Concordia News: Please Post Here

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='sidari']Doc or Tonka .... Haing now had chance to read the prelim report there was an issue that i thought i would bring up here.

The report states that Concordia was 0.5 miles off its charted/planned course and that being the case it does look like the plan was to sail close to Giglio as it had done before, with this in mind it does seem as though it would be difficult to accept that officials at costa could not have known about it!

Blondie ... shame about the end of your cruise, did you ask onboard why you did not go to Dover? maybe the power issue was something to do with the long drydock conversion ?[/quote]


I totlaly agree especailly since there have been some U tube clips showing the Conocrta passing almost as close on past voyages.


I have had this position from the start........the Office staff knew and approved this showboating in the past.

That if course does not in anyway let the Master off the hook.

AKK

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='DocF']This time frame makes pretty good sense to me.

One thing I noted attached to the article linked above is a photo that purports to show a piece of the equipment to be used in righting the hulk. It is a spud barge (thanks to Tonka's Skipper for IDing it) with a crane on it and is being used in the site prep work. I think it may play a part in the righting process, but it will be a minor part.

While not much visible progress shows, the changing work scene each day indicates that a lot is being accomplished sub-surface. Keep watching those web cams, folks.

Doc[/quote]


Doc I don't think that spud barge is near big enough or the crane strong enough (like maybe 5 ot 10 tons lifting strenght max.) to help in the actual righting porcess. That is more a construction plafrom.

I would expect some really big heavy lift barges(like 500 to 1500 tons) and tugs to do the actual righting.

AKK

[DocF]

I agree also that the intent was to closely pass Giglio. The suggested course was obviously not followed and the navigation of the ship was less than perfect.

In addition, I am convinced that the Costa home office had given at least tacit approval to the drive by approach to the port. Sort of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge", but you are on your own if something goes wrong type of approval. Gee, something really went wrong didn't it? I believe that during the trials, the culpability of people in the Costa management will come out.

I hope I live long enough for all the hearings and trials to be over.

Doc

[Vampire Parrot]

[QUOTE]
I totlaly agree especailly since there have been some U tube clips showing the Conocrta passing almost as close on past voyages.


I have had this position from the start........the Office staff knew and approved this showboating in the past.

That if course does not in anyway let the Master off the hook.

AKK [URL="http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=34189041"][IMG]http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/images/buttons/quote.gif[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE]

A properly planned and executed sail-past of an island is perfectly safe. Every cruise ship does something quite similar several times each week - when approaching and leaving pretty much every port. For example going into and out of Malta takes great skill and requires taking the ship within a few hundred metres of very solid breakwaters. Another example - driving a ship through the Norwegian Fjords looks very scary as those Fjords are narorw, but if properly planned and executed it is very routine and very safe.

What was different with Costa Concordia is that for reasons not yet fully understood, the Captain apparently took the conn from the officers of the watch and took the ship on a course other than that planned. Deviating from a planned course without a good reason and without discussing it with the other bridge officers is a recipe for disaster.

If the previous sail pasts were properly planned and executed, and I have no reason to beleive they were not, then in those cases the ship was at all times safe.

VP Edited June 17, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='Vampire Parrot']A properly planned and executed sail-past of an island is perfectly safe. Every cruise ship does something quite similar several times each week - when approaching and leaving pretty much every port. For example going into and out of Malta takes great skill and requires taking the ship within a few hundred metres of very solid breakwaters. Another example - driving a ship through the Norwegian Fjords looks very scary as those Fjords are narorw, but if properly planned and executed it is very routine and very safe.

What was different with Costa Concordia is that for reasons not yet fully understood, the Captain apparently took the conn from the officers of the watch and took the ship on a course other than that planned. Deviating from a planned course without a good reason and without discussing it with the other bridge officers is a recipe for disaster.

If the previous sail pasts were properly planned and executed, and I have no reason to beleive they were not, then in those cases the ship was at all times safe.

