Concordia News: Please Post Here

[mickey_d_mouse]

Just on your query re personal belongings, the only thing we have been told we will get back is that which is in the safe. I don't know if these are waterproof as my cabin was a blacony on the down side of deck 6. I think the only thing I have in mine is 3 money pouches with cash and now cancelled credit cards, the computer may also be in there but I am unsure.

 

PS If Australian medicare get there act together I may have my compensation from Costa by the middle of September ( fingers crossed)

[BlackHawk1]

I don't see that as a likely option either, given the timing of the removal and the cost involved. They will be welding caissons for buoyancy onto both sides of the ships which will may also make them unusable as well.

 

 

When doing any welding, the other side should be exposed down to the steel, so that there is no chance of starting a fire from the heat of the welding. So with that I would assume that they may do a lot of damage to the inside panels to accomplish that. Other than that, they may be able to just soak it down on the inside, but any burnable material will have to be soaked well.

Regards

[SomeBeach]

Just on your query re personal belongings, the only thing we have been told we will get back is that which is in the safe. I don't know if these are waterproof as my cabin was a blacony on the down side of deck 6. I think the only thing I have in mine is 3 money pouches with cash and now cancelled credit cards, the computer may also be in there but I am unsure.

 

PS If Australian medicare get there act together I may have my compensation from Costa by the middle of September ( fingers crossed)

 

Hi Mickey_d.

Hope you are starting to recover some for that horrible night. Always wishing for the best for you and your family.

Did you ever get to do a walk on to a ship in your area?

Let's hope the act comes together.

[sidari]

"delaying the abandon ship order"

SB ... I too have to wonder why it took so long? but again looking at how other things were going on you have to consider if they were waiting for the ship to come to a stop.

I have no idea of the depth of water at the inlet to the harbour and maybe they were trying to put the bow in there, but purely a guess on my part.

 

Strange about the link?

Edited August 15, 2012 by sidari

[clive and anne]

Hi Michelle

How lovely to hear from you.

Hope the recovery is still going well and the same for your Husband and Daughter.

I do so hope the whole situation for you will be sorted without delay.

 

Very Best Wishes

 

Clive

[clive and anne]

It looks like the crane which removed the rock from the port side has now moved round and has possibly removed the glass roof panel from over the swimming pool.

Could the funnel be next?

[SomeBeach]

"delaying the abandon ship order"

 

SB ... I too have to wonder why it took so long? but again looking at how other things were going on you have to consider if they were waiting for the ship to come to a stop.

 

I have no idea of the depth of water at the inlet to the harbour and maybe they were trying to put the bow in there, but purely a guess on my part.

 

Strange about the link?

 

Sidari, you are in the area I was thinking but could not look back to as far as depth, etc. Where Concordi came close in Aug, which was to the left in the picture, the other was on the right if I'm recalling correctly. There is also angle of approach and speed to take into consideration.

While the Captain may have been waiting for the ship to stop, he wasn't exactly getting the passengers prepared to abandon. Telling crew to have them return to their staterooms was just plain stupid, IMHO. I believe that just caused more panic.

There is also the lying to the CG. Once they were informed, it was another 30 to 45 minutes before they could activate and arrive on scene.

Almost anything we come up with is purely a guess as we don't have access to every piece of info investigators have access to. We're getting info in a series of bits and pieces.

I found the link thing strange too. Had no issue the first time I went there. When the warning came up the second time, I wasn't going to risk it.

[cruiserfanfromct]

From Italy's La Repubblica (not a tabloid paper) -- same article published in other reputable Italian papers (Corriere De La Sera) as well as others. Apparently Schettino called Kevin Rebello, the brother of the Indian waiter, Russel Rebello, who died in the incident, to apologize and to let him know that he was not the only one at fault. Schettino apparently also offered an explanation for his inaction to Kevin by telling him that he sat on the rocks staring at the ship as it was sinking because he did not know what to do. The conversation lasted about 45 minutes and the interview carried in Italy's TG1 television channel. Will see if there is a video of the interview out there.

 

"I was there on the rock - the commander told him - I was watching the ship, I did not know what to do."

 

Guess he left the emergency instruction manual in the ship he abandoned.

