsible civilly and in public opinion. In addition, the Cruise Line AND Executive Officers may be liable criminally IF they "knew or should have known" (you can't close your eyes and ears) of unsafe procedures being followed (e.g. close to shore salutes, etc.) and approved them or condoned them (by silence, etc)

The last scenario is even more likely in Napoleonic Code countries since they blur the line between criminal and civil law more than Common Law nations.

PS

I will be referring to CostaSmurfetteS in the future in the Plural to reply to the multiple personalitIES or personS who write the posts. Have you noticed how often The SmurfetteS "Reply" to "their own" posts..................LOL

As an aside and something to think about in regard to Costa being complicit in this accident, what if Costa knowing that there were serious ongoing faults with Concordia ie Electrical, Data recorders etc which made repairs too expensive had made a decision to lose the ship? they knew or ordered Concordia to go via Giglio and they knew that they had the chance to rid themselves of what they saw as a Rogue Captain! (their words not mine) the passengers merely pawns in their madness and the Media would jump all over Schettino once Costa distanced themselves from him.

Schettino maybe from the photo regarding his demeanour knew there could be a problem but had been ordered to follow the route by his superiors, he has two choices follow orders or risk losing his job by ignoring them! he chooses to do as ordered and hopes to get by Giglio without incident.

Now then while the above may not be true do any of us really know? after all shipping companies have been known in the past to sink ships in order to claim insurance on vessels that have become to expensive to run or repair!

Max ... With regard to your post re doing things in the right way here is a poser for you, being bound by Health and Safety legislation, trained to search and rescue people correctly you are part of a 2 person Breathing Apparatus team (political correctness you know) you are sent to find missing persons in a building that you have no idea of the layout and is smoke filled with an ongoing fire situation.

The maximum distance you are allowed from your partner is 20 feet connected by a safety line, at maximum reach you can manage maybe another two feet by outstretching you leg! you realise that there what appears to be an unconcious person and you now have to decide on your action?

Do you leave the person and inform the controller outside where the person is or do you go against all the training and Health and Safety regulations and unclip from your partner and bring the person closer not knowing if you are rescuing a dead body? now then if all goes right you are a hero but should you die or become trapped due to your actions then you are the fall guy! there is a very fine line between Right and Wrong and Employers will distance themselves from it when it goes wrong.

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.

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.

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.

As an aside and something to think about in regard to Costa being complicit in this accident, what if Costa knowing that there were serious ongoing faults with Concordia ie Electrical, Data recorders etc which made repairs too expensive had made a decision to lose the ship? they knew or ordered Concordia to go via Giglio and they knew that they had the chance to rid themselves of what they saw as a Rogue Captain! (their words not mine) the passengers merely pawns in their madness and the Media would jump all over Schettino once Costa distanced themselves from him.

 

Schettino maybe from the photo regarding his demeanour knew there could be a problem but had been ordered to follow the route by his superiors, he has two choices follow orders or risk losing his job by ignoring them! he chooses to do as ordered and hopes to get by Giglio without incident.

Now then while the above may not be true do any of us really know? after all shipping companies have been known in the past to sink ships in order to claim insurance on vessels that have become to expensive to run or repair!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PS

Regarding your comment:

The Captain, as Master of the Vessel, is legally held accountable and responsible for mistakes of judgement, including the mistakes of a "Pilot"..... Well, Duh ??

"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.

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?

"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?

"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.

And that's where you and I differ completely.

It's my considered legal opinion that I'd have a 95% certainty (there are no 100% in law) of getting a judge, jury and appellate court to agree that leaving the usual and customary navigation course to the next port of call in order to do a night time sail by salute to people on shore was an act of gross negligence as evidenced by the results. Just because sail bys had been completed safely before doesn't render them safe. A pilot is not permitted to do a fly by with a wing wag, even if it has been completed prevsiouly without incident, because it increases the danger. The law asks the question: does this act increase the risk harm for a reasons unrelated to the safe conduct of the sailing?

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 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:

Or better yet, as a young up and coming lawyer, I re-met a young woman I'd dated in high school. She'd become an actress and had been playing the role of a lawyer on a major TV soap opera. She told me: "Isn't that amazing. We have so much in common". Duh ??

Oh, did I mention, she was shocked when I told her I never watched her soap opera show? ... LOL

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.

Clive, I see the barge is up against the ship and their part in thie work is started.

I noticed that not much is going on around the funnel. Wondering if they've gone as far as they intended with removal.

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

On 14 August 2011, the ship had taken a similar sail-past route, but not as close to Le Scole. The 14 August sail-past was approved by Costa Cruises and was done in daylight during an island festival. The normal shipping route passes about 5 miles (8.0 km) offshore.

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

According to the presentation given by the Italian Maritime Investigative Body on Marine Accidents in London on 18th May, the quote above is incorrect. Captain Schettino took the con well before the severity of the situation was understood. He took the con before the situation had developed.

 

From that presentation:

 

At 2137, Captain Schettino had the con. The presentation doesn't state at which time Captain Schettion took the con, but it does state that at 2137 he did have the con. At this stage it doesn't matter if he physically has the helm; he is responsible for the ship's course and will issue order to the ship's helmsman.

 

At 2145 the collision took place. By this time Captain Schettino had the con for at least 7 to 8 minutes before the collision; that is plenty of time to realise he is on a collision course (by looking at the electronic navigation chart) and make an avoiding turn.

 

VP

Yes, I do remember reading that somewhere. Thanks for posting it. Here again, the captain was caught telling a bold-face lie. He said in the television interview that he was not in command, when in fact he was. One more definition of the meaning of "pulling a Schettino".

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.

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:

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

Hi Micki

Isnt it so frustrating that we cant see what they are doing on the port side??

I read recently that there is 100+ staff working there and this will go up to 360 when Micoperi arrives.

The loss of Last Salute foils us knowing whats happening with the funnel. They have removed the black top section but I cant see whether they have removed all the different "exhausts" inside the funnel. You could be right that if the is only the funnel shell it might not be worth the effort of removing it.

I presume that pontoon on the left of the picture is working on the structures to tie the ship to to stop it sliding into deeper water and Micopiri will initially construct the underwater platform they hope to roll her onto and then work on all the floatation tanks on the port side.

Just puzzles me slightly that the timetable seems to have the righting of the ship in January/ February when the weather will be at its worse.

Cheers

Clive

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.