Concordia News: Please Post Here

[SomeBeach]

More info on Law 231.

http://www.ethikospublication.com/html/italy.html

 

There are pdf files but I don't know how to bring them here. Google Italian Law 231.

[sidari]

Was there not a post a few days ago saying that Roberto Bosio was not going to trial along with two others?

Edited January 25, 2013 by sidari

[CostaSmurfette]

Tonka & CT...plus those who still believe that the captain should go down with his ship no matter what the circumstances and that had Concordia been under the USA interpretation, her captain and any other crewmember would/should be prosecuted to the highest level of US law...despite the fact that the accident happened in foreign waters with a foreign interpretation of SOLAS1974 which is allowed by the way that SOLAS1974 was ratified by the IMO.

 

Cast your mind back to 2008....although this does not feature a passenger vessel, the end result was sadly similar both in loss of life, poor interpretation of the rules of the sea and basic mistakes in seamanship...

 

A severe storm had hit the fishing fleets off Unalaska. One vessel, the 98ft long FV Katmai, sent out a distress signal telling the USCG that she was going down by the stern in stormy seas and in the dark of night.

 

Eleven men were aboard, the youngest was a greenhorn of 19 who was on his forst ever Bering Sea fishing trip.

 

Four survived and were picked up by USCG Jayhawk.

 

Five bodies were recovered, two were never found....including that of the 19 year old greenhorn.

 

One of the four survivors was the Captain.

 

The joint investigation tween the NTSB and USCG was pretty damning...watertight doors left open, weight of cod in the hold was double that the ship was capable of handling, the Captain was cited for staying out in the storm when in reality he should have found shelter to ride it out, there were also problems with the safety equipment on board too...the condition of the liferafts came under scrutiny.

 

The Captain was not persecuted, nor was he prosecuted...instead he was left to deal with his "survivor guilt", which some might say is enough of a punishment.

 

So here we have a US registered vessel, operating in US territorial waters that sinks in a storm, overweight, watertight doors left wide open and questionable liferafts...5 med made it home in coffins, 2 were lost to the sea forever.

 

Well....judging by the way that you have hung, drawn and quartered various people aboard Concordia and keep saying that such things would never happen on a US registered vessel in US territorial waters without the Captain being persecuted and prosecuted, how then do you explain how the Captain of FV Katmai was not thrown to the wolves for operating a substandard vessel, fishing in extremely poor conditions when other boats had looked/found shelter, having approx double the weight of cod in the hold that the boat was designed for, having almost every watertight door left wide open and having questionable life preserving equipment...hmmm?

 

Smacks of double standards really.....7 lives against 32...but lives lost regardless of how many and regardless of type of vessel...a dead person is a dead person.

 

What possible explanation could there be as to why Katmai's Captain was not prosecuted and no furore about him not being prosecuted....maybe the lives of seven fishermen just don't matter, least not to ambulance chasing lawyers...

 

Just goes to show how different interpretations of rules of the sea can be lost in translation...one life lost, seven lives lost or 32 lives lost...cannot bring any of them back...but rules is rules....

Edited January 25, 2013 by CostaSmurfette

[cruiserfanfromct]

From today's UK Telegraph

 

Costa Concordia owners accused of playing down extent of catastrophe

 

Italian prosecutors broadened the inquiry into the Costa Concordia disaster on Thursday, announcing that they will investigate alleged failings by the cruise ship's owners.

 

If the charges are proved, the company risks 'a massive fine'.

The widening of the investigation is likely to be beneficial to former passengers, and the relatives of the 32 people who died in the tragedy, who have launched class actions against Costa Cruises and its parent company in the United States, Carnival Corporation.

 

They are seeking tens of millions of pounds in compensation for the loss of loved ones and for the trauma they experienced on the night of Jan 13, 2012.

 

Prosecutors accused the Genoa-based firm of failing to order the ship's captain to sound a general alarm when the 950ft-long cruise liner started taking on water after smashing into a rocky reef off the Tuscan island of Giglio in January last year.

 

The investigators, based in Grosseto in Tuscany, also said emergency procedures were not followed properly during the chaotic night-time evacuation of more than 4,000 passengers and crew.

 

In addition, they accused Costa Cruises of "playing down" the full extent of the damage done to the ship when it rammed into the rocky shoal, ripping a 140ft-long gash in its hull.

 

The company has insisted that it was misled as to the gravity of the situation by the ship's Italian captain, Francesco Schettino, who initially reported that the vessel had simply undergone a power failure and made no mention of the collision.

 

If the charges are proved, the company risks "a massive fine" according to Codacons, a consumer group that has helped passengers who were involved in the accident.

 

"This is an important decision because it clears the way for those who are calling for compensation in class actions," said Carlo Rienzi, the president of the consumer association. The widening of the investigation "increased the possibility" of passengers receiving large payouts, he said.

Costa Cruises now has 20 days to prepare its defence against the accusations.

 

Francesco Verusio, the chief prosecutor in the case, said he and his colleagues had concluded their year-long investigation into the capsizing of the ship.

 

That suggests that a formal indictment of Capt Schettino may be only days away. He is expected to be sent to trial on charges of manslaughter, abandoning ship and causing a maritime disaster.

[Tonka's Skipper]

As usual, CS is FLAT OUT LIEING........and will in fact say anything to try and get someone to beleive her on anything.

 

I and I beleive CT, never ever say he has to go down with his ship

 

I and CT I beleive never say that he has to, under all conditions and situations, has to be the last to leave his ship

 

I have repeatedly stated the law and professional and moral duty of the Master, any one is free to go back in posts and read them.

 

Bring up incorrect and odd ball stories, many of which I have repeated shown to be incorrect and twisted information just proves her position is a joke. I am no longing wasting my time each time she dreams or digs up another to present lies and half truths.

 

 

 

AKK

Edited January 25, 2013 by Tonka's Skipper

[cruiserfanfromct]

Tonka & CT...plus those who still believe that the captain should go down with his ship no matter what the circumstances and that had Concordia been under the USA interpretation, her captain and any other crewmember would/should be prosecuted to the highest level of US law...despite the fact that the accident happened in foreign waters with a foreign interpretation of SOLAS1974 which is allowed by the way that SOLAS1974 was ratified by the IMO......

Again, no one mentioned US law in this case. Under Article 1097 of Italy’s Maritime Law, if the commander of a vessel is not the last to leave, he / she risks at least two years in jail; if the vessel is lost, two to eight years; if the vessel is used to carry people, three to 12 years. If the vessel is in such a condition that it is safe to stay aboard, or the risk to life isn’t that great, and the captain abandons ship anyway, the punishment can be more severe.

 

In this case there were still over 200 people on board when Schettino abandoned ship. It would not have been difficult for him to have motored over the other side after conveniently falling into a lifeboat and helped passengers get off -- just as the deputy major of Giglio and others on the island did.

 

This was an Italian flagged ship sailing in Italian waters with an Italian captain for an Italian cruise ship company. Italian law, in this instance, takes precedence over SOLAS1974.

 

 

[cruiserfanfromct]

As usual' date=' CS is FLAT OUT LIEING........and will in fact say anything to try and get someone to beleive her on anything.

 

I and I beleive CT, never ever say he has to go down with his ship

 

I and CT I beleive never say that he has to, under all conditions and situations, has to be the last to leave his ship

 

I have repeatedly stated the law and professional and moral duty of the Master, any one is free to go back in posts and read them.

 

Bring up incorrect and odd ball stories, many of which I have repeated shown to be incorrect and twisted information just proves her position is a joke. I am no longing wasting my time each time she dreams or digs up another to present lies and half truths.

 

 

 

AKK[/quote']

CS = Schettino's UK relative? Not sure what this person's agenda is but definitely defending Schettino -- to what end, not sure either. I'm with you as well -- no longer feeding the troll.

[Uniall]

Tonka & CT...plus those who still believe that the captain should go down with his ship no matter what the circumstances and that had Concordia been under the USA interpretation, her captain and any other crewmember would/should be prosecuted to the highest level of US law...despite the fact that the accident happened in foreign waters with a foreign interpretation of SOLAS1974 which is allowed by the way that SOLAS1974 was ratified by the IMO.

 

Cast your mind back to 2008....although this does not feature a passenger vessel, the end result was sadly similar both in loss of life, poor interpretation of the rules of the sea and basic mistakes in seamanship...

 

A severe storm had hit the fishing fleets off Unalaska. One vessel, the 98ft long FV Katmai, sent out a distress signal telling the USCG that she was going down by the stern in stormy seas and in the dark of night.

 

Eleven men were aboard, the youngest was a greenhorn of 19 who was on his forst ever Bering Sea fishing trip.

 

Four survived and were picked up by USCG Jayhawk.

 

Five bodies were recovered, two were never found....including that of the 19 year old greenhorn.

 

One of the four survivors was the Captain.

 

The joint investigation tween the NTSB and USCG was pretty damning...watertight doors left open, weight of cod in the hold was double that the ship was capable of handling, the Captain was cited for staying out in the storm when in reality he should have found shelter to ride it out, there were also problems with the safety equipment on board too...the condition of the liferafts came under scrutiny.

 

The Captain was not persecuted, nor was he prosecuted...instead he was left to deal with his "survivor guilt", which some might say is enough of a punishment.

 

So here we have a US registered vessel, operating in US territorial waters that sinks in a storm, overweight, watertight doors left wide open and questionable liferafts...5 med made it home in coffins, 2 were lost to the sea forever.

 

Well....judging by the way that you have hung, drawn and quartered various people aboard Concordia and keep saying that such things would never happen on a US registered vessel in US territorial waters without the Captain being persecuted and prosecuted, how then do you explain how the Captain of FV Katmai was not thrown to the wolves for operating a substandard vessel, fishing in extremely poor conditions when other boats had looked/found shelter, having approx double the weight of cod in the hold that the boat was designed for, having almost every watertight door left wide open and having questionable life preserving equipment...hmmm?

 

Smacks of double standards really.....7 lives against 32...but lives lost regardless of how many and regardless of type of vessel...a dead person is a dead person.

 

What possible explanation could there be as to why Katmai's Captain was not prosecuted and no furore about him not being prosecuted....maybe the lives of seven fishermen just don't matter, least not to ambulance chasing lawyers...

 

Just goes to show how different interpretations of rules of the sea can be lost in translation...one life lost, seven lives lost or 32 lives lost...cannot bring any of them back...but rules is rules....

 

First, No One ever said "the Captain should go down with the ship". That statement is a figment of your imagination which results in a violation of "logical thought" known as the "Straw Man" fallacy. You create an idea that has never been argued by your opponent and proceed to attack the statement.

 

Second, you should cease arguing that SOLAS is the gold standard of maritime law. SOLAS itself does not purport to control all aspects of maritime law and it only applies to nations who sign the treaty. Even then, those nations may adopt laws which differ from SOLAS.

 

Finally, you should throw the switch in your brain from "Inductive Reasoning" mode to "Deductive Reasoning" mode. Your continuous use of inductive logic renders your conclusions false. Your fallacious reasoning process runs: "I saw a man wearing a black shirt. Therefore, all men wear black shirts."

Edited January 25, 2013 by Uniall

[SomeBeach]

Was there not a post a few days ago saying that Roberto Bosio was not going to trial along with two others?

 

That post said "early reports" were coming out. I took that as something to watch for not a statement of fact.

[swedish weave]

More info on Law 231.

 

http://www.ethikospublication.com/html/italy.html

 

There are pdf files but I don't know how to bring them here. Google Italian Law 231.

 

Thanks for the reference !! That is an interesting piece of legislation, and sounds like it would be a massive job to find Costa guilty. Since their ships have performed the "salute" safely a few times, it would seem that the prosecution would have no basis for involving them in the case. This being the first time a problem has occurred during this maneuver.

 

The fact that Carnival has replaced the CEO of Costa could also help insulate CCL from this fiasco.

 

OTOH, Carnival has about two billion "umbrella" type insurance, so they should not suffer too much loss even if they are involved and lose the case.

Edited January 25, 2013 by swedish weave

[sidari]

SB ... No one said it was a statement of Fact! and i was merely asking the question.

[SomeBeach]

SB ... No one said it was a statement of Fact! and i was merely asking the question.

 

Gheesh! I didn't say you said it was a statement of fact. In an attempt to answer your question I explained it as how I understood it to be meant.

I clearly said, "I took" to explain that was MY understanding and not anyone elses as someone else could see it differently.

[Aplmac]

Below is a link to a website with some pretty good pics including one of the office inside the Concordia.

 

http://gcaptain.com/one-year-anniversary-costa-concordia/

A most informative website with great pictures!

 

Nice to see the imaginative adaptations the guys have made

to create level work spaces for storage etc.

.

[SomeBeach]

http://skift.com/2013/01/26/italian-investigators-of-concordia-cruise-disaster-turn-gaze-to-parent-company-costa/

[SomeBeach]

Weekly report.

http://www.giglionews.it/2013012759412/news/isola-del-giglio/rimozione-relazione-settimanale-dal-19-al-25-gennaio.html#addcomments

 

Click on Visualizza to get to pix and chart.

[Ken711]

Weekly report.

http://www.giglionews.it/2013012759412/news/isola-del-giglio/rimozione-relazione-settimanale-dal-19-al-25-gennaio.html#addcomments

 

Click on Visualizza to get to pix and chart.