 

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/12_agosto_14/concordia-schettino-chiama-fratello-vittima-naufragio_310d23c4-e64c-11e1-aa1f-b3596ab6a873.shtml

 

http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/08/14/news/schettino_chiama_fratello_di_una_vittima_ha_detto_non_sono_l_unico_colpevole-40966839/

 

 

 

Tribute to Russel Rebello, from his brother, Kevin Rebello:

 

Edited August 15, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[Uniall]

I wanted to go back to CT's link but this time my puter said no way. Closed down the link to "protect my computer" was the message.

 

Without double checking what I wanted to comment on, I can't respond to your post in the way I wanted to.

I will say that more plays into this than just maps; skill, speed, knowing exactly where your ship is are just some of the other things to be added in.

Then there is that little matter <sarcasm> of delaying the abandon ship order, among a few other issues I have with him.

 

"delaying the abandon ship order"

 

SB ... I too have to wonder why it took so long? but again looking at how other things were going on you have to consider if they were waiting for the ship to come to a stop.

 

I have no idea of the depth of water at the inlet to the harbour and maybe they were trying to put the bow in there, but purely a guess on my part.

 

Strange about the link?

 

Sidari, you are in the area I was thinking but could not look back to as far as depth, etc. Where Concordi came close in Aug, which was to the left in the picture, the other was on the right if I'm recalling correctly. There is also angle of approach and speed to take into consideration.

While the Captain may have been waiting for the ship to stop, he wasn't exactly getting the passengers prepared to abandon. Telling crew to have them return to their staterooms was just plain stupid, IMHO. I believe that just caused more panic.

There is also the lying to the CG. Once they were informed, it was another 30 to 45 minutes before they could activate and arrive on scene.

 

Almost anything we come up with is purely a guess as we don't have access to every piece of info investigators have access to. We're getting info in a series of bits and pieces.

 

I found the link thing strange too. Had no issue the first time I went there. When the warning came up the second time, I wasn't going to risk it.

 

 

One possibility that could have caused your computer to access the "link" without problems the first time but warning you off the second time could be the "link" had been attacked by evil doing hackers between your visits and they left behind their calling card.

 

I wanted to mention that sometimes the "lack" of evidence is legally sufficient "evidence" that something did not occur or creates a presumption that there's a cover up of what did occur, shifting the burden of proving otherwise to the defendant. This situation usually arises in business or commercial or medical settings where records of events are (or should) be kept of all activities.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Uniall

[Ken711]

It looks like the crane which removed the rock from the port side has now moved round and has possibly removed the glass roof panel from over the swimming pool.

Could the funnel be next?

 

Last photos I looked at only showed one panel on the swimming roof left in place, which still appears the case. They could be working on the remaining part of the funnel, but also the removal schedule for August called for stabilization work to take place, and it may be related to that.

[clive and anne]

Hi Ken

I think your right, when I looked earlier I couldnt see the remaiming glass roof panel but now I see it . Think the crane itself might have been hiding it.

Sidari

Apologies for the brusque tone of my reply last night it wasnt intentional. Please feel free to contact me on the email address I gave you. (the space between e and c is in fact an underscore

Clive

[cruiserfanfromct]

From Occupational Health & Safety News:

Titan Salvage and the Italian company Micoperi, announced they presented their engineering and design plan Aug. 13 to Osservatorio and the Italian Civil Protection Department.

 

"The time schedule is dependent in part upon subcontractor deliverables and schedules, and will preserve the upcoming summer season," the release stated.

 

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2012/08/15/italian-agency-receives-costa-concordia-removal-plan.aspx?admgarea=news

Edited August 15, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[Ken711]

Hi Ken

I think your right, when I looked earlier I couldnt see the remaiming glass roof panel but now I see it . Think the crane itself might have been hiding it.

Sidari

Apologies for the brusque tone of my reply last night it wasnt intentional. Please feel free to contact me on the email address I gave you. (the space between e and c is in fact an underscore

Clive

 

I was watching the crane barge on the starboard side and they appear to have lowered a pole into the water next to the barge, so this may in fact be part of the stabilization work. Below is a quote from an article that described that phase.

 

Before attempting to move the ship, the companies will attach heavy cables that are connected to poles in order to keep it from sliding, according to a plan that was released publicly in May.

 

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/15/2897054/raising-the-costa-concordia-is.html#storylink=cpy

[sidari]

"I was there on the rock - the commander told him - I was watching the ship, I did not know what to do."

 

 

Just as many of the people who deal with Traumatic shock had said! as as others have put forward in previous posts.

[sidari]

Clive .... No problem will mail you hopefully sometime tomorrow.

[cruiserfanfromct]

"I was there on the rock - the commander told him - I was watching the ship, I did not know what to do."

 

 

Just as many of the people who deal with Traumatic shock had said! as as others have put forward in previous posts.

That is certainly an explanation Sid -- but the problem most people have with that is said very eloquently in the words of Steve Moore, a retired FBI Special Agent, Speaker, Investigator and Writer, in reference to Francesco Schettino:

 

No man or woman ever knows how they will react when their life is in danger. I hope, and I’m sure we all hope we would react in a such a way as to earn self-respect, if not honor—but we just don’t know. However, a decision to accept a position as a ship captain, airline pilot, fireman, policeman, Coast Guardsman; any position where danger is possible and the job gives you responsibility for the lives of others, is in effect a contract.

 

A contract in which the implicit agreement is that the lives of others come before your own. It is a guarantee that you will do as promised. You are, as the old saying goes, acknowledging that “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.” So if it appears that Captain Schettino is being criticized for cowardice, it is not criticism of character or a human failing common to many, the criticism is aimed at a person who apparently defaulted on a contract; the contract of command.

Edited August 15, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[sidari]

CT ... It all sounds very nice coming from someone who has never had to deal with the mechanism that switches you off mentally, as for the people he mentions having a contract i have to say i have never heard such nonsense! ... I have copied the statement and added it to another site where many of the people he mentions are employed to see what their reaction is to what he says!

 

"No man or woman ever knows how they will react when their life is in danger"

 

Unless you have been there!

[cruiserfanfromct]

CT ... It all sounds very nice coming from someone who has never had to deal with the mechanism that switches you off mentally, as for the people he mentions having a contract i have to say i have never heard such nonsense! ... I have copied the statement and added it to another site where many of the people he mentions are employed to see what their reaction is to what he says!

 

"No man or woman ever knows how they will react when their life is in danger"

 

Unless you have been there!

 

Sounds good. Here is the rest of the text:

 

A fence is never needed until something pushes against it. Similarly, courage can never be measured until fear is present. One can test a fence by simply pushing on it, but gauging a man’s courage is difficult absent imminent danger.

 

Fight or flight. At one time or another, nearly everyone wonders how they would react if their life was on the line and they had a choice of acting or running. Those who rise to the occasion are said to have “the right stuff.” There is no polite phrase for those who fail in those situations.

 

Captain “Sully” Sullenberger answered all his own questions on January 15, 2009. His decisiveness, skill, and calmness are now legend. Sully’s friends describe him as “shy and reticent,” but beneath that shyness lay the makings of a hero. Finding himself in an engineless, 75 ton flying fuel tank over Manhattan with the lives of 148 people on his shoulders, Sullenberger knew that he had just one or two chances in a thousand to survive. Over the shouting of the electronic voice of the plane, “pull up pull up pull up pull up…..” the questions from air traffic control, and the attempts to restart the engines, he thought quickly, decided on the only realistic option, and flawlessly ditched the airliner in the Hudson River next to Manhattan. Listening to his confident, decisive communications on the radio is nothing if not inspiring, if only for knowing what “the right stuff” sounds like.

 

Two days short of three years later, on January 13, 2012, Francesco Schettino, captain of the luxury Costa (Carnival subsidiary) Cruise liner “Costa Concordia” also answered his own questions and provided the world an example of what “the wrong stuff” sounds like, via his radio communications with the Livorno Port Authority.

 

Just because a man has the coordination and the skill to handle a ship doesn’t mean he has what it takes to be a captain, especially when lives are at stake. Skill at navigating a ship can no more guarantee suitability as a captain any more than the fact that a male can produce sperm guarantees that he would be an adequate father.

 

Not only did Schettino fail, but it appears that his flight led some of the crew to abandon the passengers with him. Undoubtedly, there were brave crew who stayed and may have even paid with their lives, but they did this in spite of their captain. But make no mistake, Schettino’s acts were not the first in the tragic string of events. Nor was hitting the rocks. It was that he had been given command in the first place.

 

In the cases I worked in the FBI, particularly those perpetrated by the most violent, evil men, there had been a trail of acts, behaviors and episodes where the person’s personality was tipped-off. And in each of the cases, innocent people lay dead because the responsible people had shirked their duties. Schettino was responsible for the safety of thousands of people. With apparent failure of courage this blatant, could it be possible that there were no indications of Schettino’s inability to handle fear prior to this crisis?

 

Carnival has a responsibility to determine the suitability of a man or woman to command. There is no excuse anymore in today’s world. There are ways to weed out those who cannot ‘cut it.’ Even more traditional methods could have determined his fitness for duty. Marine Boot Camp, as horrible and stressful as it has been described, is not that way as some kind of sick initiation, it is to weed out those who cannot function under extreme duress or fear. Drill Instructors and the fear they instill are two of the main reasons that cowardice under fire is not something that people think of when they hear the words “United States Marines.” In a perfect world, Schettino would not have been given command, and he would have been spared what must be the worst experience of his life. He is not evil, he was just incapable of what was asked of him. And somebody in authority likely knew that. They were simply betting on the odds that his courage would never have to be tested.

 

De Falco’s soon to be famous statement to the fleeing captain; “Schettino, maybe you saved yourself from the sea, but I'll make you pay for sure,” ended with the Italian phrase, “Vada a bordo, cazzo!” “Go on board, ‘cazzo’!” Cazzo is Italian profane slang for male genitalia. De Falco had lost all respect for a Schettino and was goading him to “man up.” Interestingly, there are already T-shirts with the phrase, “Vada a bordo, cazzo!” being made. Possibly it will enter the lexicon as a phrase intended to shame cowards into meeting their duties. Finally and pitifully, Schettino later explained his departure from the ship by saying that he had “tripped into a lifeboat,” a statement which only exposes the depth of his deficiency as a captain.

 

But to be fair, Sullenberger is not perfect either. After he skillfully ditched his A320 in the Hudson river, he deviated from the aircraft checklist and did not comply with what a captain should do. The checklist told him to don a life preserver, open the cockpit window and evacuate the aircraft.

 

Instead, Sullenberger left the cockpit but not the aircraft. He left the cockpit through the interior door, going into the sinking rear cabin of the plane to ensure that everyone was out. Twice. When the last crewmember besides the captain boarded a raft, the airplane was halfway under water. Sullenberger, however, had one more thing to do. He went forward one last time to retrieve the aircraft’s logbooks to aid in the investigation of the crash before he departed—the last to leave the ship. The right stuff.

[Max49]

Thanks for posting that Cruiserfan.

 

I don't know how some people say they are reserving judgement until all the evidence is in about Schettino. That's my position on Costa. It's obvious already Schettino was arrogant, obviously did'nt have even the coordination to handle the ship but most definitly did not have the character to be a captain on a luxury cruise ship. I have no idea what the legal penalty will be for being an arrogant cowardly captain, but probably not much. He'll get another job on a boat some where.

I'd bet Costa/ Carnivals biggest problem is going to be that they hired and trusted him enough to make him the captain.

I would think that a Cruise line should be able to tell their captain they can can vary the route a little to make the cruise more entertaining for the passengers when they can do it safely and should be able to expect that he's not going to ram it into the rocks, lie to the Coast Guard tell the passengers it's an electrical problem and go to their rooms, and then "fall into a life boat" to save himself.

Oh that reminds me, did Brozio and the other officers also fall into a lifeboat?

I know the sailbys are entertaining, and I always thought 'the crew knows exactly what they are doing' but does any one think this may put a stop to these route variations on a cruise. And if it stops the sail bys, is this a good thing or has Schettino ruined a good part of cruising?

[Uniall]

Thanks for posting that Cruiserfan.

 

I don't know how some people say they are reserving judgement until all the evidence is in about Schettino. That's my position on Costa. It's obvious already Schettino was arrogant, obviously did'nt have even the coordination to handle the ship but most definitly did not have the character to be a captain on a luxury cruise ship. I have no idea what the legal penalty will be for being an arrogant cowardly captain, but probably not much. He'll get another job on a boat some where.

I'd bet Costa/ Carnivals biggest problem is going to be that they hired and trusted him enough to make him the captain.

I would think that a Cruise line should be able to tell their captain they can can vary the route a little to make the cruise more entertaining for the passengers when they can do it safely and should be able to expect that he's not going to ram it into the rocks, lie to the Coast Guard tell the passengers it's an electrical problem and go to their rooms, and then "fall into a life boat" to save himself.

Oh that reminds me, did Brozio and the other officers also fall into a lifeboat?

