Concordia News: Please Post Here

[CostaSmurfette]

Incidently, to those who feel I might be defending Francesco Schettino's actions....

 

Nothing further from the truth. If anything what I am doing is casting off the emotional responses - the hang 'em high attitudes that have been so prevelent since the tragedy occurred - and replacing them with basic understanding of the variety of actual causal factors that potentially came together that night.

 

The footage of other ships, including Concordia, passing Giglio is also moot. That is the route from Civitavecchia to the ports of Livorno, Genova & Savona that many ships (not just cruise ships) take. It is a qucker and therefore more fuel efficient route than going around Elba and has been used for centuries, so to say that it was always a risky route is frankly absurd and stuff of tabloids.

 

Charting issues are a real problem...chart errors came into play decades ago and have caused accidents. Monarch o/t Seas was a case of charting error + human error, Sea Diamond was a case of charting error + human error...so to say that the charts are always right is not the case by any means.

 

Add in the region that Giglio is situated, a highly seismic area, then charting the seabed and associated hazards is close to being impossible...just as it is around Thira too. It is also virtually impossible to constantly scan and rescan the seabed to produce new charts...both financially and physically.

 

The aviation industry learnt the hard way about charts being inaccurate...a good example of that was IFO21, the special delegation of trade ministers and senators aboard a USAF B737 that crashed into the mountains above Dubrovnik. A degree of human error combined with bad weather and out of date charting.

 

So no industry is immune to errors where charting is used on a day to day basis.

 

The old addage of a computer is only as good as the human programming it, works equally well with paper charting, they too are only as good as the human holding the pencil.

 

The only reason so many bits of footage popped up of ships passing Giglio was due entirely to tabloids wanting to push the point of how dangerous it was....well at night, it can often be very hard to tell distances, so film of a ship that "looks" close to land could in actual fact be a few miles away...its all in the perception and what you "want" to see against what is really there.

 

The jibbering wreck scenario...the fight or flight reflex....it is so easy to put a fellow human down for using a flight reflex in a moment of crisis....when things go wrong "its always the fault of the bloke at the wheel"....human nature can be a cruel and nasty response sometimes. It's that damned emotional reaction again....oh wouldn't life be simple if we had no emotions that got us into trouble?

 

But without emotions, we would not be human...and if we were not human, we would cease to exist.

 

A sinking ship, or a crashing airliner, is so easy to handle on a simulator, you can keep your emotions in check and do your job without hindrance from that fear within you.....but to have to handle in in the real world is a whole new ballgame and one that very few can handle without fear niggling away at their conscience to run away....some greet it with resignation and go down with their ship or plane, others take a hike, and some freeze with brain fog.....we are all different, we all deal with crisis differently...it doesn't make anyone better than the next person, it just proves that we are all humans with real emotions and real feelings that sometimes make us fail and that is not a hanging offence...if it was a hanging offence, the world's population would be vastly less than it is now.

[CostaSmurfette]

Now...lets turn another aspect onto a different angle...that phone call which alegedly distracted Francesco Schettino.

 

Only he and the person he was speaking to knows what the phone call was all about.

 

The person he was speaking to.....well, lets see....

 

It could have been one of a surprisingly large number of people on the other end of that phone line (and no-one here or in the tabloids were earwigging, so until the call logs are processed and verified, we can but guess who the other party was).

 

Potential people range from the Chief Engineer calling to report yet another issue, or maybe it was a discussion with the engineers onshore finalising arrangements for maintenance in Savona the next morning.....or it could have been a crewmember reporting a problem with a passenger that required urgent intervention by the Captain....or it could have been a problem with a crewmember that required dealing with (medical emergency etc).

 

Unless you were listening into that call, there is no way of knowing what it was regarding or who it was with....its only in the minds of the salacious tabloids and armchair experts that it had to be someone naughty like a sex chatline or whatever...cos as with the waterfall on the stairs, it sells headlines to say that it was naughty rather than the truth of it most likely to be something mundane or legitimate.