 

Interesting pics in the report. One photo shows the hull reinforcements (the photo with the reinforcements #124 and #128), and the second photo showing the largest two of the six underwater platforms are completed, and on sitting on barges awaiting the completion of the drilling of the pilings to support them.

[SomeBeach]

Interesting pics in the report. One photo shows the hull reinforcements (the photo with the reinforcements #124 and #128), and the second photo showing the largest two of the six underwater platforms are completed, and on sitting on barges awaiting the completion of the drilling of the pilings to support them.

 

Thanks. I wasn't sure what those were.

[Tonka's Skipper]

Well this just shows the investigation is moving along.......now starting to look more at Costa mangement. Next Carnivail Inc will be on the hit parade.

 

 

I know its been reported the USCG and IMO are already investigating Carnivail Inc. as a whole!

 

Time will tell the tale!

 

AKK

Edited January 27, 2013 by Tonka's Skipper

[bigeck]

The words 'Alleged failings' is an understatement. They are looking at Costa for not telling the captain to sound the alarm. Looks like Costa might get the blame instead of the captain.

See what happens in 20 days.

 

 

Alex

[MDSue]

Just curious- I've never head any mention of whether the phone call between Schettino and the official at Costa shortly after the collision was recorded.

I know many of us would love to know the exact details of that conversation.

[Uniall]

The words 'Alleged failings' is an understatement. They are looking at Costa for not telling the captain to sound the alarm. Looks like Costa might get the blame instead of the captain.

See what happens in 20 days.

 

Alex

 

I don't understand it. Why is it that everyone from the British Isles wants let Captain Coward off the hook. He's the guy charged with the duties and responsibilities. The "I was just following orders" defense was killed off at Nuremburg. Costa could be co-liable if they ordered it but that does not absolve Captain Coward.

[Vampire Parrot]

I don't understand it. Why is it that everyone from the British Isles wants let Captain Coward off the hook.

Ahem. I am British and certainly do NOT want to let Schettino off the hook.

 

--

 

I'm rather concerned that some lawyers are implying that it was up to Costa HQ/Carnival to tell Schettino to give the orders "To Muster Stations" (i.e. sound the General Emergency Signal) and later, "Abandon Ship". Those are decisions to be made by the Captain.

 

Based on the the information I have, Schettino had all the information he needed to make the decision to sound the General Emergency signal within a few minutes of grounding his ship, and to order Abandon Ship shortly afterwards. What I want to know is why he didn't make those decisions in a timely fashion.

 

I now have a transcript of what went on in the bridge, but it's in Italian. I'm trying to get it translated - if I do would folks like me to post it?

 

VP

[SomeBeach]

The words 'Alleged failings' is an understatement. They are looking at Costa for not telling the captain to sound the alarm. Looks like Costa might get the blame instead of the captain.

See what happens in 20 days.

 

 

Alex

 

This is just my opinion but I don't feel if Costa is blamed for alleged failings that it will let the Captain off the hook.

Sue, I would like to know what was said on the other end of that conversation too. Maybe we'll get those answers from the court.

[sidari]

Costa will be jointly blamed for certain parts of what happened along with Captain Schettino, how much blame is put on each remains to be seen until such time that a trial takes place.

 

Apart from the actual conversation on the phone it would be interesting to know why Schettino felt the need to ring his senior officer?

 

VP ..you may well be British but i am English and always will be ...... :D

[Uniall]

Ahem. I am British and certainly do NOT want to let Schettino off the hook.

 

--

 

I'm rather concerned that some lawyers are implying that it was up to Costa HQ/Carnival to tell Schettino to give the orders "To Muster Stations" (i.e. sound the General Emergency Signal) and later, "Abandon Ship". Those are decisions to be made by the Captain.

 

Based on the the information I have, Schettino had all the information he needed to make the decision to sound the General Emergency signal within a few minutes of grounding his ship, and to order Abandon Ship shortly afterwards. What I want to know is why he didn't make those decisions in a timely fashion.

 

I now have a transcript of what went on in the bridge, but it's in Italian. I'm trying to get it translated - if I do would folks like me to post it?

 

VP

 

And to you Sir I owe an apology. Let me rephrase ...

 

What is it about most of those from the British Isles........???

 

I know, I know that doesn't really solve the problem. But, far and away, the vast majority of posters who argued that Captain Coward is not guilty because some one else or some thing else was a contributing cause of the disaster claim the Isles between the Irish & English Channels as home.