VP[/quote]

I totally agree,, my point was that the office knew about the sail bys. While the sailby in theory are safe.I feel it was not a safe thing to do.

It is kinda like a 18 wheeler going down a narrow country lane............can it be done,YES!.......was it totally safe or a good Idea....NO!

I doubt the office staff knew of the courses marked off.......the office staff first said they knew nothing about them....lies! !

The Master in my opinion, was not paying attention(for whatever or whoever reasons) to his vessels course/path and the duty Officer did not advise him they were heading into danger.

That is the reason the Captiain and the Duty Officer are not off the hook!

AKK Edited June 17, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[sidari]

I think that Schettino believed that he could maybe get closer to Giglio than the planned route by taking control himself but for whatever reason either forgot or did not know about the underwater outcrop of rock, but like all other disasters there is more than one issue that came together on that night as with all others to cause the accident.

[Uniall]

Where did you gather the infomation that led you to reach the opinion?
[INDENT][I]"A properly planned and executed sail-past of an island is perfectly safe. Every cruise ship does something quite similar several times each week - when approaching and leaving pretty much every port. For example going into and out of Malta takes great skill and requires taking the ship within a few hundred metres of very solid breakwaters. Another example - driving a ship through the Norwegian Fjords looks very scary as those Fjords are narorw, but if properly planned and executed it is very routine and very safe." [/I]
[/INDENT]Your conclusion appears to run counter to the use of pilots when entering and leaving harbors. Also, there is a big difference between sailing in a fjord as the intended sea lane and leaving the sea lane to "show off".

From a litigation standpoint, just put any 12 people off the street in the jury box and they will find gross negligence (or similar) by any ship's Captain who left the normal sea lane to sail close to shore for no reason except to "show boat" for people on shore or people aboard.

Throw in a couple of deaths and serious injuries and they'll find criminal liability as well.

[I]
[/I] Edited June 17, 2012 by Uniall

[Vampire Parrot]

[QUOTE]Where did you gather the infomation that led you to reach the opinion?[INDENT][I]"A properly planned and executed sail-past of an island is perfectly safe. Every cruise ship does something quite similar several times each week - when approaching and leaving pretty much every port. For example going into and out of Malta takes great skill and requires taking the ship within a few hundred metres of very solid breakwaters. Another example - driving a ship through the Norwegian Fjords looks very scary as those Fjords are narorw, but if properly planned and executed it is very routine and very safe." [/I]
[/INDENT]Your conclusion appears to run counter to the use of pilots when entering and leaving harbors. Also, there is a big difference between sailing in a fjord as the intended sea lane and leaving the sea lane to "show off".

From a litigation standpoint, just put any 12 people off the street in the jury box and they will find gross negligence (or similar) by any ship's Captain who left the normal sea lane to sail close to shore for no reason except to "show boat" for people on shore or people aboard.

Throw in a couple of deaths and serious injuries and they'll find criminal liability as well.[/QUOTE]

My conclusion supports the use of pilots when entering and leaving harbours. Once the pilot is aboard, the Captain & bridge team will have a discussion with the pilot as to what the plan is and how it will be executed.

As for "sea lane" - at sea, there isn't usually a "sea lane". Places such as the Dover Straights, Gibraltar, etc. where there is a lot of traffic will have a Traffic Seperation System (TSS) in which there are mandatory traffic lanes but these are the exception rather than the rule. There are of course other places with mandatory traffic lanes, e.g. harbours.

My charts don't show a TSS or mandatory traffic lanes where the Costa Concordia hit rocks.

A properly planned and executed course can sail by an island perfectly safely. I don't know for certain if this is the case of Costa Concordia's previous sail-bys, I have no solid evidence one way or the other, but the AIS plots of previous sail-bys indicate to me that they were properly planned.

As for your comment that's a jury would find a Captain grossly negligent for "show boating" - I have to partially disagree. If the "show boating" was properly planned and executed then I say again, it's perfectly safe. I've been on ships where we have "show boated" so for example we could get a good view of Bear Island. It was wonderful - and due to proper planning and execution, there was no risk whatsoever of running aground. For example, at no point during that sail-by did our course take us in a direction where the water would be less than 50 metres deep.

But if the show-boating is a spur-of-the-moment decision by the Captain then yes, he's grossly negligent.

VP Edited June 17, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[Uniall]

[quote name='Vampire Parrot']My conclusion supports the use of pilots when entering and leaving harbours. Once the pilot is aboard, the Captain & bridge team will have a discussion with the pilot as to what the plan is and how it will be executed.

As for "sea lane" - at sea, there isn't usually a "sea lane". Places such as the Dover Straights, Gibraltar, etc. where there is a lot of traffic will have a Traffic Seperation System (TSS) in which there are mandatory traffic lanes but these are the exception rather than the rule. There are of course other places with mandatory traffic lanes, e.g. harbours.

My charts don't show a TSS or mandatory traffic lanes where the Costa Concordia hit rocks.

A properly planned and executed course can sail by an island perfectly safely. I don't know for certain if this is the case of Costa Concordia's previous sail-bys, I have no solid evidence one way or the other, but the AIS plots of previous sail-bys indicate to me that they were properly planned.

As for your comment that's a jury would find a Captain grossly negligent for "show boating" - I have to partially disagree. If the "show boating" was properly planned and executed then I say again, it's perfectly safe. I've been on ships where we have "show boated" so for example we could get a good view of Bear Island. It was wonderful - and due to proper planning and execution, there was no risk whatsoever of running aground. For example, at no point during that sail-by did our course take us in a direction where the water would be less than 50 metres deep.

But if the show-boating is a spur-of-the-moment decision by the Captain then yes, he's grossly negligent.

VP[/quote]

I don't think you properly comprehend the law. While a violation of a customary practice is indicia of negligence, following a customary practice does not necesarily render it legally acceptable conduct.

In this case, the ship was going from one port to another by a pre charted course that was the customary route by sea lane between those ports. The Concordia wavered from that course to "show boat" (literally and figuratively) to salute people (say hello) to people ashore. Previous such salutes not only don't excuse the action but even render it more agregious by both the perpetrator (or as we say" The Perp) and his superiors if they condoned the action.

Once there are deaths or serious injury the burden of going forward with the evidence to prove it WAS NOT negligent is the norm. This is especially true of modes of public transportation for hire because it creates an affirmative duty to protect the passengers from harm above and beyond other duties. Edited June 17, 2012 by Uniall

[MorganMars]

[SIZE=3]There may be some misunderstanding here, as the charted course is shown on page 14 of the [I]Marine Incident Report[/I] that [B]TimWJ[/B] so kindly posted earlier. See: [/SIZE][URL="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3544291/Italian%20Maritime%20MSC90%20Presentation%20Costa%20Concordia.pdf"][SIZE=3]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3544291/Italian%20Maritime%20MSC90%20Presentation%20Costa%20Concordia.pdf[/SIZE][/URL]

[SIZE=3]Page 8 provides the planned course, which includes a [B][I]touristic sailing course[/I][/B] at the Island of Giglio. Page 9 shows that the planned course provides plenty of water depth for the vessel. [/SIZE]

[quote]
[SIZE=3]The voyage plan schedules:[/SIZE]
[LIST]
[*][SIZE=3]leaving the funnel-shaped exit of the Port of Civitavecchia[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=3]proceeding 302°[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=3]turning to 278° - abeam Punta Secca (Island of Giannutri), at a distance of 4,5 miles from it[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=3]altering the course to 334°, where Punta della Torricella (Island of Giglio) is bearing 239° from the ship, at a distance of 0,9 miles.[/SIZE]
[/LIST][/quote][SIZE=3]Page 14, though, shows that there was a navigational error, as they have passed the planned point where they were to make the turn to 334 degrees. The circle where the lines intersect is where the turn to starboard was planned. This would have allowed for a safe passage. Instead, at 2144, they are well past the point of no return and making the turn into the rocks.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]It is my understanding from the Investigative Report, that it is now the Coastguard’s task to determine [B][I]why[/I][/B] that happened. It may be attributed to a number of factors, such as excessive speed, windage, faulty GPS settings, current or human error. There is no doubt, though that the Master and crew are expected to make the necessary allowances to assure safe passage.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Regards,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]MorganMars[/SIZE]

[quote name='Uniall']In this case, the ship was going from one port to another by a pre charted course that was the customary route by sea lane between those ports. The Concordia wavered from that course to "show boat" (literally and figuratively) to salute people (say hello) to people ashore. Previous such salutes not only don't excuse the action but even render it more agregious by both the perpetrator (or as we say" The Perp) and his superiors if they condoned the action.

[/quote]

[sidari]

Morgan ... you beat me to it! :)

[Uniall]

[quote name='MorganMars'][SIZE=2]There may be some misunderstanding here, as the charted course is shown on page 14 of the [I]Marine Incident Report[/I] that [B]TimWJ[/B] so kindly posted earlier. See: [/SIZE][URL="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3544291/Italian%20Maritime%20MSC90%20Presentation%20Costa%20Concordia.pdf"][SIZE=3]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3544291/Italian%20Maritime%20MSC90%20Presentation%20Costa%20Concordia.pdf[/SIZE][/URL]

[SIZE=2]Page 8 provides the planned course, which includes a [B][I]touristic sailing course[/I][/B] at the Island of Giglio. Page 9 shows that the planned course provides plenty of water depth for the vessel. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Page 14, though, shows that there was a navigational error, as they have passed the planned point where they were to make the turn to 334 degrees. The circle where the lines intersect is where the turn to starboard was planned. This would have allowed for a safe passage. Instead, at 2144, they are well past the point of no return and making the turn into the rocks.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]It is my understanding from the Investigative Report, that it is now the Coastguard’s task to determine [B][I]why[/I][/B] that happened. It may be attributed to a number of factors, such as excessive speed, windage, faulty GPS settings, current or human error. There is no doubt, though that the Master and crew are expected to make the necessary allowances to assure safe passage.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Regards,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]MorganMars[/SIZE][/quote]

[quote name='sidari']Morgan ... you beat me to it! :)[/quote]

[SIZE="3"][B]Once again, non trial attorneys don't understand the law and trials. They look for scientific, uncontrovertable , proof positive facts and I know the only certainty is that it does NOT work that way.

Non litigaors seem to think that a coastal fly by to wave hello to a retired Captain is legally OK. But, I know that ANY detour from the safest most direct route between intended ports of call that results in serious injury or death is negligence (even gross negligence or criminal conduct) because someone in authority comitted and act that exposed the passengers to increased danger.

Any transport entity has a DUTY to refrain from raising the safety risks in order to arrive at the intended destination. Non lawyers seem to think that if it's possible to have done the fly by safely then a fly by is legally OK and can only be condemned if the fly was carried out in an unsafe or negligent manner. That is not legally correct. The law looks at the results and then looks back and asks did taking this course raise the risk or danger to the passengers that caused the death and injuries? Simply put, steering the ship nearer to land and shallower waters that causes the ship to run aground that results in death and injuries IS negligence and results in civil liability. The only debatable question is whether it's also criminal conduct because the actions were Gross negligence or reckless disregard for passenger safety. Criminal guilt is a lot easier in European courts than the US becasue they don't have the higher standard of proof for criminal convictions (reasonable doubt) and civil conviction (perponderance of the evidence)[/B][/SIZE]. Edited June 18, 2012 by Uniall

[DocF]

Maritime law gives the officers of a ship great power and even greater responsibility for its safe operation.

Any failure to take the safe course can result in serious charges being brought.

It does not even take being at sea to be negligent. Witness the capsize of the [I]Eastland[/I] while loading passengers for an excursion in 1915. This event in the Chicago River, not 30 feet from the bank, killed at least 835 people. If it had not been for the heroism of many onlookers, even more would have died there in the River at Clark St.

The legal ramifications from this tragic even stretched on for over 40 years. The last of the cases was heard in Grand Rapids, MI in 1958. I cut classes to attend what proved to be a rather boring and brief trial.

The point here is that every action taken by a ship's officer is subject to the hard hand of the law if things go wrong.

Doc

PS: Those interested in any aspect of the [I]Costa Concordia[/I] case should read about the [I]Eastland[/I]. I strongly recommend George w. Hilton's book, [I]Eastland, Legacy of the Titancic. [/I]George, a retired professor of economics at UCLA is a meticulous researcher and a fine scholar of Great Lakes maritime history. I believe this work is essential to understanding the legal ramifications of the bad acts of the ship's officers.

[Uniall]

[quote name='DocF']Maritime law gives the officers of a ship great power and even greater responsibility for its safe operation.

Any failure to take the safe course can result in serious charges being brought.

It does not even take being at sea to be negligent. Witness the capsize of the [I]Eastland[/I] while loading passengers for an excursion in 1915. This event in the Chicago River, not 30 feet from the bank, killed at least 835 people. If it had not been for the heroism of many onlookers, even more would have died there in the River at Clark St.

The legal ramifications from this tragic even stretched on for over 40 years. The last of the cases was heard in Grand Rapids, MI in 1958. I cut classes to attend what proved to be a rather boring and brief trial.

The point here is that every action taken by a ship's officer is subject to the hard hand of the law if things go wrong.

Doc

PS: Those interested in any aspect of the [I]Costa Concordia[/I] case should read about the [I]Eastland[/I]. I strongly recommend George w. Hilton's book, [I]Eastland, Legacy of the Titancic. [/I]George, a retired professor of economics at UCLA is a meticulous researcher and a fine scholar of Great Lakes maritime history. I believe this work is essential to understanding the legal ramifications of the bad acts of the ship's officers.[/quote]

Doc
You are mistaken in your belief that maritime law in effect in 1918 is the same maritime law in effect in 2008. The law has changed dramatically. To read any legal treatise (especially by an economist LOL) about maritime law affecting the Eastland (my father saw it happen) and the Titanic is like understanding the War in Iraq by reading a history of the Napoleanic Wars.

You are correct that the law then (as now) holds the ship's officers accountable but unlike then, it is much easier to peirce the corporate veil and go after the ship's owners and corporate officers. The old law was based on the fact that a ship could be gone and out of touch for years and only the Captain making the decisions. Today, the owner's can be in direct communication and participate in the decision making.

John
PS
I book I still love to read is the biogrophy of the greatest criminal dfense lawyer in US history "The Great Mouthpiece". His name was Fallon and he was a graduate of night school at Fordham. He practiced during the 20's and was respsonsible for great changes in US law. (e.g. your Federal right to remain silent also applied to states)

He once drank the bottle of supposed poison in court at 11 am to prove his client was innocent and that it wasn't poison, as alleged. He said I'll sit here all day and night. He knew the jury would demand luch at noon and he had medics and an ambulance in the alley to pump his stomach and race him to the hospital. He returned at 2 pm (looking well but really very sick) to make a succesful motion for dismissal. Excellent and halarious read but would tell you very little about the law today.

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='Uniall']Doc
You are mistaken in your belief that maritime law in effect in 1918 is the same maritime law in effect in 2008. The law has changed dramatically. To read any legal treatise (especially by an economist LOL) about maritime law affecting the Eastland (my father saw it happen) and the Titanic is like understanding the War in Iraq by reading a history of the Napoleanic Wars.

You are correct that the law then (as now) holds the ship's officers accountable but unlike then, it is much easier to peirce the corporate veil and go after the ship's owners and corporate officers. The old law was based on the fact that a ship could be gone and out of touch for years and only the Captain making the decisions. Today, the owner's can be in direct communication and participate in the decision making.

John
PS
I book I still love to read is the biogrophy of the greatest criminal dfense lawyer in US history "The Great Mouthpiece". His name was Fallon and he was a graduate of night school at Fordham. He practiced during the 20's and was respsonsible for great changes in US law. (e.g. your Federal right to remain silent also applied to states)

He once drank the bottle of supposed poison in court at 11 am to prove his client was innocent and that it wasn't poison, as alleged. He said I'll sit here all day and night. He knew the jury would demand luch at noon and he had medics and an ambulance in the alley to pump his stomach and race him to the hospital. He returned at 2 pm (looking well but really very sick) to make a succesful motion for dismissal. Excellent and halarious read but would tell you very little about the law today.[/quote]

Qiute honestly Uniall..........Fallon did a faud on the court, which is criminal.....not great!

This is just one of the reasons no one trusts lawylers or the legal sysytem in the USA.

AKK

[DocF]

As usual, when someone does not bow down to your vast legal knowledge you dismiss their views. Did I ever contend that the laws have not changed? No! The fact is the legal files on the [I]Eastland[/I] case are a mess. The state and local case files were thrown out. The federal files in Chicago were damaged beyond repair in the flooding of the Loop when the Chicago Tunnels were pierced by an errant piling. Only a few of the files in Grand Rapids remain.

What I am emphasizing by reference to the [I]Eastland[/I] case is the importance of understanding that all decisions by a ship's officer are subject to legal review.

I know that no one attempted to go after the owners of the [I]Eastland[/I] mainly because it would be impossible to collect one red cent as they were insolvent. A brief attempt was made to find George Arnold, of the Arnold Transit Co., responsible. He had served as an agent for the [I]Eastland[/I] at some point. He was found to be not culpable as he had no role in selecting the officers or crew nor in the way the vessel was operated.

Now to attack George Hilton as a source author is absolutely ignorant. You obviously do not know how highly he is held by others who study maritime and railroad history. His word is beyond repute. You need to know what you are talking about before you make bold and indefensible statements. If you do what you have done here in court, you will find yourself losing a lot of cases.

Doc

[sidari]

"This is just one of the reasons no one trusts lawyers or the legal sysytem in the USA"

Tonka ..... Or elsewhere for that matter!

Doc .... Am i right in saying that many of the dead from the Eastland were children ?

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='Uniall'][SIZE=3][B]Once again, non trial attorneys don't understand the law and trials. They look for scientific, uncontrovertable , proof positive facts and I know the only certainty is that it does NOT work that way.[/B][/SIZE]

[B][SIZE=3]Non litigaors seem to think that a coastal fly by to wave hello to a retired Captain is legally OK. But, I know that ANY detour from the safest most direct route between intended ports of call that results in serious injury or death is negligence (even gross negligence or criminal conduct) because someone in authority comitted and act that exposed the passengers to increased danger. [/SIZE][/B]

[B][SIZE=3]Any transport entity has a DUTY to refrain from raising the safety risks in order to arrive at the intended destination. Non lawyers seem to think that if it's possible to have done the fly by safely then a fly by is legally OK and can only be condemned if the fly was carried out in an unsafe or negligent manner. That is not legally correct. The law looks at the results and then looks back and asks did taking this course raise the risk or danger to the passengers that caused the death and injuries? Simply put, steering the ship nearer to land and shallower waters that causes the ship to run aground that results in death and injuries IS negligence and results in civil liability. The only debatable question is whether it's also criminal conduct because the actions were Gross negligence or reckless disregard for passenger safety. Criminal guilt is a lot easier in European courts than the US becasue they don't have the higher standard of proof for criminal convictions (reasonable doubt) and civil conviction (perponderance of the evidence)[/SIZE][/B].[/quote]



You lost the debate when you said *safest, most direct route between intended ports.

This is a cruise veseel, and as such the island showboating that has been done in the past would then be considered a *intended port* even if they don't stop there. Think about the Alaskia cruises going up to the glaciers.

The most direct route, may not be the most safe and the most safe may not be the most direct.

These judgments would be governed by what is *standard in the trade and practices*.

Therefore the Master has the right to set courses that are safe and accepted practice in the trade. Seems in the trade his close by course would be considered safe and in the standard practice on the trade.




Now, this is my opinion and where I shoot myself in the foot in this discussion of negligence! Please note I have not be a cruise Ship Master, but I have handled large vessels in close in navigation.

In my opinion, even the course the Captian set was TO CLOSE TO SHORE! It was needless to passby that close even with deep water as any unknown current, traffic situation or vessel malfunction would easily put the vessel and passingers/crew in danger of running aground/sinking.

His lack of attention to the vessels track, thereby permitting the vessel to veer in closer to the shore and hit the rock is negligent.

His action after the vessel was disabled, abandoning his vessel and passigners/crew, thereby contributing to the injuries and lost of life is criminal.


*steps off his soap box*


AKK

[DocF]

[quote name='sidari']"This is just one of the reasons no one trusts lawyers or the legal sysytem in the USA"

Tonka ..... Or elsewhere for that matter!

Doc .... Am i right in saying that many of the dead from the Eastland were children ?[/quote]

The [I]Eastland[/I] was one of 5 ships chartered for an excursion to Michigan City, IN by the employee's association of the Western Electric Co. plant in the west suburbs of Chicago. As a consequence of this, most of the passengers were young, unmarried people. There were a high number of child casualties, but not at all a typical number as would be seen in a normal weekend passenger list for an excursion steamer out of Chicago.

Doc

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='DocF']The [I]Eastland[/I] was one of 5 ships chartered for an excursion to Michigan City, IN by the employee's association of the Western Electric Co. plant in the west suburbs of Chicago. As a consequence of this, most of the passengers were young, unmarried people. There were a high number of child casualties, but not at all a typical number as would be seen in a normal weekend passenger list for an excursion steamer out of Chicago.

Doc[/quote]


We had the side wheeler *General Slocum* fire in the east river back in 1880, give or take a year......somewhere near 1800 deaths in a charater by a lower Mnahatten German Lutheran church group.

AKK

[Uniall]

[quote=Tonka's Skipper;34201896]Qiute honestly Uniall..........Fallon did a faud on the court, which is criminal.....not great!

This is just one of the reasons no one trusts lawylers or the legal sysytem in the USA.

AKK[/quote]

No, Fallon demonstrated how evidence can sometimes destroy the truth it's intended to prove.

But, Fallon got the US Supreme court to apply the 5th amendment to the states not just the federal government.

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='Uniall']No, Fallon demonstrated how evidence can sometimes destroy the truth it's intended to prove.

But, Fallon got the US Supreme court to apply the 5th amendment to the states not just the federal government.[/quote]


You see why no one trusts atty????...........you just proved it again.............he intentional frauded the court.by having his stomach pumped trying to prove the pioson was not death causing............that is fraud by any sensable person..........except maybe in courts..............thereby making the legal system a fraud!


Just my opinion...and any sensable person.

AKK

[Uniall]

[quote=Tonka's Skipper;34204018]You lost the debate when you said *safest, most direct route between intended ports.

This is a cruise veseel, and as such the island showboating that has been done in the past would then be considered a *intended port* even if they don't stop there. Think about the Alaskia cruises going up to the glaciers.

The most direct route, may not be the most safe and the most safe may not be the most direct.

These judgments would be governed by what is *standard in the trade and practices*.

Therefore the Master has the right to set courses that are safe and accepted practice in the trade. Seems in the trade his close by course would be considered safe and in the standard practice on the trade.




Now, this is my opinion and where I shoot myself in the foot in this discussion of negligence! Please note I have not be a cruise Ship Master, but I have handled large vessels in close in navigation.

In my opinion, even the course the Captian set was TO CLOSE TO SHORE! It was needless to passby that close even with deep water as any unknown current, traffic situation or vessel malfunction would easily put the vessel and passingers/crew in danger of running aground/sinking.

His lack of attention to the vessels track, thereby permitting the vessel to veer in closer to the shore and hit the rock is negligent.

His action after the vessel was disabled, abandoning his vessel and passigners/crew, thereby contributing to the injuries and lost of life is criminal.


*steps off his soap box*


AKK[/quote]

Some people hold onto incorrect legal opinions despite a lack of legal education.

When you do the glaciers, it's listed on the itinerary. The only reason for the fly by is the ego mania of sea farers who want to salute each other regardless if it puts passengers in danger.

You are wrong about standard trade and practices which is a concept of contract law not criminal, tort, common carrier law all of which carry over into maritime.

As I explained several posts back:

1. violating the custom and practice opens the door to proving negligence
2. BUT following a custom and practice does NOT negate negligence.

Based upon my legal education, training and experience, ANY TIME a cruise ship steers away from its course to do a fly by (the ship is on a lark of its own and has detoured from its stated itinerary) and it runs aground which results in serious injury or death, it merits a civil recovery for negligence and criminal conviction for gross negligence and reckless endangerment.

The Concordia affair will result in criminal convictions. The only question is whether those convicted will be encarcerated without conjugal visits, which is the worst fate to befall an Italian sea farer...........LOL

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote name='Uniall']Some people hold onto incorrect legal opinions despite a lack of legal education.

When you do the glaciers, it's listed on the itinerary. The only reason for the fly by is the ego mania of sea farers who want to salute each other regardless if it puts passengers in danger.

You are wrong about standard trade and practices which is a concept of contract law not criminal, tort, common carrier law all of which carry over into maritime.

As I explained several posts back:

1. violating the custom and practice opens the door to proving negligence
2. BUT following a custom and practice does NOT negate negligence.

Based upon my legal education, training and experience, ANY TIME a cruise ship steers away from its course to do a fly by (the ship is on a lark of its own and has detoured from its stated itinerary) and it runs aground which results in serious injury or death, it merits a civil recovery for negligence and criminal conviction for gross negligence and reckless endangerment.

The Concordia affair will result in criminal convictions. The only question is whether those convicted will be encarcerated without conjugal visits, which is the worst fate to befall an Italian sea farer...........LOL[/quote]


I disagree while trade and practices are contractual law, in martime matters it can also be presended as evidence, the listing in the cruise borhuce does not negate the port and showboating visit..........but...........and while not a ATTY, I deal in maritime matters and have been in court, given depositions and been a expert witness............so I know a bit about Maritime matters in federal court!


But to be honest...............this is not the important part...........the Master and bridge offiers messed up big time and I alson beleive the Excutuive office staff will pay the piper as well!

So we will have to agree to disagree....


However.I agree about the criminal convictions and the congugal visits LOL

[Tonka's Skipper]

[quote=tonka's skipper;34205874]i disagree while trade and practices are contractual law, in martime matters it can also be presended as evidence, the listing in the cruise borhuce does not negate the port and showboating visit..........but...........and while not a atty, i deal in maritime matters and have been in court, given depositions and been a expert witness............so i know a bit about maritime matters in federal court!


But to be honest...............this is not the important part...........the master and bridge officers messed up big time and i also beleive the excutive office staff will pay the piper as well!

So we will have to agree to disagree....


However.i agree about the criminal convictions and the congugal visits lol[/quote]


akk