Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Concordia News: Please Post Here

kingcruiser1

By kingcruiser1,
in Costa Cruises

 Share

Recommended Posts

SomeBeach

SomeBeach

Posted
Posted

Bad boys and now out of a job.

They were caught red-handed by surveillance cameras and ran in an area forbidden aboard Costa Concordia. Four workers, divers Titan South African nationality, Irish and English seems to have withdrawn from the premises and material objects. They were aboard the ship for the usual underwater operations but would instead made access into a forbidden zone in the dry of the wreck.

 

Noticed the suspicious presence during the night, the Security of the shipyard has immediately notified the police. On the spot the police came to the station and patrol boat of Isola del Giglio. The military denounced the foreign 4 on the loose for attempted aggravated theft. For them it is parties other crimes including access and removal of material in the area subject to sequestration.

 

The Titan-Micoperi Consortium has immediately proceeded to dismiss the site dependent and 4 from the island.

 

http://www.giglionews.it/2013110860168/news/isola-del-giglio/tentato-furto-sulla-concordia-denunciati-4-operai.html#comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uniall

Uniall

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Does anyone here actually believe he "Fell"? "eeek" Of course he jumped. I hope they throw the book, the desk, even the gavel at him.

 

Captain Schittino raises a real life example of a morality debate from the Jewish Torah.

Three Rabbis were debating the issue of free will and culpability.

One of them poses the question: "if a married man is working on a roof, slips and falls off and lands on top of a prostitute, does he commit adultry?" :eek:

Edited by Uniall
Link to comment
Share on other sites
glojo

glojo

Posted
Posted

An interesting post and the words of that engineer might need further investigating:

 

“The water was up to our knees in a very short time. I closed a water-tight door but the water kept coming through. I turned round, I climbed up a ladder to the upper deck, I managed to save myself. When I entered the main engine room there was great fear.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chengkp75

chengkp75

Posted
Posted
An interesting post and the words of that engineer might need further investigating:

 

Since several adjacent compartments were breached, most likely he closed the door at one end of the compartment, but the space was filling from its own breach or from the space at the other end of the compartment, where the door may have been still open. The doors are designed with hydraulic accumulators to operate even with absolutely no electrical power available, and even if badly maintained would stop 98% of the water when closed.

 

I remember from early on, when the cell phone video of the bridge first hit youtube, hearing conversation on the bridge where Schettino was being told about the flooding, and how many spaces were involved, and he kept asking for clarification of how many spaces, saying "if it is two compartments, we are okay (really?, two engine spaces flooded and you're okay?), but if its three compartments, they were going to sink".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glojo

glojo

Posted
Posted
Since several adjacent compartments were breached, most likely he closed the door at one end of the compartment, but the space was filling from its own breach or from the space at the other end of the compartment, where the door may have been still open. The doors are designed with hydraulic accumulators to operate even with absolutely no electrical power available, and even if badly maintained would stop 98% of the water when closed.

 

I remember from early on, when the cell phone video of the bridge first hit youtube, hearing conversation on the bridge where Schettino was being told about the flooding, and how many spaces were involved, and he kept asking for clarification of how many spaces, saying "if it is two compartments, we are okay (really?, two engine spaces flooded and you're okay?), but if its three compartments, they were going to sink".

Hi Chief,

I agree with your wise words about the loss of main compartments but are we qualified to debate how many need to be loss before that very specific ship goes down?

 

You are without doubt an extremely knowledgeable person but do you have the detailed information regarding this class of ship? (polite question) I am not doubting what you say, I am simply curious as hopefully you will agree when I suggest... the best 'lifeboat' is the ship. Abandoning must always be the last resort, especially on vessels of this size. Hindsight dictates it should have been abandoned earlier but no one had that useless talent on that awful night.

 

I am most definitely NOT defending the conduct of the captain as I feel he has a lot to answer for, but if folks try to convict him on charges that are defensible, then will justice be served for all those that lost their lives on that dreadful night?

 

That was an extremely large ship and I have no knowledge regarding the number of watertight main compartments there were or how many needed to be lost before the ship would sink.

 

W all accept that once a ship looses too much watertight integrity.. She is doomed but I am going by the actual words being spoken by that witness...

 

"They closed the door but water kept coming through!!"