 

So to mr gamekeeper turned poacher (uniall)....I'm afraid the curiosity is getting intriguing...why swap sides in your profession...from convicting to defending...did you get tired of the public emotions getting in the way of the legal procedures...or maybe did your own emotional reactions towards a potential defendant cloud your judgement once too often?

 

If you did have clouded judgement, its honestly nothing to be ashamed of...so long as those you put away actually deserved to be so, of course. Having your emotions get in the way is yet another part of being a human being.....just as the urge to run for your life from a burning building or sinking ship is often an urge too strong to ignore or control.

 

Guilty as charged....humans sometimes fail...hang 'em high ;)

[CtheW0rld]

I suspect that "Costa Smurfette" is an agent provocateur working on behalf of Captain Schitino or Costa Cruise Lines or both. :cool:

 

Smurfette registered with Cruise Critic today for the sole purpose of defending Schitino on this thread. ;)

 

Could the diminutive feminine suffix "ette" be a clue that Smurfette is none other than Dominica, Schitino's Inamorta? :p

 

i have to agree. 1st post was on this thread. it could be captain chicken himself. he has lots of time on his hands right now.

[cruiserfanfromct]

i have to agree. 1st post was on this thread. it could be captain chicken himself. he has lots of time on his hands right now.

The only problem is he can't even speak English, much less write it -- this might be his "ghost" writer. ;)

 

Starting off with I'm not defending Schettino BUT... and doing just that then advocating on and on and on that is perfectly okay for the Capt'n to freeze and become hyper-emotional and ineffective and in the process take 32 innocent lives and a luxury liner but NOT okay for anyone here to question his actions and voice opinions until a court of law decides exactly what is proper; sounds like someone prefacing a lengthy tirade by saying it is not a rant, and then writing pages and pages of exactly just that -- rant.

 

Sid -- I wrote much more than just the sail-bye happening at night. According to you, what exactly is my theory that has been blown (by you) "out of the water"?

Edited August 7, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[Tonka's Skipper]

Now...lets turn another aspect onto a different angle...that phone call which alegedly distracted Francesco Schettino.

 

Only he and the person he was speaking to knows what the phone call was all about.

 

The person he was speaking to.....well, lets see....

 

It could have been one of a surprisingly large number of people on the other end of that phone line (and no-one here or in the tabloids were earwigging, so until the call logs are processed and verified, we can but guess who the other party was).

 

Potential people range from the Chief Engineer calling to report yet another issue, or maybe it was a discussion with the engineers onshore finalising arrangements for maintenance in Savona the next morning.....or it could have been a crewmember reporting a problem with a passenger that required urgent intervention by the Captain....or it could have been a problem with a crewmember that required dealing with (medical emergency etc).

 

Unless you were listening into that call, there is no way of knowing what it was regarding or who it was with....its only in the minds of the salacious tabloids and armchair experts that it had to be someone naughty like a sex chatline or whatever...cos as with the waterfall on the stairs, it sells headlines to say that it was naughty rather than the truth of it most likely to be something mundane or legitimate.

 

So to mr gamekeeper turned poacher (uniall)....I'm afraid the curiosity is getting intriguing...why swap sides in your profession...from convicting to defending...did you get tired of the public emotions getting in the way of the legal procedures...or maybe did your own emotional reactions towards a potential defendant cloud your judgement once too often?

 

If you did have clouded judgement, its honestly nothing to be ashamed of...so long as those you put away actually deserved to be so, of course. Having your emotions get in the way is yet another part of being a human being.....just as the urge to run for your life from a burning building or sinking ship is often an urge too strong to ignore or control.

 

Guilty as charged....humans sometimes fail...hang 'em high ;)

 

 

 

OK Smuffette............you are a investigator in this causality.........or at least someone with the skills and time to due your leg work. You have many details That I didn't know were out there............but I have to admit I have not made this my hobby, I have my own marine causality work to do.

 

 

A few points:

 

 

1. I know the vessel has reported electrical problems in the past and as we both agree......this is likely a design issue. But to my knowledge there has been no report of a power failure on the Concordia leading up to the rock holing her side, I am talking short term time!