I know the sailbys are entertaining, and I always thought 'the crew knows exactly what they are doing' but does any one think this may put a stop to these route variations on a cruise. And if it stops the sail bys, is this a good thing or has Schettino ruined a good part of cruising?

 

Makes good sense to me.............

[Vampire Parrot]

Schettino was arrogant, obviously did'nt have even the coordination to handle the ship

 

What is meant by "...coordination to handle the ship" ? If the author was questioning his ability to handle the controls in a coordinated manner then they are incorrect. Captain Schettino had many times proved he was entirely capable of handling the controls in a coordinated manner, i.e. when mooring and unmooring. Bringing alongside a 290 metre long ship in bad weather - which he will have done many times - takes skill and coordination which he had.

 

Personally, I would question Captain Schettino's risk assessment and decision making capabilities, especially when under stress. Those are attributes a Captain of any vessel, large or small, must have.

 

VP

[Vampire Parrot]

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?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A properly planned and executed sail-by is safe. It does not increase the risk harm to the safe conduct of the sailing.

 

For example, consider the following. The data is from a GPS log of a ship nearly 1000 feet long. The comments are mine.

 

7:49pm. An evening in early December and it is very dark. Whilst travelling at 10 knots, the water under our keel is 15 metres deep and currently we are drawing 8 metres. We are 300 metres away on our port side from running aground.

 

7:56pm. Speed, 10 knots. If we continue our present course, in 0.6 nautical miles we will be aground. To our portside, we are 200 metres away from shallow water. We start an 80-degree turn to starboard to avoid the seabed ahead of us.

 

8:05pm. Thre is less than 200 metres from shallow water on our port side, the Captain has increased speed to 12 knots.

 

8:18pm. The Captain has increased speed to 20 knots. The shallow water on our port side is now 500 yards away.

 

Now that sounds a lot scarier than a properly planned and executed sail-by, doesn't it? And yet it's considered safe passage. It's the route a ship takes coming out of Southampton, England.

 

VP

Edited August 16, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[sidari]

"What is meant by "...coordination to handle the ship" ? If the author was questioning his ability to handle the controls in a coordinated manner then they are incorrect. Captain Schettino had many times proved he was entirely capable of handling the controls in a coordinated manner, i.e. when mooring and unmooring. Bringing alongside a 290 metre long ship in bad weather - which he will have done many times - takes skill and coordination which he had."

 

VP .. Have to agree with you on this.

Edited August 16, 2012 by sidari

[Tonka's Skipper]

What is meant by "...coordination to handle the ship" ? If the author was questioning his ability to handle the controls in a coordinated manner then they are incorrect. Captain Schettino had many times proved he was entirely capable of handling the controls in a coordinated manner, i.e. when mooring and unmooring. Bringing alongside a 290 metre long ship in bad weather - which he will have done many times - takes skill and coordination which he had.

 

Personally, I would question Captain Schettino's risk assessment and decision making capabilities, especially when under stress. Those are attributes a Captain of any vessel, large or small, must have.

 

VP

 

 

I totally agree VP..................AKK

[Tonka's Skipper]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A properly planned and executed sail-by is safe. It does not increase the risk harm to the safe conduct of the sailing.

 

For example, consider the following. The data is from a GPS log of a ship nearly 1000 feet long. The comments are mine.

 

7:49pm. An evening in early December and it is very dark. Whilst travelling at 10 knots, the water under our keel is 15 metres deep and currently we are drawing 8 metres. We are 300 metres away on our port side from running aground.

 

7:56pm. Speed, 10 knots. If we continue our present course, in 0.6 nautical miles we will be aground. To our portside, we are 200 metres away from shallow water. We start an 80-degree turn to starboard to avoid the seabed ahead of us.

 

8:05pm. Thre is less than 200 metres from shallow water on our port side, the Captain has increased speed to 12 knots.

 

8:18pm. The Captain has increased speed to 20 knots. The shallow water on our port side is now 500 yards away.

 

Now that sounds a lot scarier than a properly planned and executed sail-by, doesn't it? And yet it's considered safe passage. It's the route a ship takes coming out of Southampton, England.

 

VP

 

Yet that is a well traveled, marked and surveyed channel with detailed knowledge of the tides and currents and with a pilot on board as well, not the rocky coast of a tourist island.

 

I agree a sail-by can be safe when done at a safe distance and speed. In this case that is certainty not the case.

 

AKK

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper