Concordia News: Please Post Here

[sidari]

Tonka ... I have seen that video plus another one, was cuirous about the photos incase someone had taken one or two as it was passing which would give an indication of how close Concordia was.

 

Some people knew about it because it had been posted on Facebook that the ship would passy the island that night.

 

I am guessing that the e on your keyboard is much like an a ? ... :D Sideri,

[Tonka's Skipper]

Tonka ... I have seen that video plus another one, was cuirous about the photos incase someone had taken one or two as it was passing which would give an indication of how close Concordia was.

 

Some people knew about it because it had been posted on Facebook that the ship would passy the island that night.

 

I am guessing that the e on your keyboard is much like an a ? ... :D Sideri,

 

LOL.sorry about the typo!.I appoligize in advance for all the rest of my typing eroros to follow, as I am sure some will!

 

AKK

[cruiserfanfromct]

Recent news article out of Italy, published notes written by Schettino - the notes would supposedly be included in Schettino's book that is currently being shopped around.

 

(rough Google translation from Panorama.it below)

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fitalia.panorama.it%2Fcosta-concordia2%2FSchettino-Sono-stato-ingannato

[Tonka's Skipper]

well the light is starting to show though!

 

First, because, he stressed, took over the operation of the ship 4 minutes before the collision, after the call to the commander retired Mario Palombo, and without the cooperation of the officers on the bridge.

«

"No one warned me with information such as:" We are at a distance much smaller than planned. When I realized the danger, I have given clear directions to the helmsman, in a desperate attempt to avoid I would have done before, if I had known what was the distance from the earth. "

 

This brings out alot of questions.

 

1. Who was in command of the bridge when the Master was on the phone with the retired Captian?

 

2. Why was the vessel so close to shore and off the intended course?

 

3. Why was the duty Officer/Officiers not telling the Master that the vessel was much closer then planned?

 

4. At 4 minutes before the collision, the Master took the Command and tryed to avoid the rock/reef.........thats just 1 Nautical mile at 15 knots.

Not a whole lot can be done that close.

 

5. Why was he stressed, then took the Command?

 

 

Some leeway has to be given for translation and the Master actual meaning, but.........

 

 

I would present the opinion, that being on the phone showed the Master was in *Social Captian mode* and not attending the navigation of his vessel while close in and with that size vessel, even on the planned course, that is close.

 

I would also say the Duty Officer or Officers have alot of explaining to do!

Edited June 26, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Vampire Parrot]

4. At 4 minutes before the collision, the Master took the Command and tryed to avoid the rock/reef.........thats just 1 Nautical mile at 15 knots.

Not a whole lot can be done that close.

I'm not familiar with how Concordia handles... but I do know that a Vista class ship (e.g. Queen Elizabeth, Zuiderdam, Arcadia, etc) heading directly at the rock at a range of one mile travelling at 22 knots, would if the helm was put hard over, have missed the rock by approximately 2/3 of a mile. I would hope Concordia at just 15 knots would do at least as well....

 

That's bye-the-bye.

 

I don't at this time believe anything the Captain, or anyone else, says happened on the bridge of Concordia that fateful evening. Some of the deckies are telling the truth, some are lying. Until hard evidence is made public, i.e. audio recording of conversations, blackbox data recordings of control inputs and radar/AIS/GPS data etc., we just don't know who is truthful and who isn't.

 

1. Who was in command of the bridge when the Master was on the phone with the retired Captian?

It should have been the officer of the watch or the Captain should have designated the conn to another senior officer, e.g. if the DC(*) had been on the bridge. Even if the Captain had said "I have command", the officer of the watch's responsibility to maintain the safety of the ship still applies.

 

2. Why was the vessel so close to shore and off the intended course?

That's a question I dearly want to know the answer to.... and the answer isn't "to do a sail-by", because the intended course would have taken Concordia on a safe, well-planned sail-by. A sail-by isn't dangerous; taking a ship off the planned course without thought, whether the course is a sail-by or not, is dangerous. For example, taking a ship off course in the North Sea, 100 miles from land, can be a hell of a lot more dangerous than taking the ship off course from a sail-by.

 

3. Why was the duty Officer/Officiers not telling the Master that the vessel was much closer then planned?

Another excellent question. I know that telling a senior crew member that they are getting it wrong is difficult... but it's a hell of a lot easier than appearing before a board of inquiry and explaing why a deriliction of duty took place.

 

Tonka's Skipper, please keep asking awkward questions... they'll keep us all thinking about awkward answers.

 

VP

 

*DC : Deputy Captain, sometimes called Staff Captain or First Mate. Head of the deck department. Always has a Master's license.

[MDSue]

Susan

 

Was it day or night when you did the sail by of th the mountain peaks?

 

The Concdordia's sail by was at night, not publicized for the passengers' interest and the record indicates it was done to salute Costga employees who lived on the island, which indicates to me that it was done for th3e benefit of Costa people and not tghe passengers

Agreed!

 

Our sail-by was definitely daytime! (or early evening) and I agree there was a BIG difference between the one I experienced and what happened on the Concordia. I'm not excusing Schettino's actions by any means- just sharing my experience of what I believe was a proper done sail-by

Edited June 26, 2012 by MDSue

[Uniall]

Agreed!

 

Our sail-by was definitely daytime! (or early evening) and I agree there was a BIG difference between the one I experienced and what happened on the Concordia. I'm not excusing Schettino's actions by any means- just sharing my experience of what I believe was a proper done sail-by

 

Sue

 

The point that I'm trying to assert is that, as an cruiser, I believe that any deviation from a course navigation for the benefit of the pasengers and their booked itinerary should be banned.

 

As an attorney, I'm asserting the considered legal opinion that at this point in maritime legal history, any deviation from a narviagtion course that has little or no benefit for the passengers or can be shown to have primary benefit for the officers, crew, or employs will create a presumption of gross negligence if serious injuries or death ensues.

 

I realize this runs counter to the lessons taught to our "olde sea salts" fellow posters but the law is always evolving and never stagnant and I believe this represents the present state of the law at a time and place.

 

John

[judyzoo]

This morning the floating crane positioned itself and lifted from the seabed that portion of the amid ship sliding dome that had falling off of its rails several weeks after the Costa Concordia capsized:

 

rising above the water

 

silhouetted against the ships funnel

 

swinging around to lower onto barge pontoon

 

lowered onto barge

 

Thank for the translation of what we are looking at; I would never have figured it out on my own. Nonetheless, I found this entire event fascinating. But I can't figure out how to find photos myself, except for the continuing Giglio cam. Is there some other place?

[dmwnc1959]

Thank for the translation of what we are looking at; I would never have figured it out on my own. Nonetheless, I found this entire event fascinating. But I can't figure out how to find photos myself, except for the continuing Giglio cam. Is there some other place?

 

Here you go. It's similar to the Giglio cam but closer...

 

http://thelastsalute.eu/

[DocF]

Sue

 

The point that I'm trying to assert is that, as an cruiser, I believe that any deviation from a course navigation for the benefit of the pasengers and their booked itinerary should be banned.

 

As an attorney, I'm asserting the considered legal opinion that at this point in maritime legal history, any deviation from a narviagtion course that has little or no benefit for the passengers or can be shown to have primary benefit for the officers, crew, or employs will create a presumption of gross negligence if serious injuries or death ensues.

 

I realize this runs counter to the lessons taught to our "olde sea salts" fellow posters but the law is always evolving and never stagnant and I believe this represents the present state of the law at a time and place.

 

John

 

I totally agree with your premise here. We used to refer to ship's captains who did not follow established navigation procedure as "cowboys". There is no place for this sort of behavior on the seas today, especially on a ship full of passengers.

 

Doc

[SomeBeach]

At first I thought this was an old article but it is dated today.

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/215883/288/Lawyer-says-Concordia-had-faulty-design

[sidari]

2. Why was the vessel so close to shore and off the intended course?

 

Are we all clear here that from the prelim report that Concordia was half a mile off its intended plotted course for the sailby and therefore too close to any land ? whereas the plotted course would have taken the ship safely past giglio albeit to some still too close.

 

"The point that I'm trying to assert is that, as an cruiser, I believe that any deviation from a course navigation for the benefit of the pasengers and their booked itinerary should be banned."

 

Uniall .... I believe that you may well be in a minority with that statement! the known safe sailbys which have been used for many years clearly prove no problem. The Deviation from the planned/charted course of the half mile is clearly where the problem lay and the reason it was allowed to happen.

 

3. Why was the duty Officer/Officiers not telling the Master that the vessel was much closer then planned?

 

Hopefully that will become clear when the details of the Orange/Black Box become available and will also show whether there was an error with the Navigation equipment.

 

Tonka .... The trouble with the translation is that some things may not mean what we think they do!

[Tonka's Skipper]

I'm not familiar with how Concordia handles... but I do know that a Vista class ship (e.g. Queen Elizabeth, Zuiderdam, Arcadia, etc) heading directly at the rock at a range of one mile travelling at 22 knots, would if the helm was put hard over, have missed the rock by approximately 2/3 of a mile. I would hope Concordia at just 15 knots would do at least as well....

 

That's bye-the-bye.

 

I don't at this time believe anything the Captain, or anyone else, says happened on the bridge of Concordia that fateful evening. Some of the deckies are telling the truth, some are lying. Until hard evidence is made public, i.e. audio recording of conversations, blackbox data recordings of control inputs and radar/AIS/GPS data etc., we just don't know who is truthful and who isn't.

 

It should have been the officer of the watch or the Captain should have designated the conn to another senior officer, e.g. if the DC(*) had been on the bridge. Even if the Captain had said "I have command", the officer of the watch's responsibility to maintain the safety of the ship still applies.

 

That's a question I dearly want to know the answer to.... and the answer isn't "to do a sail-by", because the intended course would have taken Concordia on a safe, well-planned sail-by. A sail-by isn't dangerous; taking a ship off the planned course without thought, whether the course is a sail-by or not, is dangerous. For example, taking a ship off course in the North Sea, 100 miles from land, can be a hell of a lot more dangerous than taking the ship off course from a sail-by.

 

Another excellent question. I know that telling a senior crew member that they are getting it wrong is difficult... but it's a hell of a lot easier than appearing before a board of inquiry and explaing why a deriliction of duty took place.

 

Tonka's Skipper, please keep asking awkward questions... they'll keep us all thinking about awkward answers.

 

VP

 

*DC : Deputy Captain, sometimes called Staff Captain or First Mate. Head of the deck department. Always has a Master's license.

 

 

 

Why thanks...I always feel arkward!:rolleyes:.LOL.

 

On my first question....I feel you have to add that at 15 knots the rudder reaction time would be slower that 22 knots........but I was not clear in that I also included the time that it would have taken for the Master realize the vessel was off course,the check his position, decide on a action , give the order and then have the vessel react...........as I mention.......not to much can be done in 4 minutes, that close inshore...... However with the poistion of the hull damage, it seems he may have been closer then the 4 minutes/1 mile would indicate.

 

 

Yes, I agree it should have been the Duty Officer/Officers??? in command..and it brings home the question...just what the hell was he doing!

 

On the Taking command thing......yes indeed, that why went you have GOOD reason , you just do it and let the Master complain if he wants, but in a investigation the Master will have more question to answer then you will!

 

Had that happen once. I was a new 3rd Mate and the Chief Mate took the *com* from the Master. After a short interview with the Cheif Mate, me, and the Quarter Master, the investigate was over and the Master(who was drunk), was relieved.

 

 

I do totally agree I would not totally trust anything the Master says in notes or a book ........and under oath either.

 

 

This is all really *spitballing* until the investigation report comes out.

 

 

AKK

Edited June 27, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Uniall]

.................

 

"The point that I'm trying to assert is that, as an cruiser, I believe that any deviation from a course navigation for the benefit of the pasengers and their booked itinerary should be banned."

 

Uniall .... I believe that you may well be in a minority with that statement! the known safe sailbys which have been used for many years clearly prove no problem. The Deviation from the planned/charted course of the half mile is clearly where the problem lay and the reason it was allowed to happen.......

 

!

 

 

Perhaps I represent a minority views but perhaps not. But, I consider the belief that the Master of a Vessel has the absolute right to take the vessel wherever and whenever he orders is as outdated today as the Divine Right of Kings to rule with absolute power.

 

The absolute power of vessel masters evolved from the era when ships would put to sea for years without contact with their homeland and the Divine Right of Kings was the accepted norm. Thus, the vessel masers were empowered as mini kings.

[judyzoo]

Here you go. It's similar to the Giglio cam but closer...

 

http://thelastsalute.eu/

 

Thanks a bunch!

[Tonka's Skipper]

Perhaps I represent a minority views but perhaps not. But, I consider the belief that the Master of a Vessel has the absolute right to take the vessel wherever and whenever he orders is as outdated today as the Divine Right of Kings to rule with absolute power.

 

The absolute power of vessel masters evolved from the era when ships would put to sea for years without contact with their homeland and the Divine Right of Kings was the accepted norm. Thus, the vessel masers were empowered as mini kings.

 

 

Agreed!:D

 

 

The Master today cannot just take a vessel anywhere..........He does have the right to change course for traffic, weater, new circumtances, change ports for safety of the vessel, passingers (IE illness),etc.

 

However, these sailby's have been approved by the line managers! How does that figiure in your opinon?..Does the line have to state in writing somewhere that sailbys may happen?........just to make them *legal?*.

 

AKK

Edited June 27, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Ratt]

Agreed!:D

 

 

The Master today cannot just take a vessel anywhere..........He does have the right to change course for traffic' date=' weater, new circumtances, change ports for safety of the vessel, passingers (IE illness),etc.

 

However, these sailby's have been approved by the line managers! How does that figiure in your opinon?..Does the line have to state in writing somewhere that sailbys may happen?........just to make them *legal?*.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I was thinking this myself.

 

Would that be any different than a ship changing an approved and scheduled itinerary because of a mechanical problem or issue with the weather and then an accident occurs? Would there be more liability than if the original itinerary was followed?

 

I seriously doubt that there could be approved courses for every possible situation that could come up.

 

I think the issue for Uniall is not that the sail-by's need to be approved but that they are an unnecessary risk to the passengers and therefore should never be allowed.

 

I completely respect their opinion that they shouldn't be allowed but I do disagree.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Ratt

[Uniall]

Agreed!:D

 

 

The Master today cannot just take a vessel anywhere..........He does have the right to change course for traffic' date=' weater, new circumtances, change ports for safety of the vessel, passingers (IE illness),etc.

 

However, these sailby's have been approved by the line managers! How does that figiure in your opinon?..Does the line have to state in writing somewhere that sailbys may happen?........just to make them *legal?*.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

You have put your finger on the nub of the issue.

 

It's my legal opinion that law has evolved to the point that if the owner's had actual OR "constructive" knowldege (they knew OR should have known) of sail bys and did nothing to prevent them, they are co-liable with the Captain in the event of death or serioujs injuries.

[Uniall]

I was thinking this myself.

 

Would that be any different than a ship changing an approved and scheduled itinerary because of a mechanical problem or issue with the weather and then an accident occurs? Would there be more liability than if the original itinerary was followed?

 

I seriously doubt that there could be approved courses for every possible situation that could come up.

 

I think the issue for Uniall is not that the sail-by's need to be approved but that they are an unnecessary risk to the passengers and therefore should never be allowed.

 

I completely respect their opinion that they shouldn't be allowed but I do disagree.

 

Yes, you do understand my postition that sail bys should be banned "on cruise ships". That is becasue, in my legal opinion, a "cruise ship" should inherently be operated solely for the enjoyment and benefit of the passengers.

 

To change to a course that is intended to be for the enjoyment and benefit of the crew or employees results in what the law calls "on a lark of their own" and a diviation from the intended purpose of the cruise.

 

This opens the door to liability if the change in course results in deaths or serious injuries. It creates what the law calls a "rebuttable presumption of negligence" where it would then be up to the captain/owners to prove that the change in course was for the enjoyment and benefit of the passengers. (eg avoid bad weather, see the volcano, see a glacier, see the whales, etc.) OR to follow the anicent law of necessity (eg at sea rescue of other in peril).

Edited June 27, 2012 by Uniall

[MorganMars]

Uinial,

 

I seem to remember that the sail by was listed on the cruise bulletin as a passenger event. Whether it actually was listed or not, if it is publicized as such, doesn't that "cover their a**" under your proposal?

 

I can picture it now. An inset in all the daily bulletins on board. "Watch for a special surprise today!" and some lawyer, after the fact, saying "The sail by was for the passengers. See, it was announced in the bulletin."

 

I'm sure that you are a fine lawyer, but I feel that the mariners are also professionals in their field and have a good understanding of maritime law and practices.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

Yes, you do understand my postition that sail bys should be banned "on cruise ships". That is becasue, in my legal opinion, a "cruise ship" should inherently be operated solely for the enjoyment and benefit of the passengers.

 

To change to a course that is intended to be for the enjoyment and benefit of the crew or employees results in what the law calls "on a lark of their own" and a diviation from the intended purpose of the cruise.

 

This opens the door to liability if the change in course results in deaths or serious injuries. It creates what the law calls a "rebuttable presumption of negligence" where it would then be up to the captain/owners to prove that the change in course was for the enjoyment and benefit of the passengers. (eg avoid bad weather, see the volcano, see a glacier, see the whales, etc.) OR to follow the anicent law of necessity (eg at sea rescue of other in peril).

[Tonka's Skipper]

You have put your finger on the nub of the issue.

 

It's my legal opinion that law has evolved to the point that if the owner's had actual OR "constructive" knowldege (they knew OR should have known) of sail bys and did nothing to prevent them, they are co-liable with the Captain in the event of death or serioujs injuries.

 

 

 

As a non legal person I have felt that the use of *should have known* has been used way to often.....JMHO.......but otherwise your point is well taken!

[Uniall]

Uinial,

 

I seem to remember that the sail by was listed on the cruise bulletin as a passenger event. Whether it actually was listed or not, if it is publicized as such, doesn't that "cover their a**" under your proposal?

 

I can picture it now. An inset in all the daily bulletins on board. "Watch for a special surprise today!" and some lawyer, after the fact, saying "The sail by was for the passengers. See, it was announced in the bulletin."

 

I'm sure that you are a fine lawyer, but I feel that the mariners are also professionals in their field and have a good understanding of maritime law and practices.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

If the law didn't evolve and force maritime practices to change, we'd still have flogging, and excutions by hanging from the yard arms.

 

Your post begs these questions:

 

1. What is the benefit and enjoyment for the pasengers to change course and sail by Gilglio less than a mile off shore at night time?

 

2. Is there an inherent difference between a cruise ship and a cargo ship?

 

3. If you're taking a bus to work and the driver decided to take a short detour to drive by a recently retired bus driver's home and wave hello, what is your opinion?

 

4. If you're on a 24 passenger commuter plane and the pilot decided to buzz his girl friend's house with a wing wag, what is your opinion?

 

5. If you're on a hotel shuttle bus and the driver took a detour to drive by his pal's new restaurant and give him a congratulatory horn beep, what is your opinion?

Edited June 27, 2012 by Uniall

[sidari]

we'd still have flogging, and excutions by hanging from the yard arms.

Uni .... good job the above is not in force because Schettino and a few others would already be dead going off the earlier threads on Concordia as doled out by cc members!

 

with regard to 1) in your questions ... the course was not changed after Concordia left Civitavecchia, the sailby was planned beforehand and on previous cruises around that area we had been informed by the Captains on leaving ports that we would pass by Giglio at a certain time regardless of the fact that it would be dark when we did.

 

It would be interesting to see a copy of the daily paper from Concordia to see if there is mention of passing close to Giglio or if any passengers can remember if any announcement was made either before or on leaving Civitavecchia to that effect.

A point regarding how close Concordia was on the 13th, from the Bridge and other places along the Port side of the ship surely how close Giglio was could be seen from the lights on the onshore buildings.

[cruiserfanfromct]

At first I thought this was an old article but it is dated today.

 

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/215883/288/Lawyer-says-Concordia-had-faulty-design

 

WOW :eek: Concordia refloated and used again as a cruise ship or just repurposed into something else? Attorney Eaves is not clear from the video tape above. Will the Concordia II be equipped with aqua lungs and fins? Make sure to BYOW (Bring your own wetsuit).

[MorganMars]

Unial,

 

I have no issue with the evolution of law or maritime practices and I know that both have changed, some in response to laws and some in response to good practices. My contention with your proposal is that; 1) it is based solely on an interpretation of what happened in this particular incident based on media reports, 2) it is entirely too limiting to be good practice, 3) it can be negated by contractual language and, 4) it makes no allowances for a captain to make the often required changes to course necessitated for a safe voyage.

 

I have no desire to get into a dispute over non-equivalent scenarios, so I will not address your questions in this forum. I propose that we agree to disagree and press on. It is really not in our hands, in any case.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

If the law didn't evolve and force maritime practices to change, we'd still have flogging, and excutions by hanging from the yard arms.

 

Your post begs these questions:

 

1. What is the benefit and enjoyment for the pasengers to change course and sail by Gilglio less than a mile off shore at night time?

 

2. Is there an inherent difference between a cruise ship and a cargo ship?

 

3. If you're taking a bus to work and the driver decided to take a short detour to drive by a recently retired bus driver's home and wave hello, what is your opinion?

 

4. If you're on a 24 passenger commuter plane and the pilot decided to buzz his girl friend's house with a wing wag, what is your opinion?

 

5. If you're on a hotel shuttle bus and the driver took a detour to drive by his pal's new restaurant and give him a congratulatory horn beep, what is your opinion?