 

As to your interviews with passenger and crew.....if they are correct (and we both know that eyewitness accounts are never the best for accurate) if the vessel was acting up the Masters duty position was on the bridge early, not in the dining room.

 

2.Who was on the call before the accident is another issue. He should have been watching where the hell his vessel was going..........we all seem to be able to talk on the phone and drive a car..............seems the Master could talk on the phone and watch where he was going and realize he was sailing into danger, and verbally turn her away from it early enough

 

3. As to the Masters actions during the sinking (yes she sank, flooded, on the bottom, is *sunk*, semantics really) I agree with most people/peers statements and I admit I have never been there either, but in this causulty, the vessel was very near shore, calm seas, little wind.

 

His admitted actions were pathetic........the delay in getting people to muster stations while spending a hour on the phone with the office discussing the situation?...........abandoning the vessel, falling in a lifeboat?...........sorry if it was a vessel at sea, storming night,fire or something......maybe he could be excused...........but not under these conditions..........I would be happy to withdraw my opinion if other facts come out, but his actions were cowardly and criminal.

 

 

 

4. The speedboat ride is a non issue.

 

 

5. As to the sail bys.......they were and now have been proved as unsafe. Your chart comments add to why they are unsafe. Every Master and line office operations staff, local port officials holds a part of the responsibility for that pie!

 

AKK

Edited August 7, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[CostaSmurfette]

In relation to the inability of fellow officers to question or query an action of a senior officer.

 

This problem came into focus in the aviation industry, where a pilot was held in such high esteem by the first officer that even as the airliner was plunging to earth, the first officer felt unable or too intimidated to speak out with advice or assistance.

 

The same can be said for the bridge of a ship...any ship, not just a cruise ship.

 

The perceived feeling of intimidation from a more senior officer can and does mean that mistakes are seen or heard but ignored.

 

This link will take you to a very simple to understand piece from the airline industry's point of view...it does apply to the shipping industry too...

 

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/PACE.PDF

 

When you have senior officers held in awe by their junior counterparts, especially when the juniors are very young or newly qualified, the word or action of the master is something not to be questioned or argued with...even if that junior knows that all hell is about to break loose and people will likely die as a result of that action.

 

It took the aviation industry several years to even identify a problem existed, let alone alter crew training procedure to eliminate it...the same can be said for the shipping industry too.

 

It's the old "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario...if you do intervene or ask if an action is correct, you face being belittled...if you do not intervene or ask if an action is correct, you face living with "X" number of deaths and injuries on your conscience for the rest of your days.

 

If it wasn't so unfortunate a phrase, the saying being stick tween a rock and a hard place suits Concordia's bridge crew perfectly.

 

I do not know Francesco Schettino personally, I have sailed on a ship where he was in command and I do know (and remain in touch with) several members of current & past crew from Cota Crociere and other shipping companies. The connection to the sea that I have is maybe a little tenuous I spose....my late uncle was in the Dutch Navy and he went onto being a captain for SMIT Salvage, I spent many school holidays and free time aboard his ship and learned alot about how ships "work". I am also a bit of an anorak when cruising too, I prefer to chat with the senior crew about the intricate mechanisms of the ship and how things work than sitting watching the hairy chest contests.

 

Always had a bit of an interest in mechanical things...wanted to be a flightline engineer in the RAF but despite passing all the entry exams, it was mother who ultimately squashed my dream cos she decided that being upto one's armpits in jet engine was not a ladylike profession....so much to her chagrin, I went into construction instead, with a focus on tower cranes. I also started studying air accidents from the mid 1970's...1976 to be exact, the BEA vs Index Adria middair collision over Zagreb caught my attention and I have been looking through the emotive issues of accidents ever since, and aquiring a few friends/contacts along the way. I have also seen an airliner come down infront of me too, something I wish on no-one...the fight or flight reflex was a real bugger in that, adrenaline helps deal with it.

 

So...I do not side with anyone, I just have an interest in the causal factors that potentially cost the lives and the ship/airliner. Nothing emotive about it, nothing morbid...just a genuine curiosty to find the facts amongst the emothional debris and wreckage.

[Tonka's Skipper]

In relation to the inability of fellow officers to question or query an action of a senior officer.

 

This problem came into focus in the aviation industry, where a pilot was held in such high esteem by the first officer that even as the airliner was plunging to earth, the first officer felt unable or too intimidated to speak out with advice or assistance.

 

The same can be said for the bridge of a ship...any ship, not just a cruise ship.

 

The perceived feeling of intimidation from a more senior officer can and does mean that mistakes are seen or heard but ignored.

 

This link will take you to a very simple to understand piece from the airline industry's point of view...it does apply to the shipping industry too...

 

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/PACE.PDF

 

When you have senior officers held in awe by their junior counterparts, especially when the juniors are very young or newly qualified, the word or action of the master is something not to be questioned or argued with...even if that junior knows that all hell is about to break loose and people will likely die as a result of that action.

 

It took the aviation industry several years to even identify a problem existed, let alone alter crew training procedure to eliminate it...the same can be said for the shipping industry too.

 

It's the old "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario...if you do intervene or ask if an action is correct, you face being belittled...if you do not intervene or ask if an action is correct, you face living with "X" number of deaths and injuries on your conscience for the rest of your days.

 

If it wasn't so unfortunate a phrase, the saying being stick tween a rock and a hard place suits Concordia's bridge crew perfectly.

 

I do not know Francesco Schettino personally, I have sailed on a ship where he was in command and I do know (and remain in touch with) several members of current & past crew from Cota Crociere and other shipping companies. The connection to the sea that I have is maybe a little tenuous I spose....my late uncle was in the Dutch Navy and he went onto being a captain for SMIT Salvage, I spent many school holidays and free time aboard his ship and learned alot about how ships "work". I am also a bit of an anorak when cruising too, I prefer to chat with the senior crew about the intricate mechanisms of the ship and how things work than sitting watching the hairy chest contests.

 

Always had a bit of an interest in mechanical things...wanted to be a flightline engineer in the RAF but despite passing all the entry exams, it was mother who ultimately squashed my dream cos she decided that being upto one's armpits in jet engine was not a ladylike profession....so much to her chagrin, I went into construction instead, with a focus on tower cranes. I also started studying air accidents from the mid 1970's...1976 to be exact, the BEA vs Index Adria middair collision over Zagreb caught my attention and I have been looking through the emotive issues of accidents ever since, and aquiring a few friends/contacts along the way. I have also seen an airliner come down infront of me too, something I wish on no-one...the fight or flight reflex was a real bugger in that, adrenaline helps deal with it.

 

So...I do not side with anyone, I just have an interest in the causal factors that potentially cost the lives and the ship/airliner. Nothing emotive about it, nothing morbid...just a genuine curiosty to find the facts amongst the emothional debris and wreckage.

 

 

Here we disagree.

 

This is not a airplane flying at hundreds of mile put hour.its a vessel at 15 knots.

 

We do not and will not have facts about what happened on the bridge before, during or after the rock, until they testify. However I will say this.

 

Who ever were the duty Officers had a primary responsibility to advise the Master,(who was allegedly on the phone), that the vessel had missed her turn and was running into danger.......by any means required. If the Master refused to pay attention they had a primary responsibility to take action to change course and speed to take the vessel out of danger.

 

At 15 knots and distances noted, the Officer was not required to make a instant decision, he(or she) had the time to think it out, make a mental plan before having to confront the Master.

 

Since the posted vessel tracks clearly and without question show her running into danger there is no way the Master could have blamed the duty officer for taking such action.!

 

Been there Done that!

 

AKK

Edited August 7, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[CostaSmurfette]

OK Smuffette............you are a investigator in this causality.........or at least someone with the skills and time to due your leg work. I have many detials That I didnot know were out there............but I have to admit I have not made this my hobby' date=' I have my own marine causality work to do.

 

 

A few points:

 

 

1. I know the vessel has reported electrical problems in the past and as we both agree......this is likely a design issue. But to my knowledge there has been no report of a power failure on the Concordia leading up to the rock holing her side, I am talking short term time!

 

As to your interviews with passenger and crew.....if they are correct (and we both know that eyewitness accounts are never the best for accurate) if the vessel was acting up the Masters duty position was on the bridge early, not in the dining room.

 

2.Who was on the call before the accident is another issue. He should have been watching where the hell his vessel was going..........we all seem to be able to talk on the phone and drive a car..............seems the Master could talk on the phone and watch where he was going and realize he was sailing into danger, and verbally turn her away from it early enough

 

3. As to the Masters actions during the sinking (yes she sank, flooded, on the bottom, is *sunk*, semantics really) I agree with most people/peers statements and I admit I have never been there either, but in this causulty, the vessel was very near shore, calm seas, little wind.

 

His admitted actions were pathetic........the delay in getting people to muster stations while spending a hour on the phone with the office discussing the situation?...........abandoning the vessel, falling in a lifeboat?...........sorry if it was a vessel at sea, storming night,fire or something......maybe he could be excused...........but not under these conditions..........I would be happy to withdraw my opinion if other facts come out, but his actions were cowardly and criminal.

 

 

 

4. The speedboat ride is a non issue.

 

 

5. As to the sail bys.......they were and now have been proved as unsafe. Your chart comments add to why they are unsafe. Every Master and line office operations staff, local port officials holds a part of the responsibility for that pie!

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Tonka...a couple of clarifications if I may.

 

There were at least two phone conversations that night.

 

The first being the alledged "distraction" call tween Capt Schettino and an unknown person. The conversation was ongoing whilst the initial blackout happened...I say blackout cos at the time, that is what it appeared to be.

 

The phone call itself seems to have been taken or made from the anteroom to the rear of the main bridge floor, thus a good 20-30ft away from the controls and windows, the room has a single entrance of approximately 12ft width into the bridge floor, it contains the duplicate fire, flooding, watertight door panels etc.

 

The second call was to HQ to initially inform of a problem with the electrical systems, at that point the boards will have started to light up giving notice that flooding was occurring and in which areas of the hull.

 

The problem is that the second call was made via the phone on the bridge and not the one in the anteroom where all the panels would have been impersonating a Christmas tree on steroids.

 

I was aboard Costa Classica earlier this year and made a point of asking pertinent questions when on the bridge and in the engine control room during the behind the scenes tour. The crew were extremely candid and they felt at ease in how they explained the probable chain of events that night.

 

It has to be said that the use of the phones will need to be clarified, especially as to which phone used for each call and whether or not anyone was in the anteroom at the time the panels started lighting up indicating a serious flooding issue.

 

But to all intents and purposes the crew felt they were dealing with another issue with the electricals when the lights intially went out...the ship had been behaving badly for ages, so to make the assumption that it was just another outtage is, to a degree, a natural response.

 

In respect to whether Capt Schettino was on or off bridge duty....as much as the buck stops with him as Master, he was, infact, on Captain's public duties...dining room, mingling with pax...the control of the ship was in the hands of his Staff Captain and his First Officer at the time the accident happened.....he took control afterwards but at the time the lights went out, he was not specifically in charge of the ship.

 

There is also debate regarding his actions afterwards too.

 

Whether he delegated command of the evacuation to his senior officers whilst he co-ordinated things on the ground still has to be confirmed...or if his flight reflex won over his fight reflex, no-one really knows or understands and it will eventually come out in the wash later on.

 

Bottom line is that mistakes and issues came together that night and a web was cast with only one ending and once the web was started, there was no stopping it until it had come to a natural completion.

 

The fury felt by "Joe Public" is entirely understandable...but so is the fury of the crew who were accused of being inept and who saved lives that night without a thought of their own lives.

 

This interview was done shortly after the accident, a young man who looked after children aboard Concordia...I have given the English translation below the link...

