Concordia News: Please Post Here

[lightman1984]

A couple good blister photos & a long rough translation to check out on Giglio news.

 

http://www.giglionews.it/2013081659941/news/isola-del-giglio/costa-concordia-il-raddrizzamento-si-avvicina.html

[SomeBeach]

On the parbuckling site there is a video from July 15th with Nick Sloane. I listened to it again this morning. Mr Sloane states that the blisters were scheduled to go on about Aug 15th. We know that did not happen.

He also states that with 1400 tons of lift the blisters will provide 6 tons of buoyancy.

The grouting work is scheduled to be done about Aug 20th. He said that they still have several drivers going down working on that.

To help understand buoyancy:

Buoyancy, the tendency of an object to rise or float when immersed in a fluid (either a liquid or a gas). Any fluid exerts an upward force on an object immersed in it. The strength of the force is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced (pushed aside) by the object; this principle is known as Archimedes' Principle. This principle explains why less effort is required to lift an object submerged in water than to lift the same object when it is out of water.

If a wooden board is placed in a bathtub full of water, some of the water will spill over the side. The amount of water pushed aside by the board is called the board's displacement. The board sinks only until it has displaced a volume of water whose weight equals the weight of the board. A metal ship can float because its hull displaces an amount of water whose weight is greater than the weight of the ship. If a ship fills with water, however, the combined weight of the ship and water will exceed the buoyant force, and the ship will sink. When the density (the ratio of the mass to volume) of an object matches the density of the surrounding fluid, it will neither rise nor sink, but will remain suspended in the fluid.

[Bearded Engineer]

On the parbuckling site there is a video from July 15th with Nick Sloane. I listened to it again this morning. Mr Sloane states that the blisters were scheduled to go on about Aug 15th. We know that did not happen.

He also states that with 1400 tons of lift the blisters will provide 6 tons of buoyancy.

 

The grouting work is scheduled to be done about Aug 20th. He said that they still have several drivers going down working on that.

 

To help understand buoyancy:

Buoyancy, the tendency of an object to rise or float when immersed in a fluid (either a liquid or a gas). Any fluid exerts an upward force on an object immersed in it. The strength of the force is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced (pushed aside) by the object; this principle is known as Archimedes' Principle. This principle explains why less effort is required to lift an object submerged in water than to lift the same object when it is out of water.

If a wooden board is placed in a bathtub full of water, some of the water will spill over the side. The amount of water pushed aside by the board is called the board's displacement. The board sinks only until it has displaced a volume of water whose weight equals the weight of the board. A metal ship can float because its hull displaces an amount of water whose weight is greater than the weight of the ship. If a ship fills with water, however, the combined weight of the ship and water will exceed the buoyant force, and the ship will sink. When the density (the ratio of the mass to volume) of an object matches the density of the surrounding fluid, it will neither rise nor sink, but will remain suspended in the fluid.

 

I believe what he said is that the blisters weigh 1400 metric tons (He mentioned it with their largest lift to date meaning the load the cranes would see) and that they would provide 6000 tons on buoyancy. I'm still not clear if he was referring to both sides as a whole or one side only when he said "blister tank". If he was referring to both sides together then the Lone can lift the entire assembly using both cranes (1000 m-ton capacity each)

[CTH]

I believe what he said is that the blisters weigh 1400 metric tons (He mentioned it with their largest lift to date meaning the load the cranes would see) and that they would provide 6000 tons on buoyancy. I'm still not clear if he was referring to both sides as a whole or one side only when he said "blister tank". If he was referring to both sides together then the Lone can lift the entire assembly using both cranes (1000 m-ton capacity each)

Micoperi 30's sheerleg crane can lift 1270 mt, so if either each blister weighs 1400mt, or both are fitted together totalling 1400mt, then Micoperi 30 lifting on her own is just out of the equation.

 

I'm wondering if Lone will lift both blisters (bolted together & in one piece) off the barge/platform using both of her cranes, drop them down into the water in the present position (barge removed) & lowering one blister further down into the water than the other to cause them to float @ 60 degrees off level (as per Costa Concordia). Micoperi then attaches to the upper blister (Lone detatches), & moves the blisters forward onto CC's bow. The blisters will be much lighter once floating in the water.

 

Just a random thought/option!!

[Bearded Engineer]

Micoperi 30's sheerleg crane can lift 1270 mt, so if either each blister weighs 1400mt, or both are fitted together totalling 1400mt, then Micoperi 30 lifting on her own is just out of the equation.

 

I'm wondering if Lone will lift both blisters (bolted together & in one piece) off the barge/platform using both of her cranes, drop them down into the water in the present position (barge removed) & lowering one blister further down into the water than the other to cause them to float @ 60 degrees off level (as per Costa Concordia). Micoperi then attaches to the upper blister (Lone detatches), & moves the blisters forward onto CC's bow. The blisters will be much lighter once floating in the water.

 

Just a random thought/option!!

 

If they lower them into the water and partially flood them they could achieve neutral bouyancy and just float them into place.

[SomeBeach]

I believe what he said is that the blisters weigh 1400 metric tons (He mentioned it with their largest lift to date meaning the load the cranes would see) and that they would provide 6000 tons on buoyancy. I'm still not clear if he was referring to both sides as a whole or one side only when he said "blister tank". If he was referring to both sides together then the Lone can lift the entire assembly using both cranes (1000 m-ton capacity each)

 

BE, you are correct about 6,000. I had that in my notes from when I listened to it but only typed in the 6. :o What can I say. I'm on some really good drugs right now and since I'm not use to taking that kind of stuff it has me a bit scrambled. :D

As to metric, I didn't hear that and it wasn't in my notes. Not saying he didn't say that but in 3 "listens" to it, I didn't catch it.

[sidari]

On the webcam when i zoomed in this morning you can see that something has been installed on the bottom of the Bow below the small Caisson, further back there is also something installed below the Big Caissons, looks like they may be the chains that will be attached to the sea bed cradle ?

[clive and anne]

All action this morning. Lone has lifted the blisters clear of the barge and Ril is approaching ,presumably to tow the barge away. We will soon know the method they are going to use to fit the blisters.

Annoyingly I have to go out in a few hours so I am relying on you good people to tell me whats happening.......Please

[Bearded Engineer]

The blister assembly has been sitting in the water for several hours but does not seem to have gone any lower. A painfully slow process. Ril has taken the barge some distance to the right (east) and is stationary. I guess they will want to keep the barge on hand in case they have to abort the installation process.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Bearded Engineer

[Bearded Engineer]

The Lone's cranes have disengaged so the blister is floating. In the gantt chart in last weeks report it said that Lone would lift the blister and lower it to the water and then Micoperi 30 would take over. I guess M-30 is going to grab hold of the blister now.

[glojo]

Just like most folks here I have a morbid interest in this awful disaster but some comments by cheng have caught my interest.

 

On forums there are lots of arm chair critics and so few experts that can offer constructive advice and I guess I am in the corner of the 'armchair observer' that enjoys reading the wise words of experts.

 

I do however have a few observations.

 

1. Helmsman

I guess we need all to aspire to fulfil our full potential and why not employ a helmsman of any nationality providing they both speak ands understand the required language (which in this circumstance is I believe English) If the helms-person cannot speak the required language then should they be allowed to touch that wheel without a translator present?) Someone has to be held responsible for appointing the staff on these ships and they have an awful lot of questions to answer

 

2. Helm commands

From what I understand the captain was not happy about about doing this salute but did it as a personal favour. The course was logged into the autopilot and the ship steered itself and allegedly as they closed the island the master took the conn and then gradually started to alter course to 'avoid' the island. I believe the court has alleged they were using the wrong sized charts for this manoeuvre but because this was an unscheduled commitment, the ship had no obligation to carry the appropriate chart.

 

It is alleged that the rock that caused the damage was only seen a minute or so prior to the collision and the master gave a 'Hard to starboard' order to avoid the obstruction

 

I have read criticism of the captain for not immediately countering the order with a 'Hard to Port' command and I would ask is this criticism done with the benefit of twenty, twenty hindsight??

 

I cannot see any problems with the helm orders that were given but unlike what others might say, I totally disagree that it is acceptable for a thirteen second delay in applying a conning order. I believe that to be unacceptable and needs to be justified.

 

The officer of the watch or whoever has command will give a helm order

 

The helmsman\person will repeat the command and at the same time apply it.

 

Once the order has been complied with the helms-person will inform the bridge the wheel is at the required position and the bridge gives an acknowledgement

 

Quick demo

Captain or Officer of the Watch.... Starboard twenty

helm..... Starboard twenty

helm... Twenty of starboard wheel on sir (or similar acknowledgement)

Captain or OOW

 

All this will be said and actioned just as quickly as we say it.... Would it have made any difference????

 

I have no idea but from what I understand the ship merely grazed that rock and that delay was an awfully long time when we think about distances.

 

I have no idea how efficient the azipod system is but looking at how amazingly well these huge ships manoeuvre, they are really impressive but.... They need the propellers to be spinning to give them bite??

 

My thoughts are the captain has an awful lot to answer for but by crikey he should not be made the scape-goat for this dreadful incident. I have no end of questions to ask regarding this event and sadly it looks like the cruise industry is simply burying its head in the sand and pretending 'This will never happen to us!'

[Uniall]

As the, oft dismissed out of hand, Resident Legal Expert (by default since I'm apparently the only lawyer regularly posting) I hasten to point out (one more time) that the law does not start with the mechanical, navigational, or seamanship of the ship and crew.

 

It starts with whether the decision to aproach nearer to land for the purpose of showboating (literally) should have been made since it raised the chances of danger and disaster and lowered the safety zone of the passengers and crew. If disaster strikes, the decision maker(s) are held responsible because they are the primary cause of the disaster. Everything that occurs thereafter are considered a secondary casues and can add others to the culpable list but can not absolve the decision maker from primary responsiblity. The rule of civil law (recently expanded to crimianl law) in the western world is the decision maker knew or should have known the decision was asking for a disaster and will be held accountable.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Uniall

[glojo]

As the, oft dismissed out of hand, Resident Legal Expert (by default since I'm apparently the only lawyer regularly posting) I hasten to point out (one more time) that the law does not start with the mechanical, navigational, or seamanship of the ship and crew.

 

It starts with whether the decision to aproach nearer to land for the purpose of showboating (literally) should have been made since it raised the chances of danger and disaster and lowered the safety zone of the passengers and crew. If disaster strikes, the decision maker(s) are held responsible because they are the primary cause of the disaster. Everything that occurs thereafter are considered a secondary casues and can add others to the culpable list but can not absolve the decision maker from primary responsiblity. The rule of civil law (recently expanded to crimianl law) in the western world is the decision maker knew or should have known the decision was asking for a disaster and will be held accountable.

Wise words and to agree to go near land without an adequate chart involves risk! Risk and passenger carrying vessels should never be considered.

 

I guess I am more interested in lessons learnt from a lifeboat aspect and sadly I fear nothing has been learnt and there are some horrendous examples of bad practice.

 

What needs to be remembered is this ship complied with all current regulations regarding the operation of lifeboats and but for the grace of god and some amazing good luck, the fatalities would have been far, far worse.

[Tonka's Skipper]

Just like most folks here I have a morbid interest in this awful disaster but some comments by cheng have caught my interest.

 

On forums there are lots of arm chair critics and so few experts that can offer constructive advice and I guess I am in the corner of the 'armchair observer' that enjoys reading the wise words of experts.

 

I do however have a few observations.

 

1. Helmsman

I guess we need all to aspire to fulfil our full potential and why not employ a helmsman of any nationality providing they both speak ands understand the required language (which in this circumstance is I believe English) If the helms-person cannot speak the required language then should they be allowed to touch that wheel without a translator present?) Someone has to be held responsible for appointing the staff on these ships and they have an awful lot of questions to answer

 

2. Helm commands

From what I understand the captain was not happy about about doing this salute but did it as a personal favour. The course was logged into the autopilot and the ship steered itself and allegedly as they closed the island the master took the conn and then gradually started to alter course to 'avoid' the island. I believe the court has alleged they were using the wrong sized charts for this manoeuvre but because this was an unscheduled commitment, the ship had no obligation to carry the appropriate chart.

 

It is alleged that the rock that caused the damage was only seen a minute or so prior to the collision and the master gave a 'Hard to starboard' order to avoid the obstruction

 

I have read criticism of the captain for not immediately countering the order with a 'Hard to Port' command and I would ask is this criticism done with the benefit of twenty, twenty hindsight??

 

I cannot see any problems with the helm orders that were given but unlike what others might say, I totally disagree that it is acceptable for a thirteen second delay in applying a conning order. I believe that to be unacceptable and needs to be justified.

 

The officer of the watch or whoever has command will give a helm order

 

The helmsman\person will repeat the command and at the same time apply it.

 

Once the order has been complied with the helms-person will inform the bridge the wheel is at the required position and the bridge gives an acknowledgement

 

Quick demo

Captain or Officer of the Watch.... Starboard twenty

helm..... Starboard twenty

helm... Twenty of starboard wheel on sir (or similar acknowledgement)

Captain or OOW

 

All this will be said and actioned just as quickly as we say it.... Would it have made any difference????

 

I have no idea but from what I understand the ship merely grazed that rock and that delay was an awfully long time when we think about distances.

 

I have no idea how efficient the azipod system is but looking at how amazingly well these huge ships manoeuvre, they are really impressive but.... They need the propellers to be spinning to give them bite??

 

My thoughts are the captain has an awful lot to answer for but by crikey he should not be made the scape-goat for this dreadful incident. I have no end of questions to ask regarding this event and sadly it looks like the cruise industry is simply burying its head in the sand and pretending 'This will never happen to us!'

 

 

Cheng is a good ships engineer and I, as a deck Officer, have supported him in almost 100% of his comments.

 

The bottom line here is not the helmsman, it is that the Master, nor the Deck Officers noticed the delay and its was thier job to notice it!

 

Over all there are others responsible and some of them have pleaded guilty (likely to get out of jail time).

 

However the Master has the bulk of the responsibility:

 

1. He was the Master.

 

2. He layed a course which brought his massive vessel close inshore and in a dangerous position.

 

3. He was not on the bridge, with the con until the vessel was close inshore and heading for the rock and was doing other things even then. If he had been paying attention and had the con, he would have or should have seen that the vessel was closer inshore then even he layed down on the chart (the fault of the Duty Officers) and heading toward the rock.

 

4. It was really to late to do much good when he finally woke up and tried to maneuver away form the rock. Yes it is possible that if his commands were correct and timely and there was no time delays the vessel MAY have missed the rock, but its not likely.

 

5. Then having a phone chat with the RP in the Costa office (who also pleaded guilty) to decide how the best way to spin the problem of his vessel sinking under him and not ordering muster stations for a hour and then abandoning his vessel and passengers to get ashore.......thats criminal.

 

 

That is the short version, but pretty much explains it all.

 

AKK

Edited August 17, 2013 by Tonka's Skipper

[glojo]

Hi Tonka,

It would be the act of a fool to defend the master of this ship but...

 

Is anyone seriouslky suggesting it is good practice or even acceptable to have a helmsman on the wheel that cannot communicate in the required language?

 

Forget this incident and just think about any event regarding prompt and imediate compliance with a helm order.

 

My thoughts are that there must surely be someone in charge of formulating a watchbill and that person must surely be held accountable for this decision?

 

I totally agree that this ship should never have got that close to land but the avoiding action MIGHT have worked if the orders had been complied with in the expected manner.

 

The selection of helms person might not be the responsibility of the master, but it does beg the question of how many ships employ staff in positions of responsibility and these folk cannot speak the rquired language? I would need a lot of convincing that this was unique to that one specific ship?

 

Edit:

Regarding masters contacting their head office....

 

I stand to be corrected but I believe the British coastguard now have the power to order a ship's master to take the necessary action when this authority deem the ship to be in danger? (please look on this as a question)

 

Do we know how many lifeboats left the ship with survivors, and then returned for a second or third load?

Edited August 17, 2013 by glojo

[Bearded Engineer]

If you look at this picture from the Giglio news story you can see a network of pipes on the blister and a series of hoses connected to a large valve manifold on the small barge next to it. The blister tanks must have internal compartments that can be selectively filled with water until they are in the correct orientation to place onto Concordia. The small barge is still attached to the blister tanks as M-30 has moved in to take control.

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='glojo']Hi Tonka,

[COLOR=magenta]Good to meet you Glojo![/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff00ff][/COLOR]
It would be the act of a fool to defend the master of this ship but...

Is anyone seriouslky suggesting it is good practice or even acceptable to have a helmsman on the wheel that cannot communicate in the required language?

Forget this incident and just think about any event regarding prompt and imediate compliance with a helm order.

My thoughts are that there must surely be someone in charge of formulating a watchbill and that person must surely be held accountable for this decision?

[COLOR=magenta]The official language on the Concordia was Italian and the helmsman spoke Italian but the Master orders were in English........[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff00ff][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff00ff]Again though the Duty Officers and the Masters job was to watch the rudder indicators and confirm that the correct response to the Masters orders were done and in a timely manner.[/COLOR]

I totally agree that this ship should never have got that close to land but the avoiding action [B]MIGHT[/B] have worked if the orders had been complied with in the expected manner.

[COLOR=magenta]I agree it may have worked![/COLOR]

The selection of helms person might not be the responsibility of the master, but it does beg the question of how many ships employ staff in positions of responsibility and these folk cannot speak the rquired language? I would need a lot of convincing that this was unique to that one specific ship?

Edit:
Regarding masters contacting their head office....

I stand to be corrected but I believe the British coastguard now have the power to order a ship's master to take the necessary action when this authority deem the ship to be in danger? (please look on this as a question)

[COLOR=magenta]The Master always has final authority and command of his vessel. Now that said, local Coast Guard, can request, suggest, ask, beg a Master to do what they feel is best and request it in a very strong manner and any MASTER that disregards a Coast Guard request, had better have about 10 good reasons lined up as to why he didn't follow the Coast Guards request because after the crisis's is over, the Coast Guard will be having a meeting with him about it! :eek:[/COLOR]

Do we know how many lifeboats left the ship with survivors, and then returned for a second or third load?[/quote]

[COLOR=magenta]If I am not mistaken, all but 3 of the lifeboats left the vessel and I believe some did return to take additional passenger or pick them out of the water.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#ff00ff]AKK[/COLOR] Edited August 17, 2013 by Tonka's Skipper

[glojo]

[quote=Tonka's Skipper;39580509][COLOR=magenta]If I am not mistaken, all but 3 of the lifeboats left the vessel and I believe some did return to take additional passenger or pick them out of the water.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#ff00ff]AKK[/COLOR][/quote]
Thank you Toka and nice to speak to you.

I am sure youy are correct that at least three boats did indeed return plus there were other boats that rescued passengers from that ship.

The point I was making about our coastguard now having the final say is that too often we were seeing the master pontificating and being bullied by their employer when quite clearly the ship needed to be abandoned.

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='glojo']Thank you Toka and nice to speak to you.

I am sure youy are correct that at least three boats did indeed return plus there were other boats that rescued passengers from that ship.

The point I was making about our coastguard now having the final say is that too often we were seeing the master pontificating and being bullied by their employer when quite clearly the ship needed to be abandoned.[/quote]


A Ships Master is one of the last absolute (OK almost) Monarchs in our world and with that goes the responsibility. I cannot say with certainty that the English CG cab order a Master to do something, but I believe the Master is still in command of his vessel. The CG can request, but not require.

As to the office staff bullying a Master,,,,yeap... it happens, but with operational and cargo issues. With his vessel sinking, the Captain of the Concordia had to advise his office of the situation, but they were talking about it for almost a hour, the Captain was negligent in his duty and in my opinion legally wrong in waiting a hour to sound muster stations.

In my opinion they were more interested in spinning the story for Costa and Carnivals PR interests.

I cannot offer a professional opinion of when he should have ordered boats loaded and away as I was not there, but he dam well should have had the people ready!


AKK

[Mike.Minh]

Looks as if the are getting serious with the blister now. But daylight will soon fade away, we won't be able to see much I am afraid.

[glojo]

Hi Tonka,
I cannot disagree with anything you say but I would be interested to hear if those lifeboats left the ship without a full complement of passengers as everyone was extremely lucky in a very unlucky situation.

Once the lifeboat pulls away from the ship it should be fully laden and perhaps battened down to await rescue. To have numerous vessels coming to the aid of that ship was a huge bonus.

Am I correct to suggest that once this ship hit the rocks... she was dead in the water and it looked bad when the vessel drifted out into deeper water but although it was Friday 13th.. Someone, somewhere was looking after that ship and mother nature put her back into shallow water where thankfully she stayed afloat and there was a minimal loss of life.

I live in the area of the Western Approaches and was sure I could recall a debate about our coastguard having the final say on whether a ship should accept aid and after a very quick skimp using Mr Google, I came up with this example which highlights my point exactly.

[URL="http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/903671"]click [/URL]

Sadly we have seen a number of masters putting not just their crews lives in danger but also the lives of those tasked to rescue them and I salute our politicians for passing these laws which sadly should never be needed.

Question
From what I have read the helmsman was punished for steering the ship in the wrong direction??

I have heard the voice recordings of the captain and I can only assume they used a data recorder to convict that person? (another question)

[Bearded Engineer]

[quote name='Mike.Minh']Looks as if the are getting serious with the blister now. But daylight will soon fade away, we won't be able to see much I am afraid.[/quote]

They have to sink the starboard side to match the angle of the Concordia. I wonder if they will do that overnight and then move the blister into place after it gets light tomorrow.

[clive and anne]

Thanks for the updates Be very grateful.
Guess we will have to wait until tomorrow, hope M30 doesn't hide our view.

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='glojo']Hi Tonka,
I cannot disagree with anything you say but I would be interested to hear if those lifeboats left the ship without a full complement of passengers as everyone was extremely lucky in a very unlucky situation.
[COLOR=red] [/COLOR]
Once the lifeboat pulls away from the ship it should be fully laden and perhaps battened down to await rescue. To have numerous vessels coming to the aid of that ship was a huge bonus.

[COLOR=red]I don't know if all or some were full, as they were very close to shore, it was matter of minutes to go into the harbor and then they could have unloaded and then gone back to help. As you mentioned, there were indeed a lot of boats around helping so it was not a big deal if the lifeboats were helping or not. Remember lifeboats are not easy to handle.[/COLOR]

Am I correct to suggest that once this ship hit the rocks... she was dead in the water and it looked bad when the vessel drifted out into deeper water but although it was Friday 13th.. Someone, somewhere was looking after that ship and mother nature put her back into shallow water where thankfully she stayed afloat and there was a minimal loss of life.

[COLOR=red]She lost propulsion right after hitting the rock and electrical power a few minutes later. The wind and current turned her around 180* and pushed her back to shore[/COLOR]

I live in the area of the Western Approaches and was sure I could recall a debate about our coastguard having the final say on whether a ship should accept aid and after a very quick skimp using Mr Google, I came up with this example which highlights my point exactly.

[URL="http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/903671"]click [/URL]

Sadly we have seen a number of masters putting not just their crews lives in danger but also the lives of those tasked to rescue them and I salute our politicians for passing these laws which sadly should never be needed.

[COLOR=red]Ok.......we are talking apples and oranges I think. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=red][/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]1. I was not aware that the UK had those laws.......I bow to you [/COLOR][COLOR=red]information here[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red][/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]2. There is a difference from CG on the radio and the CG at the scene.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]The CG on the radio would not likely make life saving decisions, where as if there was a cutter there or Helo would be better aware of the situation to aid and help and tell the vessel would they need the Master/vessel to do.

3. Also there was situations where a Master would decline aid to save his vessel beyond a reasonable point where this action further endangered his crew and the lifesavers, in this case I total agree with the laws. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]3. With that said , I still find it strange these laws in the UK as if anything was later judged to be a poor decision and lead to the vessel being lost or lives lost, they could be held liable.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]Hey Uni..........any opinion on this from our leading atty?[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red] [/COLOR]
Question
From what I have read the helmsman was punished for steering the ship in the wrong direction??

I have heard the voice recordings of the captain and I can only assume they used a data recorder to convict that person? (another question)[/quote]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]Yes that was the reason for the charge and all of us with a Maritime background are finding it hard to believe.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]We have 2 ideas about it:[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]1. There is more to the helmsman story/actions then has been released[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]2. They charged the fellow to insure his testimony against the Master and others if need be. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]Remember the charges will likely no result in any jail time when everything is said and done.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]AKK[/COLOR] Edited August 17, 2013 by Tonka's Skipper

[Uniall]

[quote=Tonka's Skipper;39583203]

[COLOR=#ff0000]Yes that was the reason for the charge and all of us with a Maritime background are finding it hard to believe.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#ff0000]We have 2 ideas about it:[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#ff0000]1. There is more to the helmsman story/actions then has been released[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#ff0000]2. They charged the fellow to insure his testimony against the Master and others if need be. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#ff0000]Remember the charges will likely no result in any jail time when everything is said and done.[/COLOR]


[COLOR=black]AKK[/COLOR][/quote]

Western Civil Law (Court decisions in Common Law nations & Legislation in Codal Law nations) traditionally look to an intentional and/or negligent act(s) that put a train of events in motion that result in injury to property or injury or death to persons. Codal nations always blurred the line between Civil and Criminal but Common Law nations have been moving to a merged system in the last 30 years. I think part of the differing opinions on this thread have been the result of seaman and engineers focusing on mechanical failures (a normal thing) but the law focus on what started the events in motion and only looks at the subsequent events to see if they were so substantial to become intervening primary causes. But, it must be something so unusual that a reasonable person would not forsee it as possible. All the cards are falling against Schittino because HE made the decision that sent the ship, crew and passengers into harms way. Historically, that makes a guilty of violating Civil Law and in our Neo Modern times guilty of violating Criminal Law, as well. Edited August 17, 2013 by Uniall