Costa Concordia - Why People Died near Muster Station

[De La Cruise]

I don't think the deaths from the Concordia sinking have anything to do with the location (indoor or outdoor) muster stations. In my opinion, the loss of lives is directly attributable to the failure of the captain and top officers to: a) correctly assess the damage and its impact on the seaworthiness of the ship, and b) delay sounding the call to muster stations and the order to abandon ship.

For those who are worried about an inside muster station, remember that the vast majority of emergencies at sea don't require passengers to abandon ship. In fact, most of the time you are safer on the "mother ship," especially if you're far from shore.

I remember reading after the fire on the Star Princess that they didn't want passengers out on the open deck...especially on the side where they were fighting the fire. Every circumstance is different. Ultimately we as passengers have to have faith in the people in charge. In the case of the Concordia, that leadership was sadly absent.

 

At the risk of sounding facetious but with all due respect, I'm the sort who is usually calm in adverse situationsq and "have faith in the people in charge".

 

However, as the Concordia and the 9/11 Twin Towers incidents showed "the people in charge" told people to stay calm and "go back to your cabins" in Concordia's case and "return to your offices" in the 9/11 instance, in an effort to restore calm. I read somewhere on these boards the experience of someone who went for tea and survived the twin towers collapse whilst her 2 colleagues who follwed the instructions to go back to the office perished!

 

So what would you do when you hear a totally incongruous command such as "go back to your cabins"?

 

In my view, it is in the DNA of "the people in charge", in an effort to maintain order and calm, to issue such orders. Could it be a mental state of denial and a refusal to accept that a catastrophe is about to take place that explains Captain Shetinno's inertia and the issuance of such orders that fly against the grain of the grave reality confronting them?

[Stellenbosch]

I agree with the majority of posts...... we will never know exactly what happened during this tragedy and why exactly these poor souls perished. And while the Captain is ultimately responsible, and I do not excuse his behaviour and lack of responsibility in allowing or causing this accident to happen in the first place (and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law), I put this out for consideration; it is a very difficult call to make to abandon ship. The last thing any captian would want is to have 4000 passangers and crew unnecessary out in little boats on the open seas if the ship is not going to sink.....remember it is not the same as when we tender in to a quayside in the protection of a port enviroment. Hence maybe the delay in making the decision to abandon ship, which as luck turned out should possibly have been made earlier. But then hindsight is a marvellous thing. His attempt to get closer to the shore after ripping the hull open did, in my opinion, do much in reducing the final death tally. Ironically I think that he contributed to the sinking or capsizing of the ship by not going to a dead-stop after the incident, and in making a u-turn and moving towards shore, the gash in the ship acted like a scoop and filled the vessel faster. Also, the sharp turn would have taken the ship off an even keel and forced water across to the other side of the ship allowing more water to enter - remember she capsised to the opposit side of the gash.

 

The other point I would like to make is how diificult it would have been to search the entire ship for missing passngers/crew. Presumedly towards the end most of the officers and crew had already been taken off. So was the captian expected to search on his own all 13 decks, maybe 2000 cabins, umpteen public rooms, storage areas, kitchens, ect, ect..... this list is endless. Even if he had 5, 10 20 crew helping him the task would have been impossible. Before I get shot down for 'defending the Captain' I will stress that I am in no way doing that. I am simply trying to put myself in his position and what it must have been like post his gigantic foul-up.

[sylmack]

I agree with the majority of posts...... we will never know exactly what happened during this tragedy and why exactly these poor souls perished. And while the Captain is ultimately responsible, and I do not excuse his behaviour and lack of responsibility in allowing or causing this accident to happen in the first place (and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law), I put this out for consideration; it is a very difficult call to make to abandon ship. The last thing any captian would want is to have 4000 passangers and crew unnecessary out in little boats on the open seas if the ship is not going to sink.....remember it is not the same as when we tender in to a quayside in the protection of a port enviroment. Hence maybe the delay in making the decision to abandon ship, which as luck turned out should possibly have been made earlier. But then hindsight is a marvellous thing. His attempt to get closer to the shore after ripping the hull open did, in my opinion, do much in reducing the final death tally. Ironically I think that he contributed to the sinking or capsizing of the ship by not going to a dead-stop after the incident, and in making a u-turn and moving towards shore, the gash in the ship acted like a scoop and filled the vessel faster. Also, the sharp turn would have taken the ship off an even keel and forced water across to the other side of the ship allowing more water to enter - remember she capsised to the opposit side of the gash.

 

The other point I would like to make is how diificult it would have been to search the entire ship for missing passngers/crew. Presumedly towards the end most of the officers and crew had already been taken off. So was the captian expected to search on his own all 13 decks, maybe 2000 cabins, umpteen public rooms, storage areas, kitchens, ect, ect..... this list is endless. Even if he had 5, 10 20 crew helping him the task would have been impossible. Before I get shot down for 'defending the Captain' I will stress that I am in no way doing that. I am simply trying to put myself in his position and what it must have been like post his gigantic foul-up.

 

I'm not sure, but are there not legal consequences to ordering an 'abandon ship' versus evacuating passengers to a safe area ?

 

I think after the collision, which was the Captain's fault, he or someone else delayed in order to turn the ship around and try to get her into port or ground her where it wouldn't sink entirely. It remains to be seen if it was a wise decision or not. The close sail by that caused the whole disaster of course was not smart at all.

[Cindy]

.

 

How do you reconcile those two statements you made in one breath? :confused:

 

Accept such failure and die peacefully? :confused:

 

At the risk of sounding facetious but with all due respect, I'm the sort who is usually calm in adverse situationsq and "have faith in the people in charge".

 

However, as the Concordia and the 9/11 Twin Towers incidents showed "the people in charge" told people to stay calm and "go back to your cabins" in Concordia's case and "return to your offices" in the 9/11 instance, in an effort to restore calm. I read somewhere on these boards the experience of someone who went for tea and survived the twin towers collapse whilst her 2 colleagues who follwed the instructions to go back to the office perished!

 

So what would you do when you hear a totally incongruous command such as "go back to your cabins"?

 

In my view, it is in the DNA of "the people in charge", in an effort to maintain order and calm, to issue such orders. Could it be a mental state of denial and a refusal to accept that a catastrophe is about to take place that explains Captain Shetinno's inertia and the issuance of such orders that fly against the grain of the grave reality confronting them?

 

Sorry...I probably didn't explain myself very well. First and foremost I think every passenger should be reasonably prepared for an emergency. Know where your muster station and lifeboat are. Familiarize yourself with the ship's layout and exits. Carry vital document copies, cash, a credit card, and a small supply of medication with you. I don't mean this to say we should all walk around paranoid, but I do think it helps to have a plan for what you would do if there was an emergency.

I think people should trust their instincts and not be complacent. I imagine that hearing/feeling a crash, followed by a power failure would have made the hair on the back of my neck stand up! If I was in a public area, I would probably have returned to my cabin just long enough to put on warm and sensible clothes, and then gone to an area close to my muster station. I remember on a cruise in 2008, the ship made a fairly sharp turn for no apparent reason. I sensed the movement immediately. I was on my balcony and couldn't see anything wrong, but I did go inside and gather a few essentials. A couple minutes later the captain came on and explained why we turned and I relaxed my guard. Still, at some point we have to trust our instincts but at the same time listen to those in charge. I know that's an oxymoron, but if nobody listens, then panic and chaos or pushing and shoving could make a bad situation worse.

It seems apparent to me that the delayed action by the leadership on the Concordia failed the passengers and it ultimately cost some their lives...it never should have happened. I hope and pray this incident was the exception, not the rule. If the evacuation had been implemented in a more timely fashion, we might not be having this conversation.:(

There are many hard lessons to be learned from the Concordia disaster. Are the staffs and crews properly prepared for an actual emergency? Do the cruise lines really know how their employees will perform in a life or death situation? Are muster drills adequate to prepare passengers? What are the contingency plans when boats can't be launched? What are the plans for passengers with mobility issues? Is the staff/passenger ratio sufficient? Are passengers too complacent and too trusting? What about language barriers? Finally, I wonder how big is too big? How many is too many? I've been on the Splendor (sister ship to the Concordia), and I have a hard time imagining getting that many people off the ship in a very short time span. My hope is that although it's hard to fathom today with a ship laying broken on the Italian coast, this incident will ultimately make cruising safer.

[Cindy]

I'm not sure, but are there not legal consequences to ordering an 'abandon ship' versus evacuating passengers to a safe area ?

 

I think after the collision, which was the Captain's fault, he or someone else delayed in order to turn the ship around and try to get her into port or ground her where it wouldn't sink entirely. It remains to be seen if it was a wise decision or not. The close sail by that caused the whole disaster of course was not smart at all.

 

I think I read there are financial implications to an "abandon ship" order, but I'm not sure exactly what that means. I read something along the lines of abandonig ship results in the owners losing control of the ship. Maybe someone more knowledgable in maritime law could chime in on this. I hate the thought that lives could have been lost because of financial reasons, and I hope that proves not to be the case.

[at_nyc]

Ironically I think that he contributed to the sinking or capsizing of the ship by not going to a dead-stop after the incident

What's the largest ship you've ever captain?

 

Seems you've entirely forgotten this ship weights 50,000 ton and displays 100,000 ton of water! It takes AGES (several MILES) to stop, then even longer to get started in the reverse direction!!!

 

Ships are not cars. They don't stop nor turn on a dime. In fact, ships are very difficult to control at low speed. So keeping the speed up and use it to maintain control and make the U-turn, are probably a far better strategy.

 

 

The other point I would like to make is how diificult it would have been to search the entire ship for missing passngers/crew. Presumedly towards the end most of the officers and crew had already been taken off. So was the captian expected to search on his own all 13 decks, maybe 2000 cabins, umpteen public rooms, storage areas, kitchens, ect, ect..... this list is endless. Even if he had 5, 10 20 crew helping him the task would have been impossible.

The thing is, the captain have nearly a thousand crew to help him make the ship a working unit!

 

Sure, some of them are just cooks and entertainers. But his LEADERSHIP is what's expected of him, to organize his crew to do task he can't personally accomplish.

 

MOST of the officers (to a lessor extent crews, since some of them would presumably be driving the lifeboats) should NOT had been off the ship BEFORE most of the passengers. And if the abandon ship was done in an organized fashion, they would have had a better idea of how many people got off and how many remained.

 

The fact many of the dead are near muster station. It wouldn't have had required the captain to go searching for them. The officer/crew directing at those muster station would have known.

 

But, alas, the captain and most of the officers are long gone. And probably no crews were near some the muster station.

[the wombat]

To the original question of how most of the sadly deceased were found near muster stations, and appeared to have been fully prepared for the ensuing evacuation, I point you all to an incident where an airliner caught fire shortly after landing. Most of the dead were found piled up within two or three rows of the exit doors. Similar situation?

 

In a panic, particularly where fire or flood is concerned, people try to run away- and in their panic, they seem to create a situation where they all try jam themselves through the same hole at once, and think that their survival out of necessity means the non-survival of others. The old "every man for themselves" call.

 

Airline cabin crew are specifically trained in how to facilitate the safe and swift evacuation of an aircraft cabin- indeed, their role of throwing the odd plate of food at passengers here and there is the least of the responsibilities of the job. What training do waiters/bar staff etc on cruise ships get in regards to evacuation/emergency response other than to put their pretty hats and life jackets on and stand around directing passengers to muster points at pre-departure muster drills? I would be very interested to find out.

[De La Cruise]

Sorry...I probably didn't explain myself very well. First and foremost I think every passenger should be reasonably prepared for an emergency. Know where your muster station and lifeboat are. Familiarize yourself with the ship's layout and exits. Carry vital document copies, cash, a credit card, and a small supply of medication with you. I don't mean this to say we should all walk around paranoid, but I do think it helps to have a plan for what you would do if there was an emergency.

 

I think people should trust their instincts and not be complacent. I imagine that hearing/feeling a crash, followed by a power failure would have made the hair on the back of my neck stand up! If I was in a public area, I would probably have returned to my cabin just long enough to put on warm and sensible clothes, and then gone to an area close to my muster station. I remember on a cruise in 2008, the ship made a fairly sharp turn for no apparent reason. I sensed the movement immediately. I was on my balcony and couldn't see anything wrong, but I did go inside and gather a few essentials. A couple minutes later the captain came on and explained why we turned and I relaxed my guard. Still, at some point we have to trust our instincts but at the same time listen to those in charge. I know that's an oxymoron, but if nobody listens, then panic and chaos or pushing and shoving could make a bad situation worse.

 

It seems apparent to me that the delayed action by the leadership on the Concordia failed the passengers and it ultimately cost some their lives...it never should have happened. I hope and pray this incident was the exception, not the rule. If the evacuation had been implemented in a more timely fashion, we might not be having this conversation.:(

 

There are many hard lessons to be learned from the Concordia disaster. Are the staffs and crews properly prepared for an actual emergency? Do the cruise lines really know how their employees will perform in a life or death situation? Are muster drills adequate to prepare passengers? What are the contingency plans when boats can't be launched? What are the plans for passengers with mobility issues? Is the staff/passenger ratio sufficient? Are passengers too complacent and too trusting? What about language barriers? Finally, I wonder how big is too big? How many is too many? I've been on the Splendor (sister ship to the Concordia), and I have a hard time imagining getting that many people off the ship in a very short time span. My hope is that although it's hard to fathom today with a ship laying broken on the Italian coast, this incident will ultimately make cruising safer.

 

So Cindy, what would you do if you hear an obviously in congruent announcement telling you that "everything is under control" and that you should "go back to your cabins" or "go back to your offices" as the case may be? What would you do? Follow your instincts or follow the instructions as per the announcement? These are not hypothetical but real life situations as illustrated by the directives issued in the Concordia and 9/11 incidences. In both instances, the commands turned out to be ill conceived with deadly consequences!

 

Sure, panic is counter-productive, but the poster on the 9/11 situation didn't panic. She just decided to follow her instincts and calmly go for tea ignoring the directive as a result of which she lived to tell the tale, whilst her 2 colleagues who went back to their offices as entreated perished when the towers collapsed.

 

Finally, is it in the DNA or at least the product of their training that induces this inclination of "people in charge" to prioritize order and to encourage staying calm over all things else? Does this result in these patently incongruous orders being issued in dire situations such as these? Was the inertia of Captain Shettino caused by a state of denial and a refusal to accept that a catastrophe was imminent?

[Mercury]

What everyone sees in the pictures is that the topside lifeboats couldn't be launched after it listed past a certain angle. The davits do not reach out far enough.

 

Also consider that the remaining lower side lifeboats also couldn't be launched either after the water level was up to the rail/deck level on the low side.

 

 

This is what I also read. Yet there is a member (Sitari) on another thread (the one with John Heald's blog) stating that 23 of the 26 lifeboats were launched. :confused:

[reallyitsmema]

This is what I also read. Yet there is a member (Sitari) on another thread (the one with John Heald's blog) stating that 23 of the 26 lifeboats were launched. :confused:

There are many pictures that you can find that show 23 of 26 lifeboats were launched. All the lifeboats on the starboard side of the ship were launched.

 

Edit to add link to starboard side pictures.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091752/Costa-Concordia-accident-Rich-Russians-bribed-way-lifeboats.html

[iceleven]

I'm not sure, but are there not legal consequences to ordering an 'abandon ship' versus evacuating passengers to a safe area ?

 

I think after the collision, which was the Captain's fault, he or someone else delayed in order to turn the ship around and try to get her into port or ground her where it wouldn't sink entirely. It remains to be seen if it was a wise decision or not. The close sail by that caused the whole disaster of course was not smart at all.

 

All good points being shared here. Forgive me if this has been mentioned before but the ship was cruising at 15 knots when it hit the rock. I believe (and is only my opinion) that the ship could not stop any quicker than it did and it would require a continued momentum to turn the ship around and bring it back to port. Again, I believe the ship had lost some (all?) power. I believe Concordia pretty much coasted in to the spot the captain was guiding her.

 

I agree with the assumption how the water was "scooped" into the ship with the maneuver of turning the ship around. I wonder if she had been turned to the port side if she would have taken even more water.

 

Not trying to give the captain undue credit, but I think this particular maneuver will eventually be accepted as a wise decision. He is a failure as a human being but I suspect he was well-qualified to captain the ship. He failed miserably with all other aspects of his post.

[Stellenbosch]

What's the largest ship you've ever captain?

 

Seems you've entirely forgotten this ship weights 50,000 ton and displays 100,000 ton of water! It takes AGES (several MILES) to stop, then even longer to get started in the reverse direction!!!

 

Ships are not cars. They don't stop nor turn on a dime. In fact, ships are very difficult to control at low speed. So keeping the speed up and use it to maintain control and make the U-turn, are probably a far better strategy.

 

 

The thing is, the captain have nearly a thousand crew to help him make the ship a working unit!

 

Sure, some of them are just cooks and entertainers. But his LEADERSHIP is what's expected of him, to organize his crew to do task he can't personally accomplish.

 

MOST of the officers (to a lessor extent crews, since some of them would presumably be driving the lifeboats) should NOT had been off the ship BEFORE most of the passengers. And if the abandon ship was done in an organized fashion, they would have had a better idea of how many people got off and how many remained.

 

The fact many of the dead are near muster station. It wouldn't have had required the captain to go searching for them. The officer/crew directing at those muster station would have known.

 

But, alas, the captain and most of the officers are long gone. And probably no crews were near some the muster station.

Since when has this become personal?? Also, some facts maybe need to be checked up on before shouting the odds ..... a modern cruise ship, which the Condordia certainly was, will stop within a few ship-lengths travelling at 20knots..... they simply swivel the pod propulsion 180deg - do some research. This is a regular part of their sea-trials before going into service.

[reallyitsmema]

Since when has this become personal?? Also, some facts maybe need to be checked up on before shouting the odds ..... a modern cruise ship, which the Condordia certainly was, will stop within a few ship-lengths travelling at 20knots..... they simply swivel the pod propulsion 180deg - do some research. This is a regular part of their sea-trials before going into service.

That would only work if they actually had azipods, which Concordia does not.

[at_nyc]

Since when has this become personal?? Also, some facts maybe need to be checked up on before shouting the odds ..... a modern cruise ship, which the Condordia certainly was, will stop within a few ship-lengths travelling at 20knots..... they simply swivel the pod propulsion 180deg - do some research. This is a regular part of their sea-trials before going into service.

So you've done the "research"? Post the link then!

[fishin' musician]

I've not seen any mention on this thread the possibility that heart attacks may be responsible for some of the deaths.

[shortyp333]

On all the cruises I have been on, the muster stations have all been outside on deck. Do you mean that sometimes they are inside closed rooms? I haven't been on as many cruises as many of you and not lately but this does not seem right. I haven't been lately on CC and couldn't remember my CC name so even though this looks like my first post it isn't. It's been a long time but I seem to be getting in the mood to cruise again but it looks like safety awareness will be foremost in my mind when and if I cruise again. Lack of money might stop me but not being more cautious.

 

I've been on about 7 cruises and only once was it outside. All the other times it was a lounge area or hallway. I never really thought about that till this accident.

 

I do know that I will NEVER book another cabin on the lower decks again. I'm terribly claustrophobic and I know that I won't be able to sleep. We have a balcony booked for our Nov 4 eleven- night cruise, thank goodness!

[marilynbn]

Yep! That makes perfect sense to me.

 

Have to admit I couldn't understand the logic in mustering in enclosed space. I mean, at least it should be on an open deck so if the ship sinks, SOME of them will be washed away. And with life jacket on, may even survive!

 

I think NCL does a better job with this. On all of my NCL sailings our muster stations were outside on life boat decks etc. All of my Princess sailings have been inside. I always thought that was odd to gather in a theater or lounge.

 

Believe me if the ship I were on started shifting in some odd position I would head out to an open deck to get the hell out of there and not to a panic filled muster station that was located deep inside the ship somewhere. Instinct will tell you to find your way out fast if the ship is sinking or listing quickly.

 

I have 3 upcoming cruises on Princess, I hope they re think the muster drill locations.

 

~Marilyn

[maxsales]

.

How do you reconcile those two statements you made in one breath? :confused:

 

Accept such failure and die peacefully? :confused:

 

I think the point is when taking any transport operated by others, be it bus train, plane, cruise ship, or even your neighbors car, you place your faith in the operator.

 

Unfortunately in the case of the concordia that faith was misplaced and grave operator error occurred.

[uksimonusa]

I think NCL does a better job with this. On all of my NCL sailings our muster stations were outside on life boat decks etc. All of my Princess sailings have been inside. I always thought that was odd to gather in a theater or lounge.

 

Believe me if the ship I were on started shifting in some odd position I would head out to an open deck to get the hell out of there and not to a panic filled muster station that was located deep inside the ship somewhere. Instinct will tell you to find your way out fast if the ship is sinking or listing quickly.

 

I have 3 upcoming cruises on Princess, I hope they re think the muster drill locations.

 

~Marilyn

 

A muster station is not a place where you abandon ship, it is a place to gather in an emergency and receive instructions from a crew member, you may muster and never have to abandon ship, such as the Princess Fire, and you may be at you muster station for hours and then never get off the ship.

 

IMHO a muster station in a lounge or dining room, that has exits to the embarkation deck, is the better option. This leaves the embarkation deck clear for the crew to ready the lifeboats, if they are going to be needed, without passenger interuption. You also don't know, until it happens, which lifeboat you will be assigned to, the order to abandonship will be done by muster station, and that order, along with the lifeboat you are assigned to, will be dictated by the nature and location of the emergency situation, and should be communicated to the crew by the captain once he gives the AS order

[maxsales]

Since when has this become personal?? Also, some facts maybe need to be checked up on before shouting the odds ..... a modern cruise ship, which the Condordia certainly was, will stop within a few ship-lengths travelling at 20knots..... they simply swivel the pod propulsion 180deg - do some research. This is a regular part of their sea-trials before going into service.

 

That only works if you still have power. Apparently the Concordia didn't after the collision.

[uksimonusa]

Since when has this become personal?? Also, some facts maybe need to be checked up on before shouting the odds ..... a modern cruise ship, which the Condordia certainly was, will stop within a few ship-lengths travelling at 20knots..... they simply swivel the pod propulsion 180deg - do some research. This is a regular part of their sea-trials before going into service.

 

Guess you need to do the research first, the Concordia is propelled by direct drive propellor, which needs an engine to be running to drive it. Azipods are electrically driven, needing the engines to be running to produce electricity. With engines out of service, the only way to slow the ship is to let it gradually lose it's inertia through friction with the water, OR turn the vessel, so the inertia makes it travel sideways, giving a greater friction surface and a quicker loss of inertia.

[Milaandra]

I think NCL does a better job with this. On all of my NCL sailings our muster stations were outside on life boat decks etc.

 

I was on the Dawn twice, and once the muster was in the hallway outside of LeBistro and the other time it was in the Italian restaurant.

[Milaandra]

I was on the Dawn twice, and once the muster was in the hallway outside of LeBistro and the other time it was in the Italian restaurant.

 

In fact, the only time I've been outside for muster was on the Carnival ship, and I had a hard time hearing anything because of the location.

[jules1121]

A muster station is not a place where you abandon ship, it is a place to gather in an emergency and receive instructions from a crew member, .......IMHO a muster station in a lounge or dining room, that has exits to the embarkation deck, is the better option. This leaves the embarkation deck clear for the crew to ready the lifeboats, if they are going to be needed, without passenger interuption. You also don't know, until it happens, which lifeboat you will be assigned to, the order to abandonship will be done by muster station, and that order, along with the lifeboat you are assigned to, will be dictated by the nature and location of the emergency situation, and should be communicated to the crew by the captain once he gives the AS order

 

Excellant points above!

 

In fact, the only time I've been outside for muster was on the Carnival ship, and I had a hard time hearing anything because of the location.

 

Also a very good point and I have found this to be true also.

[at_nyc]

Guess you need to do the research first, the Concordia is propelled by direct drive propellor, which needs an engine to be running to drive it. Azipods are electrically driven, needing the engines to be running to produce electricity. With engines out of service, the only way to slow the ship is to let it gradually lose it's inertia through friction with the water, OR turn the vessel, so the inertia makes it travel sideways, giving a greater friction surface and a quicker loss of inertia.

Exactly!

 

As the saying goes "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous".