Concordia News: Please Post Here

[Vampire Parrot]

According to the Daily Telegraph (published in London)

 

Several passengers have said they witnessed Capt Francesco Schettino having dinner on the night of the disaster with Domnica Cemortan, a blonde Moldovan who had worked as a passenger rep on the ship and as a dancer on other cruise vessels.

 

The captain “slowed down the ship so that he could finish dinner in peace”, just prior to sailing close to Giglio in order to perform a ‘salute’ to an old colleague on the island, prosecutors alleged in a report.

 

He then ordered the ship’s speed to be increased to 16 knots “despite the proximity of obstacles, the presence of shallow water, the conditions under which the ship had to manoeuvre and the night-time darkness,” prosecutors charged.

 

 

 

In documents filed in the Tuscan town of Grosseto, where the investigation is based, prosecutors said the nautical charts that Capt Schettino relied on for navigation were on too large a scale and therefore unreliable.

 

 

This is my interpretation of those statements, based on my examination of the electronic charts a few days after the accident and my re-examination of them in the last 30 minutes.

 

The detailed 1:5000 chart shows 8 rocks all marked "Dangerous Rock" and "Dangerous for Navigation". One or more of these were hit by Costa Concordia. The 1:20000 chart which may be what Captain S. was using shows one large rock in an approximate position. The 1:50000 chart also shows just one rock. Due to the large scale of a 1:20000 and 1:50000 chart, a single large rock is all that can be shown. The 1:100000 chart doesn't even show rocks off the east coast of Le Scole, and that's to be expected.

 

For close navigation work a detailed chart is required, and according to the prosecutors, was not being used. Which chart to use when is part of Navigation 101.....

 

VP

[ScarboroughCruiser]

Does anyone have thoughts on how reckless a speed the Concordia was traveling when it hit the rocks? The reports are that the ship increased its speed to 16 knots at the time of the collision. I have no reference point for maritime speeds. The service speed of the Concordia is apparently 19.6 knots with a maximum speed of 23 knots. Is there such a thing as a "safe speed" for this situation? The reports are that the ship was slowed down so the captain could enjoy his meal....any thoughts on what that speed might have been before the ship sped up?

[glrounds]

According to the Daily Telegraph (published in London)

 

 

 

This is my interpretation of those statements, based on my examination of the electronic charts a few days after the accident and my re-examination of them in the last 30 minutes.

 

The detailed 1:5000 chart shows 8 rocks all marked "Dangerous Rock" and "Dangerous for Navigation". One or more of these were hit by Costa Concordia. The 1:20000 chart which may be what Captain S. was using shows one large rock in an approximate position. The 1:50000 chart also shows just one rock. Due to the large scale of a 1:20000 and 1:50000 chart, a single large rock is all that can be shown. The 1:100000 chart doesn't even show rocks off the east coast of Le Scole, and that's to be expected.

 

For close navigation work a detailed chart is required, and according to the prosecutors, was not being used. Which chart to use when is part of Navigation 101.....

 

VP

 

Wth all due respect, the rock that holed the Concordia was a SUBMERGED rock and probably wouldn't show on any typical navigation chart. So unless these charts show SUBMERGED rocks they would hardly be the rocks the ship struck. When looking at the GPS tracking of the ship some 5 weeks ago, it clearly shows the ship "brushing", if you will, a rock on the port side. But this rock which shows on the charts was not the rock that holed the Concordia. This rock by virtue of the fact that it was visible and on the charts was ABOVE THE WATERLINE and couldn't have done the damage. Not trying to defend the captain at all, because one must ASSUME if you go very close to visible rocks there could easily be rocks very near it that are SUBMERGED and invisible to the navigational charts.

 

Maybe this is what you see on your charts as many river and lake charts, for example, ALSO show submerged rocks that could be a problem. Usually listed as "Underwater Obstruction". These are navigational hazards that are usually some distance from OBVIOUS hazards such as a coastline rock on the charts.

 

Edited February 24, 2012 by glrounds

[Vampire Parrot]

Wth all due respect, the rock that holed the Concordia was a SUBMERGED rock and probably wouldn't show on any typical navigation chart. So unless these charts show SUBMERGED rocks they would hardly be the rocks the ship struck.

 

Nowadays all known submerged rocks that are hazards to navigation are shown on naviation charts. The link is a screenshot from the chart, showing the rock or one adjacent to it that Concordia sadly hit.

http://pictures.cruisecritic.com/uploads/151905/rock3.jpg

 

VP

Edited February 24, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[Vampire Parrot]

If anyone is interested, the chart to reference when examining Costa Concordia's final track is It74 (B), Porti Dell'Argentario E Dell'Isola Del Giglio - Porto Del Giglio

 

VP

[Vampire Parrot]

Does anyone have thoughts on how reckless a speed the Concordia was traveling when it hit the rocks? The reports are that the ship increased its speed to 16 knots at the time of the collision. I have no reference point for maritime speeds. The service speed of the Concordia is apparently 19.6 knots with a maximum speed of 23 knots. Is there such a thing as a "safe speed" for this situation? The reports are that the ship was slowed down so the captain could enjoy his meal....any thoughts on what that speed might have been before the ship sped up?

 

The navigation instrumements (actually, on the electronic chart display) on the bridge show information such as "ETA", "TTG" (time to go), and "spare". "spare" is time not needed, it's spare time.

 

The passage will have been planned such that at certain speeds, Concordia would have arrived at her destination on time. By slowing down, and changing her course such that she'd be covering more ground, she'd need to travel faster later on. Not always a problem; if for example the average required speed was 16 knots over 12 hours and she'd make 20 knots easily, then the Navigator would have said we've got 4 knots times say 12 hours, 48 nautical miles we've got spare. Which may be what the Captain was relying on - go slow towards the island, buzz the island, speed up a bit and everything will be fine. But he got it wrong. Too fast, too close.

 

As for "safe speed" - if Concordia had kept a safe distance from the island, say 2 nautical miles - then allowing for traffic, 20 knots would have been safe. Go close and all bets are off as far as I am concerned. Close is for mooring up. Close is when a pilot is on board. Close is slow speed. Close is a fully manned, briefed bridge. Close is the Captain is in charge, supported by the rest of the team, i.e. the Deputy Captain, two other officers of the watch, lookouts, etc.

 

VP

 

Edited to add: too much factual information - I'll shut up!

Edited February 24, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[EVALUATOR]

If anyone is interested, the chart to reference when examining Costa Concordia's final track is It74 (B), Porti Dell'Argentario E Dell'Isola Del Giglio - Porto Del Giglio

 

VP

 

So you are saying the map below is not any good for close to shore navigation???

 

Could Kirk say there were no moon near Jupiter, they weren't on his map?

 

[watertheodds]

This is an older article and has probaby been posted before but it states the Concordia struck an exposed rock. Don't know how "professional" their source is but I'm just throwing it out there. I believe I recall the Captain admitting he saw the foam of the water lapping at the rock and tried to turn in time......

 

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16152603

 

Sky News has obtained a report and animated reconstruction of the Costa Concordia's final route based on shipping navigational data.

 

The animation shows the cruise liner hitting an "exposed rock" before continuing on.

The report - from professional sources - details the vessel's route, which is superimposed over shipping charts of the area.

One of the images depicts the liner, a "safety contour" outline around the island of Giglio and the heading "struck exposed rock with a speed of 15 knots".

[watertheodds]

Oh My Gosh, Evaluator - I believe you have uncovered the actual chart the Capt was using. Good catch!

[EVALUATOR]

Oh My Gosh, Evaluator - I believe you have uncovered the actual chart the Capt was using. Good catch!

 

All joking aside, here is aerial video that shows the Ship, port, and Le Scole in the same screen and helps put how close the impact area was to shore.

 

Starting at about 0:35 it should be easy to make out the Ship. The port with the light houses is on the right side. At the top of the screen there is a point where a small rocky island is just off shore. That is Le Scole. Approximately 85 meters or 275 feet from the island is where Concordia struck the rock. That is about how far the keel of the Concordia now sits from shore.

[alita]

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1329962229496&thepage=1

[Nikki Lisette]

If you don't care for the opinions or discussions you could always

go directly to the source and Google "Costa Concordia" yourself.

 

Just saying.

[glrounds]

It appears this may boil down to a matter of semantics; "NEWS", as intially presented in the first post of this thread was clearly meant to be the presentation/summary of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television .

 

Most of the "NEWS" in the past 5 weeks has run the gambit from dead on accurate, to tainted conjecture to totally incorrect and misleading information. Stories often written by someone who has no knowledge of the sea, hates handsome arrogant captains, dislikes seductive cruise line dancers, or big dominating cruise lines. Many of these stories were twisted to garner horrific headlines. Many of the news stories have to be translated and that leads to further "I know what he meant" kind of stuff.

 

The first post in this thread clearly requests that news articles be summarized and a link be provided (allowing the option of reading further if one desired). The objective was to keep information factual and to the point.... short and sweet and without discussion.

 

Quite frankly, the request that news be shared in this manner was because other threads that had been showcasing the news had disappeared. Asking that posts in this thread be kept to current "NEWS" without discussion seemed like a logical way to keep information available without the risk that this thread might suddenly vanish as well.

 

The first thread on this tragedy "vanished" because it had over 5000 posts. The next one didn't vanish, but was "locked". The 3rd thread went "poof" because it had several posters who have been following this from day 1 that had disparate views of EACH OTHER and were stating so.

 

If your comments about censure was directed at me, so be it. I have on occasion respectfullly requested that the posters who desired to monopolize the thread with specific topics or debates start a thread specific to the issue that they would like to pursue in greater depth. My thought is that those topics that require multiple or lenghty posts deserve their own discussion so that they do not cause this NEWS thread to be overloaded.

 

Your posts constantly objecting to our posts are becoming MULTIPLE and actually QUITE LENGTHY.

 

The would of, should of, could of conjecture statements and comments shared by some are not news and it's those sort of post that often cause a thread to go poof, especially when the back and forth banterings get ugly. This is why I suggested this be a factual news only thread.

 

I see no "bantering" going on here. However, I'm assuming telling someone that you disagree with them isn't considered "bantering".

 

Simply put, if posters cooperate with the spirit of the initial thread and share NEWS as was initially requested, [the presentation/summary of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television accompanied by links, I believe there is greater likelihood that this thead might remain intact.

 

I love the sea. I get a lot of input from other posters, some agreeing with me, some respectfully disagreeing with me. In the first thread, as well as the second, there were actual sea captains, maritime authorities, and others that new what they were talking about, that posted a lot of useful information oft time contradicting what the "news" sources were saying. I found this very interesting.

 

Right now, from what I've read, I can only think of one poster who could cause this thread to vanish. :)

 

Edited February 25, 2012 by glrounds

[glrounds]

OK, so the OP asked for only links and news. The very first response was a question and not a link to news. How did that work out?

 

To think that someone would post a link, call it news, and not have people comment on it is naive at best.

 

Here is a link to TVPeru. It is a compilation of various photos and videos.

 

Three seconds into it, there is a shot of water coming down a set of stairs. It was not from the Concordia.

 

Just over one minute into it there is video of water coming in windows. That was not from the Concordia.

 

That's not worth discussing??? What good are the links if they are to false information?

 

If you want to consolidate the information and news, skim the posts, look for the links, and cut and paste them to your own personal data base.

 

One person complains there are too many posts about different subjects and should be consolidated, and another complains there should be a different one to discuss each news article.

 

Needless to say I quite agree with you. On an open forum such as this threads will go where interest takes them. :)

 

And, BTW I loved your navigation pic earlier. :D

 

I quite agree with both of you. And, also, that navigation chart was very enlightening, Evaluator. I had no idea that nav charts would go into so much detail with SUBMERGED rocks. Pretty incredible. ;)

 

[glrounds]

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1329962229496&thepage=1

 

Good article, alita. I noticed in many cases it covered BOTH SIDES of the case as it relates to Carnival's involvement and Costa's involvement.

 

[Keel Haul]

This is quite news worthy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9103705/Concordia-captain-changed-ships-speed-for-dinner-with-ex-dancer.html

[glrounds]

This is quite news worthy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9103705/Concordia-captain-changed-ships-speed-for-dinner-with-ex-dancer.html

 

I quite agree with the article. A faster ship cuts down on the time available to make "last minute" corrections to the course, especially close to land and at night. One past captain in a previous thread had noted that the ship was probably sliding somewhat sideways as she scraped the rocks as turning at that speed causes the ship to slide in the water, so to speak, with its forward momentum tending to keep it on the same course and the aft swinging around to port in order to point the bow more to starboard. He further stated that a speed of 16 knots should be strictly reserved for open ocean.

 

[Vampire Parrot]

One past captain in a previous thread had noted that the ship was probably sliding somewhat sideways as she scraped the rocks as turning at that speed causes the ship to slide in the water,

So very true and not always appreciated. Excellent point.

 

The sideways effect can catch people out.

 

Some numbers about the sideways effect:

A ship turns around it's 'pivot point'. With most ships, this is pretty close to amidships in calm water, ship on an even keel, ship not under power.

 

However the pivot point is not fixed.

 

When a ship is moving forward, the pivot point will move forward as steering takes place from the rudder. If there was no water resistance, the pivot point would actually be very close to the bow! Due to water resistance, the pivot point moves about 1/4 way back from the bow. So with Costa Concordia, which is 952 feet long, the pivot point would be approximately 250 feet from the bow, 700 feet from the stern. To see what this would be like, take a pencil, mark it 1/4 of the way down, and move it along your desk in an arc, pivoting it around the point you've made. See how much the stern of your pencil swings out.

 

VP

Edited February 25, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[EVALUATOR]

So very true and not always appreciated. Excellent point.

 

The sideways effect can catch people out.

 

Some numbers about the sideways effect:

A ship turns around it's 'pivot point'. With most ships, this is pretty close to amidships in calm water, ship on an even keel, ship not under power.

 

However the pivot point is not fixed.

 

When a ship is moving forward, the pivot point will move forward as steering takes place from the rudder. If there was no water resistance, the pivot point would actually be very close to the bow! Due to water resistance, the pivot point moves about 1/4 way back from the bow. So with Costa Concordia, which is 952 feet long, the pivot point would be approximately 250 feet from the bow, 700 feet from the stern. To see what this would be like, take a pencil, mark it 1/4 of the way down, and move it along your desk in an arc, pivoting it around the point you've made. See how much the stern of your pencil swings out.

 

VP

 

The best example I can use to explain it is this. It's like driving a car backwards.

 

Imagine you pull your big suv into a parking lot. You park in the middle of three spots and go in shopping. When you come out, there is now a car parked close on each side of you. As you back out, you have to turn. But the actual front of the suv goes the opposite way. If you turn too sharp too fast you will hit the car next to you, but on the opposite side you are trying to get the rear of the suv to go.

 

The bow thrusters might have turned (or pushed) the bow of the ship away from the reef. But they would only work at speeds of less than ten knots. If he would have tried to use them at 16 knots they would have cavitated and probably disintegrated.

 

As for the wind being a saving grace, it might have helped cause the impact too. That same wind that pushed it back to shore north of the port would have also been pushing the ship west before striking the rock.

 

The water depth drops off so fast there only a few meters could have made the difference in striking the reef, and luckily missing it like an earlier fly by. Remember, they were worried about the ship sliding a few meters and dropping off a ledge into water 100 meters deep.

[Tranquil Waters]

This is quite news worthy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9103705/Concordia-captain-changed-ships-speed-for-dinner-with-ex-dancer.html

 

It certainly does summarize where we seem to be with the investigation. I have to admit that every time I read one of these articles I get very upset and angry all over again that such a needless and preventable tragedy was allowed to happen. It is probably why I harp too much (for some people :o) on wanting Costa/CCL to be held responsible both legally and financially.

 

But in deference to multiple opinions I will try to keep those posts to a reasonable number......:)

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

The best example I can use to explain it is this. It's like driving a car backwards.

 

Imagine you pull your big suv into a parking lot. You park in the middle of three spots and go in shopping. When you come out, there is now a car parked close on each side of you. As you back out, you have to turn. But the actual front of the suv goes the opposite way. If you turn too sharp too fast you will hit the car next to you, but on the opposite side you are trying to get the rear of the suv to go.

 

The bow thrusters might have turned (or pushed) the bow of the ship away from the reef. But they would only work at speeds of less than ten knots. If he would have tried to use them at 16 knots they would have cavitated and probably disintegrated.

 

As for the wind being a saving grace, it might have helped cause the impact too. That same wind that pushed it back to shore north of the port would have also been pushing the ship west before striking the rock.

 

The water depth drops off so fast there only a few meters could have made the difference in striking the reef, and luckily missing it like an earlier fly by. Remember, they were worried about the ship sliding a few meters and dropping off a ledge into water 100 meters deep.

 

That's a very interesting observation, that's for pointing that out.

[glrounds]

So very true and not always appreciated. Excellent point.

 

When a ship is moving forward, the pivot point will move forward as steering takes place from the rudder. If there was no water resistance, the pivot point would actually be very close to the bow! Due to water resistance, the pivot point moves about 1/4 way back from the bow. So with Costa Concordia, which is 952 feet long, the pivot point would be approximately 250 feet from the bow, 700 feet from the stern. To see what this would be like, take a pencil, mark it 1/4 of the way down, and move it along your desk in an arc, pivoting it around the point you've made. See how much the stern of your pencil swings out.

 

VP

 

The best example I can use to explain it is this. It's like driving a car backwards.

 

Imagine you pull your big suv into a parking lot. You park in the middle of three spots and go in shopping. When you come out, there is now a car parked close on each side of you. As you back out, you have to turn. But the actual front of the suv goes the opposite way. If you turn too sharp too fast you will hit the car next to you, but on the opposite side you are trying to get the rear of the suv to go.

 

This EXACT principle was used in the attempt to prevent further damage to the TITANIC almost 100 years ago, as it brushed an iceberg on its STARBOARD side.

 

When the TITANIC made contact with the iceberg and it was scraping down the STARBOARD side of the ship ripping the hull apart, the 1st officer ordered the Helmsman to go "HARD TO STARBOARD". It would seem he was turning INTO the iceberg, but this master seaman knew that this command would take the aft half of the ship HARD TO PORT and AWAY from the iceberg. Unfortunately, by the time the ship could respond to this rudder command the damage was already done, and as we all know, was terminal.:(

 

[Emilija]

I wonder how much information will be available from the pre-trial hearing on Mar 3.

 

So many opinions, based on various media reports, have been posted. It will be interesting to see how the actual facts will compare to the opions on this forum.

 

I am not being sarcastic, just curious.

 

Emi

[IRL_Joanie]

I wonder how much information will be available from the pre-trial hearing on Mar 3.

 

So many opinions, based on various media reports, have been posted. It will be interesting to see how the actual facts will compare to the opions on this forum.

 

I am not being sarcastic, just curious.

 

Emi

 

.... it is open to ALL the survivors and their families!! You best believe they are going to talk:D

 

I knew you were not being sarcastic:) We are all curious for the truth. That is why we've continued our discussions.

 

Joanie

Edited February 25, 2012 by IRL_Joanie

[glrounds]

.... it is open to ALL the survivors and their families!! You best believe they are going to talk:D

Joanie

 

Does the Italian justice system have a "previous trial" similar to our Grand Jury system whereby the state provides proof that the defendants should be charged with a crime and must go to trial? If so, at least here in the U.S., the Grand Jury is secret and participants are prohibited from commenting. Is this different in Italy ? :confused: