Question regarding abandoning ship

[mjldvlks]

Originally Posted by Pomperaugrr

Don't forget, the official investigation showed that the Concordia had lost propulsion and was pushed back to shore by wind and currents. It was not intentionally grounded, as there was no propulsion.

Eric

To me this is one of the biggest indictments of the Captain. Right afterward, he [and some others] were saying his actions after the collision with the rock saved lives. However, it has now become clear that the grounding was just a fluke of the wind and currents.

[JAMESCC]

Originally Posted by Drunkard of the Seas

meant to say that. he mishandled his mistake and ignored the severity of the situation. if it hadnt been for the ship drifting toward shore this wouldve easily been another titanic.
-Roger

You got the right. Luckily the wind pushed the ship toward the shore, toward shallow water or that ship would be at the bottom of the ocean and god only knows how many dead.
Also you are correct that dopey captain 100% to blame for that disaster, He should have put everyone in lifeboats immediately and everyone would have been saved. He waited too long, and the ship listed too far for some of the lifeboats to launch. It is a textbook in what NOT to do in an emergency.
Also I gave him 100% of the blame, but in reality in my opinion the cruise line is also at fault to a degree. There must have been signs this dope could not handle an emergency situation. Psychological tests, and just knowing who the guy really is would have told you that. That is just my opinion though.

[tahqa]

Originally Posted by Drunkard of the Seas

if im not mistaken his biggest mistake besides being a hot dog and running the ship into a rock was waiting to order the abandon ship and NOT callng for help while the ship continued to list. also there was no propulsion moving the ship, if it wasnt for them drifting toward land and grounding they wouldve sank at sea and made it a much bigger catastrophe.
-Roger

Originally Posted by Drunkard of the Seas

meant to say that. he mishandled his mistake and ignored the severity of the situation. if it hadnt been for the ship drifting toward shore this wouldve easily been another titanic.
-Roger

Funny thing is I read your post and actually saw it as you intended. I didn't even see the missing "NOT" until you fixed it.


Anyways, you are entirely correct in that the Capt mishandled the situation and ignored the severity. The ship was drifting and completely at the will of the seas and weather and he was still telling authorities on Giglio that everything was fine.


Would it have been another Titanic if it hadn't drifted towards shore? In my opinion, probably not. They had plenty of lifeboat and rafts and time to evacuate. Would it have been worse than it was? Maybe. It's hard to say. Accidents like this require a person with a level head and firm authority directing operations and it appears that there is no way this was going to happen on the Concordia.

[wscott52]

Originally Posted by tahqa

This is correct. If the captain had followed proper procedure and stopped the ship while out at sea to lower the liferafts there probably would have been fewer issues. However, he apparently figured he could save the ship and his a** by bringing it back in to shore and grounding it.

Despite his claims the Captain had nothing to do with bringing it to shore. The ship lost power almost immediately and drifted to shore. What the Captain did was cause the collision after wining and dining Ms. Cemortan, compound the problem by waiting far too long to abandon ship, and disgracing himself by deserting the ship while passengers and crew were still onboard.

I was only a yacht captain and never had to face a boat going under but I would have never left the boat while passengers and crew were still onboard. Further I would not hesitate to call anyone who did a cowardly POS to their face. Any captain I have known personally would do the same.

[cruiser-007]

I'd be fairly confident in the lifeboat situation, that being said- PLEASE! everybody make sure you know where your pfd's are and for fun just put them on when you get to your cabin. In the case you would have to jump overboard, you'd be glad you had it on. They have strobe lights so you can be found.

[katerkat]

Originally Posted by sandravb79

Doing muster drill, where you know it's just a drill and you know exactly when it will be and the whole family is together, is one thing.
Now, if whole family is spread over the ship and you are scared because of whatever is going on and you don't have your kids near you and who knows what is going on and what will happen, I think (no, I'm sure) there will be panick.

In theory, I know that the staff is trained to bring my kid from AO to our muster station. In practice? The heck with that, I'm finding my kid/causing panic/having a mental breakdown until we're all together.

I will sit his skinny butt on my lap on the lifeboat, though, so there's more room for the rest of you.

[3dog]

Originally Posted by cruiser-007

I'd be fairly confident in the lifeboat situation, that being said- PLEASE! everybody make sure you know where your pfd's are and for fun just put them on when you get to your cabin. In the case you would have to jump overboard, you'd be glad you had it on. They have strobe lights so you can be found.

And they can give you a "proper" burial.

[JAMESCC]

Originally Posted by tahqa

Funny thing is I read your post and actually saw it as you intended. I didn't even see the missing "NOT" until you fixed it.


Anyways, you are entirely correct in that the Capt mishandled the situation and ignored the severity. The ship was drifting and completely at the will of the seas and weather and he was still telling authorities on Giglio that everything was fine.


Would it have been another Titanic if it hadn't drifted towards shore? In my opinion, probably not. They had plenty of lifeboat and rafts and time to evacuate. Would it have been worse than it was? Maybe. It's hard to say. Accidents like this require a person with a level head and firm authority directing operations and it appears that there is no way this was going to happen on the Concordia.

If the ship had drifted or been pushed away from shore it could have been Titanic in terms of loss of life. He said that in his post, he is correct.

[ggo85]

By law, a ship must have sufficient lifeboats to accommodate all passengers and crew. There can be an issue if all lifeboats cannot be launched. This can happen if the ship is listing severely or (as happened on one of our cruises), lifeboats are torn away from their moorings.

If only a small number of lifeboats are unavailable, there is likely sufficient room on the remaining boats. This is what happened in our case -- people assigned to the 2 lifeboats that were torn away were redirected to other lifeboats.

If too many boats are damaged or unavailable, they would use life rafts. Those are the canisters you see along the deck. Not nearly as desirable as a lifeboat but they do float and are better than being along in the water.

Women and children first would likely be the policy if there was an orderly evacuation. Concordia was anything but. With the ship listing heavily, lack of notice to passengers, etc., it turned into a frenzy. Without the crew to mandate /oversee an orderly process, it does become a free-for-all.

[nolimits]

Women and children first follow me LOL