 

We can all speculate on what that 'might' mean but to me the witness needs to clarify that statement. Where was that water coming from? Again I totally accept the ship had an awful gash down her side and it is obvious water would enter that ship at an alarming rate but that statement needs clarifying and is assuming going to be helpful?

 

I am saying all this just because weeks or maybe months ago I read somewhere that the captain in his defence was going to challenge the design or operation of those very same doors!!

 

My thoughts and they are just that, but my thoughts are that this is a red herring and most certainly do not excuse the alleged conduct of this person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chengkp75

chengkp75

Posted
Posted
Hi Chief,

I agree with your wise words about the loss of main compartments but are we qualified to debate how many need to be loss before that very specific ship goes down?

 

You are without doubt an extremely knowledgeable person but do you have the detailed information regarding this class of ship? (polite question) I am not doubting what you say, I am simply curious as hopefully you will agree when I suggest... the best 'lifeboat' is the ship. Abandoning must always be the last resort, especially on vessels of this size. Hindsight dictates it should have been abandoned earlier but no one had that useless talent on that awful night.

 

I am most definitely NOT defending the conduct of the captain as I feel he has a lot to answer for, but if folks try to convict him on charges that are defensible, then will justice be served for all those that lost their lives on that dreadful night?

 

That was an extremely large ship and I have no knowledge regarding the number of watertight main compartments there were or how many needed to be lost before the ship would sink.

 

W all accept that once a ship looses too much watertight integrity.. She is doomed but I am going by the actual words being spoken by that witness...

 

"They closed the door but water kept coming through!!"

 

We can all speculate on what that 'might' mean but to me the witness needs to clarify that statement. Where was that water coming from? Again I totally accept the ship had an awful gash down her side and it is obvious water would enter that ship at an alarming rate but that statement needs clarifying and is assuming going to be helpful?

 

I am saying all this just because weeks or maybe months ago I read somewhere that the captain in his defence was going to challenge the design or operation of those very same doors!!

 

My thoughts and they are just that, but my thoughts are that this is a red herring and most certainly do not excuse the alleged conduct of this person.

 

The Concordia, as well as nearly every other cruise ship, was a "two compartment" ship, which means that if two adjacent compartments flood, the ship will still remain afloat. The breach in the Concordia affected four adjacent compartments, all in the engineering spaces, so there was no force on God's earth that would keep the ship afloat.

 

Whether the crew member meant that water kept coming through the door, or the level kept rising in the space despite the door being closed, would need a court transcript and exact translation. Remember, we are getting this from a news article, not the actual testimony.

 

I would doubt that there is a problem with the design of the doors, as they have been used for years, and approved by classification societies and government agencies like the USCG. Any problem with the operation of the doors would be either procedural or maintenance issues, and both would be the Captain's responsibility (through the Chief Engineer) to ensure that safety equipment is properly operated and maintained. What troubles me is that most companies require that most watertight doors be closed at sea at all times, and when the ship is in "confined waters" (entering/leaving port, or running close ashore) all doors must be closed. These doors are even in crew berthing areas, and cause crew to have to go up stairs to the bulkhead deck (first deck above waterline), and then back down a stair to get from two cabins that are only a few feet apart on the same deck, but in two different watertight compartments. On my ship, the engine room was divided into 12 watertight compartments, and the watchkeepers had to keep opening, crossing through, and closing each door as they toured the engine room.

 

Schettino can and should go to jail for a long time for what he did and didn't do that night. From my perspective, just listening to the cell phone video of the bridge was enough to convince me that Schettino had no clue what to do, or any intention to do anything but save his own reputation and skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glojo

glojo

Posted
Posted (edited)
The Concordia, as well as nearly every other cruise ship, was a "two compartment" ship, which means that if two adjacent compartments flood, the ship will still remain afloat. The breach in the Concordia affected four adjacent compartments, all in the engineering spaces, so there was no force on God's earth that would keep the ship afloat.

 

Whether the crew member meant that water kept coming through the door, or the level kept rising in the space despite the door being closed, would need a court transcript and exact translation. Remember, we are getting this from a news article, not the actual testimony.

 

I would doubt that there is a problem with the design of the doors, as they have been used for years, and approved by classification societies and government agencies like the USCG. Any problem with the operation of the doors would be either procedural or maintenance issues, and both would be the Captain's responsibility (through the Chief Engineer) to ensure that safety equipment is properly operated and maintained. What troubles me is that most companies require that most watertight doors be closed at sea at all times, and when the ship is in "confined waters" (entering/leaving port, or running close ashore) all doors must be closed. These doors are even in crew berthing areas, and cause crew to have to go up stairs to the bulkhead deck (first deck above waterline), and then back down a stair to get from two cabins that are only a few feet apart on the same deck, but in two different watertight compartments. On my ship, the engine room was divided into 12 watertight compartments, and the watchkeepers had to keep opening, crossing through, and closing each door as they toured the engine room.

 

Schettino can and should go to jail for a long time for what he did and didn't do that night. From my perspective, just listening to the cell phone video of the bridge was enough to convince me that Schettino had no clue what to do, or any intention to do anything but save his own reputation and skin.

Thanks for clarifying the watertight intergrity issue as I have no idea how these huge ships compartmentalise all those diesel engines in the numerous workplaces.

 

I will tactfully suggest that when we take command, we take the responsibility and just like you, I have heard a number of transcripts and that person was sadly swamped by all that critical information being thrust at him in probably seconds...

 

When the going gets tough... The tough get going.

 

That man could not cope.. Could he be an example of the 'Peter Principle'?? One promotion too far click

 

Did you listen to the bridge recording of him giving orders to the helmsman and then having to correct the order?

 

Is it normal practice on a merchant ship to give such a responsible position to somene who clearly struggled to understand thev terminlogy used?

 

I don't blame the captain for a watch bill allocation, but the instant I gave conn orders and the helmsman struggled to understand them.... I would want that man relieved!!!

 

I wonder how long this had been going on for?

Edited by glojo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chengkp75

chengkp75

Posted
Posted
Thanks for clarifying the watertight intergrity issue as I have no idea how these huge ships compartmentalise all those diesel engines in the numerous workplaces. The engines are in compartments #6 & #7 (three engines to a space), and the Concordia has a total of 14 watertight compartments (not quite sure, checked my copy of the official report quickly and couldn't find the total).

 

I will tactfully suggest that when we take command, we take the responsibility and just like you, I have heard a number of transcripts and that person was sadly swamped by all that critical information being thrust at him in probably seconds... This is where Crisis Management training, and Bridge simulator training is vital. When I was interviewing for my job with NCL, we had to go see a psychologist for an evaluation. It was not to do with our professional ability, or our fitness to deal with guests, but to find out who could retain the "big picture" when being bombarded with details.

 

When the going gets tough... The tough get going.

 

That man could not cope.. Could he be an example of the 'Peter Principle'?? One promotion too far click Until the moment happens, no matter how much training you've had, you never know if you will run towards the fire, or away. I know, I've been in this situation (shipboard fires, not sinkings) before in my career. But, constant, realistic training is vital to getting you into the mindset of placing others before yourself.

 

Did you listen to the bridge recording of him giving orders to the helmsman and then having to correct the order? Yes, I did. And I do not find the helmsman to be at blame in any way. Mishearing helm commands is fairly common onboard ship, which is why there are guidelines as to who is allowed on the bridge during maneuvering, and how to conduct the watch; specifically, keeping extraneous conversations off limits. I find it interesting that given the fact that Italian is the "working language" of Costa ships, helm orders were given in English. I've also read the timeline from the Italian official report, and from my experience, the one order that the helmsman actually mis-steered was too small in magnitude, time factor, and way too late to affect the outcome.

 

Is it normal practice on a merchant ship to give such a responsible position to somene who clearly struggled to understand thev terminlogy used? The helmsman is certified by his country as to his competency to fill the position of able seaman. I don't feel that he struggled to understand the terminology used, but that with the background conversations going on around him, he had trouble hearing the command, and Schettino was using English, which was a second language for both him and the helmsman.

 

I don't blame the captain for a watch bill allocation, but the instant I gave conn orders and the helmsman struggled to understand them.... I would want that man relieved!!! As I've stated before (either in this thread or the other Concordia thread), up until 2143:44, or less than 1.5 minutes before the collision, Schettino is giving commands in "ship's heading", ie "steer 350*" this command allows the helmsman to move the rudder as he sees fit in order to bring the ship to a steady course of 350*. Only 85 seconds before collision does Schettino start giving actual "rudder angle" orders. These orders tell the helmsman what position to place the rudder in, and not to move it until another order is given, even if he sees that the ship is turning a full circle. If Schettino was worried about being too close to shore, he should have started the rudder angle orders sooner, and even when he did give these commands, at the speed the ship was moving they were too timid.

You're questions and terminology lead me to suspect that you are a former employee of the "gray funnel line" (US Navy). You then know that there is a time lag between a helm order and the rudder motion, and between the rudder motion and the ship actually turning, and that this time increases with increasing speed of the ship.

 

I wonder how long this had been going on for?

 

Schettino failed in his responsibility to properly train his bridge team (and in one interview, blamed Costa and the IMO for this failure, essentially saying that it wasn't his responsibility to train his officers). He also set a bad example by having guests on the bridge during maneuvering, and having conversations and phone calls while on the bridge. I don't believe he actually knew how the ship would respond in various maneuvers, as his order to increase speed before the collision, and his tentative helm orders just prior to collision testify. When told there was flooding in various compartments, he kept asking the guys who were down there getting wet to confirm which compartments they were, over and over. I have nothing but contempt for Schettino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glojo

glojo

Posted
Posted
Schettino failed in his responsibility to properly train his bridge team (and in one interview, blamed Costa and the IMO for this failure, essentially saying that it wasn't his responsibility to train his officers). He also set a bad example by having guests on the bridge during maneuvering, and having conversations and phone calls while on the bridge. I don't believe he actually knew how the ship would respond in various maneuvers, as his order to increase speed before the collision, and his tentative helm orders just prior to collision testify. When told there was flooding in various compartments, he kept asking the guys who were down there getting wet to confirm which compartments they were, over and over. I have nothing but contempt for Schettino.
Hi Chengkp

MOST IMPORTANT. I agree with your assessment of that commanding officer

I have a horrible habit of writing down my thoughts as they enter my head. Unfortunately sometimes they read as statements of fact as opposed to coming out as the questions they are meant to be. This post is all about my asking you a polite question regarding who sorts out watchbills and who does what when it comes to working the ship.

Hopefully you accept I am asking questions and most certainly not disagreeing with you.

 

Once more however you have stirred my curiosity. The Concordia had a crew of over 1000 and whilst the captain is in overall command and the butt will always rest at his door.... Surely this man is not responsible for allocating what work each sailor does on that ship???

 

It makes absolutely no sense. If a junior mechanic down in the engine room starts an engine without carrying out the correct procedure, do we still blame the captain?

 

Would the captain be in overall command be then delegate numerous responsibilities to his heads of department? Would these heads of department then delegate their areas of responsibility into sub areas?

 

when the captain entered the bridge, would that helmsman have been in situ and already steering the ship?

 

I accept in this case the ship was on autopilot and until the captain took the ship, this helmsman was acting as a lookout but my point is that this person was the duty helmsman and had no doubt been a helmsman before this awful day. Someone and this is where I need you to clarify....... My thoughts are that someone other than the captain made this person a helmsman and my thoughts are that this someone must surely be held accountable and explain why they decided this person was competent.

 

Could you please explain how you blame the captain for the selection of what sailor does what job throughout the ship!!

 

Would the Navigating Officer have any responsibility on selection of staff that work on the bridge?

 

Do you have a First Officer type rank and would they also ensure the navigating officer carries out his duties in a competent and professional manner

 

I blame him for not getting this sailor replaced as soon as he had to explain in detail the orders he was giving, but I would be pointing the finger at whoever compiled that watch-bill??

 

The captain might tell the court that it was neither the time, nor the place to take action against that sailor...... but he 'planned on doing it' the next morning!!! :eek::( Of course I do not believe that but when clutching at straws........

 

My thoughts are that if the captain of any ship is not happy about the way a certain area is not functioning then would it be better for him to have a word (or even stronger) to his first officer\First Lt\Commander and they then haul in the head of the relevant department, they then in turn will keep this rollicking rolling downhill and no doubt this rollicking would grow in momentum as it rolls downhill??

 

I would not expect a captain to undemine his senior officers and start micro-managing?? (question)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chengkp75

chengkp75

Posted
Posted
Hi Chengkp

MOST IMPORTANT. I agree with your assessment of that commanding officer

 

I have a horrible habit of writing down my thoughts as they enter my head. Unfortunately sometimes they read as statements of fact as opposed to coming out as the questions they are meant to be. This post is all about my asking you a polite question regarding who sorts out watchbills and who does what when it comes to working the ship.

Hopefully you accept I am asking questions and most certainly not disagreeing with you. Hopefully, I am not coming across as being upset with you, as I am not, and I am trying to answer your questions based on my 37 years at sea.

 

Once more however you have stirred my curiosity. The Concordia had a crew of over 1000 and whilst the captain is in overall command and the butt will always rest at his door.... Surely this man is not responsible for allocating what work each sailor does on that ship??? Of course not, but the Captain is responsible for seeing that the department heads follow company procedures, Italian laws, and IMO regulations. It is then the department head's responsibility to see that their personnel do the same.

 

It makes absolutely no sense. If a junior mechanic down in the engine room starts an engine without carrying out the correct procedure, do we still blame the captain? Ultimately, yes. We always called the Captain the "mayor" of the cruise ship, and just like your town's mayor, he gets the blame when someone working for him does something not right.

 

Would the captain be in overall command be then delegate numerous responsibilities to his heads of department? Would these heads of department then delegate their areas of responsibility into sub areas?

 

As above. Duties may be delegated, not responsibility. If one of the engineers is found violating company policies, not only will the Chief Engineer come under scrutiny by management, but the Captain as well, since he is responsible for ensuring the Chief is doing his job correctly.

 

when the captain entered the bridge, would that helmsman have been in situ and already steering the ship? Yes, underway, the bridge watch consists of a senior watch officer (1st or 2nd officer), a junior watch officer (3rd officer), and two deck ratings, who relieve each other during the 4 hour watch between lookout and helm. At sea, the helm is in autopilot, and the helmsman would be standing close by, usually noting the radar, and the course. Once the ship is in confined waters, the helm is placed in "hand steering" and the helmsman is in control, taking his orders from whichever watch officer "has the conn". Even when the Captain enters the bridge, he does not have the conn, and technically should not give orders to the helmsman until he announces, and the current conning officer concurs, that the Captain has the conn.

 

I accept in this case the ship was on autopilot and until the captain took the ship, this helmsman was acting as a lookout but my point is that this person was the duty helmsman and had no doubt been a helmsman before this awful day. Someone and this is where I need you to clarify....... My thoughts are that someone other than the captain made this person a helmsman and my thoughts are that this someone must surely be held accountable and explain why they decided this person was competent.

 

As above, the helmsman should have been at the wheel during the period the ship was deviating from the trackline for the "salute" to Giglio. One of the toughest things to do is to fire a certified mariner for not being competent, as the national authority that certifies him (USCG in our case) has stated that he IS legally competent; possession of a valid merchant mariners credential is prima fascia evidence of competency. Helmsmen are not chosen from the crew. The deck and engine departments are professional mariners, certified and licensed by either the country the ship is flagged in, or in their country of residence. If this helmsman was so bad (and I don't believe he was), then the watch officers on his watch should have worked with him to improve his steering skills, and brought this to the attention of the Chief Officer and/or Staff Captain for determination of his suitability to steer the ship in confined waters.

 

Could you please explain how you blame the captain for the selection of what sailor does what job throughout the ship!! Again, this is not like taking 1000 folks and saying, "okay, you over there are waiters, and you on the right are helmsmen". Able Seamen are sent to the ship, with a document from their government saying that this person meets the IMO requirements for his/her job. But if the Captain does not take the time to train his officers, why would they decide it was their duty to train the crew, and why bother telling the Captain that the helmsman can't steer. (Again, I don't find any fault with what he did, and cannot fathom why he was indicted and took a plea bargain).

 

Would the Navigating Officer have any responsibility on selection of staff that work on the bridge? Again, no. The deck officers would monitor ratings who are sent to the ship, and should be giving appraisals on a regular basis (not sure if Costa does this). Again, this falls to the Captain to foster the atmosphere of helping others to better themselves, which will benefit the company. If the Captain does not lead by example, why should anyone else step up and go the extra mile?

 

Do you have a First Officer type rank and would they also ensure the navigating officer carries out his duties in a competent and professional manner The First Officer is a bridge watch standing officer, and is the senior bridge officer, and responsible for the training and oversight of the bridge watches. The Chief Officer is generally in charge of the deck department outside the bridge (mooring operations, painting, maintenance of outside areas), and they both report to the Staff Captain, who is second in command to the Captain, and runs the day-to-day operation of the deck department.

 

I blame him for not getting this sailor replaced as soon as he had to explain in detail the orders he was giving, but I would be pointing the finger at whoever compiled that watch-bill?? At any time, the helmsman can be relieved, by whichever officer has the conn. Again, I don't agree with you that the helmsman needed explanation in detail, he merely mis-heard some heading commands, and one time reversed the rudder order, but corrected it within 15 seconds. This is all recovered from the voyage data recorder, and is noted in the official report. At the speed they were moving, that 15 second error had no effect on the outcome, and at the time the order was given, it most likely was too late anyway.

 

The captain might tell the court that it was neither the time, nor the place to take action against that sailor...... but he 'planned on doing it' the next morning!!! :eek::( Of course I do not believe that but when clutching at straws........ It is common in close calls to relieve the helmsman on the spot, even to replace him with a deck officer (which is not always the best idea, since the deck officers do not routinely steer the vessel, so have little actual experience doing it).

 

My thoughts are that if the captain of any ship is not happy about the way a certain area is not functioning then would it be better for him to have a word (or even stronger) to his first officer\First Lt\Commander and they then haul in the head of the relevant department, they then in turn will keep this rollicking rolling downhill and no doubt this rollicking would grow in momentum as it rolls downhill?? You are correct, but Schettino, in his own words (interview with Dutch correspondent) blamed his officers for not being competent, and intimated that it was dependent on the company to provide trained officers. Now, again, I tread lightly, as the officers are legally competent, but if the Captain felt they did not do their duties to his satisfaction, it was up to him to take action. So if he was not willing to reprimand or train his officers, what makes you think he would take the time to concern himself with the training of a rating?

 

I would not expect a captain to undemine his senior officers and start micro-managing?? (question)

 

Hey, Tonka's skipper, are you out there lurking? Weigh in with me about the helmsman. He and I have agreed that probably the only reason the helmsman was indicted in the first place was to guarantee his testimony against Schettino. In our combined experience, from the evidence produced so far, his actions in no way doomed the vessel to hit the rock. Neither did his mis-actions preclude the Captain from saving the ship. By the time Schettino took command, increased speed, finished his phone call, the ship was pretty much doomed. The official report states that Schettino did not start giving rudder angle orders until 2144:11, or 56 seconds before collision, and the incorrect helm response by the helmsman was only 22 seconds before collision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matt87

matt87

Posted
Posted

i thought i read somewhere that the crime investigation would wrap up after the last victims were recovered. i figured some internal pics would have been leaked by now from workers on-board. what is there to hide? we all know what the outside looks like, but no interior pics or pics of the starboard side hull underwater??? sounds like they may be covering up how badly the parbuckling damaged the hull further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glojo

glojo

Posted
Posted

Thanks Chengkp for taking the time to answer my queries and I really appreciate reading your wise words.

 

I too heard that voice recording of the conversation between the captain and that helmsman and I confess to being surprised when I heard the 'conversation'. I believe it went along the lines of something like..

 

Captain

'Steer 215'

 

helmsman

'Steer 210?'

 

He was sort of mumbling that reply and the voice gave the impression he was unsure.

 

The captain then chatted about the consequences of what would happen if the helmsman steered the course he had intended with words similar to,

 

'If we steer 210, we will run the ship onto the rocks... steer 215!'

 

I am wondering if this captain was playing (or showing off) to the civilians on the bridge... I would have expected a short....

 

'Negative, steer 215'

 

My experience is only with a wheelhouse deep within the bowels of the ship where the helmsman or quartermaster is staring at a gyro-compass and simply carrying out the instructions of the Officer of the Watch. (or the captain :) ) The only other person in that tiny wheelhouse would be a bosun's mate although when complex manoeuvres are expected along with entering or leaving harbour, the quartermaster would be replaced by a senior non-commissioned officer.

 

Would it be right for me to suggest it is a major, major no, no for a captain to even attempt to blame his officers when things go wrong? I have never heard of it unless I read history books regarding mutiny's. Shame on that man.

 

I have also read that the issue with misunderstanding those helm orders was not a contributory factor and to me that is the end of the debate regarding cause, but my questions still stand regarding that person acting in that role. From what I have read this person could not speak fluently or understand the required language and I would still ask the same questions and ask if this was symptomatic of that ships lack of command?? (struggling for the right words)

 

Last few questions (for now... If you don't mind) :)

From what I have read and heard, the ship had the correct charts for the cruise they were doing but...... They did not have detailed charts of the waters close to that island (they were not needed or required for this cruise)

 

In your experience, once it became clear that this 'idiot' was heading way too close to the island, should any senior watch-keeping officer have spoken up?? (polite question and not something I could envisage happening)

 

I am used to a captain that is perhaps 'God' and very aloof. The officer you call the staff captain would be what I call the 'First Lt' and this officer would ensure the ship was a well oiled hunk of machinery and not just shone like a new pin, the crew would also be working as one, with everyone working as that 'well oiled' team. Training, development, all this would be down to the First Lieutenant to ensure that heads of department were doing their best endeavours to keeping up the morale and trying to advance the careers of the crew. (hopefully you can understand what I am trying to say)

 

The captain would very much keep himself to himself and not interfere with how the ship was run or maintained, he would however have his standing orders which all officers are expected (required) to know front to back and back to front!! :)

 

My thoughts are that this captain should be hopefully keel-hauled but are you happy with procures and lifeboats leaving the ship less than a third full? Were the drills carried out in a professional manner by those entrusted to perform those duties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chengkp75

chengkp75

Posted
Posted (edited)
Thanks Chengkp for taking the time to answer my queries and I really appreciate reading your wise words.

 

I too heard that voice recording of the conversation between the captain and that helmsman and I confess to being surprised when I heard the 'conversation'. I believe it went along the lines of something like..

 

Captain

'Steer 215'

 

helmsman

'Steer 210?'

 

He was sort of mumbling that reply and the voice gave the impression he was unsure.

 

The captain then chatted about the consequences of what would happen if the helmsman steered the course he had intended with words similar to,

 

'If we steer 210, we will run the ship onto the rocks... steer 215!'

 

I am wondering if this captain was playing (or showing off) to the civilians on the bridge... I would have expected a short....

 

'Negative, steer 215' I've no clue what Schettino was thinking, but he really had no idea where the ship was, and what was happening right up until he "fell" into the lifeboat.

 

My experience is only with a wheelhouse deep within the bowels of the ship where the helmsman or quartermaster is staring at a gyro-compass and simply carrying out the instructions of the Officer of the Watch. (or the captain :) ) The only other person in that tiny wheelhouse would be a bosun's mate although when complex manoeuvres are expected along with entering or leaving harbour, the quartermaster would be replaced by a senior non-commissioned officer. Yeah, you're references to the First Lt made me look at your home, and realized you're a tar from the RN. Good on you for your service. A cargo ship normally has only the watch officer and the AB in the wheelhouse while underway, instead of the 4 that cruise ships have (two officers and two ratings). The wheelhouse has all the windows you could want to see "real world", and at least two radars and an electronic chart.

 

Would it be right for me to suggest it is a major, major no, no for a captain to even attempt to blame his officers when things go wrong? I have never heard of it unless I read history books regarding mutiny's. Shame on that man. In my opinion, any manager is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, as the definition of "manager" is to manage his subordinates to obtain the best possible performance for the company.

 

I have also read that the issue with misunderstanding those helm orders was not a contributory factor and to me that is the end of the debate regarding cause, but my questions still stand regarding that person acting in that role. From what I have read this person could not speak fluently or understand the required language and I would still ask the same questions and ask if this was symptomatic of that ships lack of command?? (struggling for the right words) This has caused many ship's accidents over the years. There was a Chinese ship that hit the Riverwalk mall in New Orleans because the helmsman didn't understand the orders from the local pilot. This is one of the major problems with "flag of convenience" ships, or countries that allow non-nationals crew their ships. This is one reason that the US requires only US citizens as crew on US ships. The IMO requires language proficiency, but it is up to the company to actually enforce it. Also, as I've said, while English is the lingua franca in the maritime world (just like aviation), the official "working language" for Costa is Italian, and therefore the Captain should have been giving orders in Italian (but I don't know if the Indonesian helmsman understood Italian either.

 

Last few questions (for now... If you don't mind) :)

From what I have read and heard, the ship had the correct charts for the cruise they were doing but...... They did not have detailed charts of the waters close to that island (they were not needed or required for this cruise) The ship did not have the detail chart of the island, and it was not required, because they were not supposed to be there. However, most charts are marked with "do not go" areas that would keep the ship away from dangers with a significant safety margin.

 

In your experience, once it became clear that this 'idiot' was heading way too close to the island, should any senior watch-keeping officer have spoken up?? (polite question and not something I could envisage happening) Yes, and this is one condemnation that the official report makes of the bridge officers. Good bridge team management training would emphasize a team attitude, and requires that any watch officer should warn the conning officer of any danger. The voice recorder does not show any evidence of any officer giving any warning to the Captain, so there is some doubt whether one officer was at the onshore side of the wheelhouse prior to contact, or whether one was watching the radar. The distance ring on the radar was known to be set to 0.5 miles, and if the ship was steered clear when this distance ring touched the radar picture of the rock outcropping above water, the ship would never have hit the rock.

 

I am used to a captain that is perhaps 'God' and very aloof. The officer you call the staff captain would be what I call the 'First Lt' and this officer would ensure the ship was a well oiled hunk of machinery and not just shone like a new pin, the crew would also be working as one, with everyone working as that 'well oiled' team. Training, development, all this would be down to the First Lieutenant to ensure that heads of department were doing their best endeavours to keeping up the morale and trying to advance the careers of the crew. (hopefully you can understand what I am trying to say) The positions are similar, but it still falls on the Captain to ensure that the Staff Captain or Jimmy the One is doing what the Captain wants. The Captain should be observing the operation of the vessel and the attitude and morale of the officers and crew to determine how good a job the Staff is doing. Being aloof is one thing, but being out of touch with daily operation (even just being a "fly on the wall" during normal operations) is another. One of the best ways I keep the pulse of the engine room is listening to the conversation during meals and coffee breaks to catch casual mentions of problems.

 

The captain would very much keep himself to himself and not interfere with how the ship was run or maintained, he would however have his standing orders which all officers are expected (required) to know front to back and back to front!! :) Yes to the standing orders, but again, you need to observe the operation to know whether they were being followed or not.

 

My thoughts are that this captain should be hopefully keel-hauled but are you happy with procures and lifeboats leaving the ship less than a third full? Were the drills carried out in a professional manner by those entrusted to perform those duties?

 

I have no knowledge that the boats left less than full. The official report states that 2930 out of 4197 utilized 23 out of 26 lifeboats but only 6 out of 69 liferafts were deployed to get ashore. The remainder, 1270, were rescued by the coast guard vessels in various methods, some from Concordia's rafts before reaching shore. Since 60 liferafts, at 25 men/raft is 1500 capacity, I would say that most of the boats left full. From videos, I think the crew performed about the norm. While they are well trained in getting the boats ready to launch, and sometimes will even load a boat, there is generally no training in crowd management for the crew, and those who do have this training (deck and engine officers) are not involved with loading the boats, they are otherwise occupied with the emergency. From the passenger video, the biggest problem was trying to launch the boats down the port side after the ship was severely listed to starboard. There is unfortunately no effective way to simulate this. I cannot say whether drills were done properly or professionally, as there was no drill on this voyage, so no video evidence. I think that there should be an annual exercise for the crew where "extras" or workers from the corporate office come to the ship and act as passengers so that the crew can get experience with handling crowds of frightened people.

 

Sorry for being long winded. There were many breakdowns in corporate policy, implementation of that policy aboard by the Captain, and a lack of effective training of the crew. While I don't feel that the helmsman deserved to be indicted, the crisis co-ordinator who was indicted deserved it, and some corporate heads should roll for allowing practices onboard that violated corporate policy and IMO regulations.

Edited by chengkp75
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SomeBeach

SomeBeach

Posted
Posted
i thought i read somewhere that the crime investigation would wrap up after the last victims were recovered. i figured some internal pics would have been leaked by now from workers on-board. what is there to hide? we all know what the outside looks like, but no interior pics or pics of the starboard side hull underwater??? sounds like they may be covering up how badly the parbuckling damaged the hull further.

 

Schettino has asked for another investigation of the ship so that would keep it open as an active crime scene, as described in some news articles. There is still one person unaccounted for too as so far there has been no positive ID made for Russel.

I did read that the judge ok'd the opening of safes (above water) so that passengers could be reunited with their belongings if they are salvageable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...