 

http://tribunatreviso.gelocal.it/cronaca/2012/01/16/news/ho-salvato-20-bimbi-sulla-nave-del-terrore-1.3069664

 

“We, the other animators and I, have returned 20 children and 3 teenagers safely to their parents. The affected thanks that I received from them a few hours after the rescue is the greatest satisfaction of my life.” Michele Ghiani, 21 years old, is interviewed.

Where were you on the evening of the accident?

I was on the 10th deck doing activities with a group of 23 children and teenagers, some also from Veneto. Their parents had left them with us animators while they were having their dinner.

Did you feel the impact?

Yes, a heavy impact. But we only realized what had happened when we heard the emergency signal.

After how much time?

The alarm was given no more than 20 minutes later. Our only preoccupation was to maintain the maximum calm.

What are the procedures in the case of emergency?

Certain codes and signals are used, for example there are determined whistles, that only the crew can recognize and are not revealed to the passengers in order to avoid problems such as panic.

It is being said, at these times, that there were not enough lifeboats, to not say they were inexistent. And, in particular, it is being said that the emergency commands were hidden for too much time…

At these times there are many things being said or written that are not always true. What would have happened, with 4,000 people aboard, if we had given the alarm immediately to abandon the ship? The extra time allowed us to save these 4,000 people. And that is no small thing. In my case, those 20 minutes allowed me to get organized mentally and to get those children to their families, after we gathered them into the two meeting points intended for the emergency procedures.

In those minutes, you confess, you were not tempted to save yourself?

In the Naval Instutie and afterwards by Costa, we are trained in what to do in every dangerous situation. Certain behaviours are drilled into our heads. We animators, for example, know that we must stay in the ship to the last, together with the crew.

It wasn’t this way for everyone. The captain is in jail for leaving the ship early.

I don’t know. I heard it on the news. I only know that I left the Concordia on one of the last rafts, one of those intended for the crew.

But when you heard the order to abandon the ship, what did you do?

I helped my colleagues from the crew to organise the evacuation that, despite the agitation of the moment, because everyone wanted to get on the first lifeboat, took place in an orderly fashion.

In an orderly fashion?

Have we or not saved 4,000 people. It’s true that there have been deaths and more than thirty are missing. But today it could have been a lot worse.

The parents of the children in your care have not complained?

If you don’t believe it you, are free to say so. But this is how it went. So much so, that once we were on Giglio, when we met them again after being brought over, they came looking for me and my colleagues to thank us.

The Captain is in jail in Grosseto not only because he left the ship early, also because he took her on the wrong route…

Believe me, I know nothing. Or, in that moment, I was working and from our club we don’t see what is happening outside.

After all that has happened, will you go back (to work onboard)?

It’s my work and my life. At the moment, however, I will rest. Even with the terror. And I thank the family that came to take me directly to Porto Santo Stefano.

 

You will note the reaction to questions about Capt Schettino and the initial grounding....this young man had no axe to grind, he spoke from his experiences that night from what he saw and heard and nothing more, he isn't led by the interviewer at all.

Edited August 7, 2012 by CostaSmurfette

[CostaSmurfette]

A couple more accounts from crew that night :

 

Ship's photographer Diego Nobile...

 

Dear Giovanni, now I am alright and I am beginning to feel the aches, and the cold in my bones persists. My colleagues are alright including two who were saved from the rocks after swimming. When I arrived to land I received soup and a cappuccino as did everyone… A blanket and the people exhausted into the church, hotel and school and and there was still us, who continued to work helping the people come down off the Coast Guard, soaked and freezing but still working and waiting for news of our other colleagues. The doctor who came from the ship to land and the injured in arms… Exhausted people but still working, I was there with all of them, Philippinos, Indians, Romanians Hungarians, Koreans, Chinese and English, anxious and cold. I remember some people with a woman in a wheelchair infront of the elevators on deck three, what do we do? We embarked in Civitavecchia and we haven’t done the emergency drill! Don’t worry sirs wait here one second and I found the crew purser who gave me a hand taking her out. I remember us at the meeting point on deck 4 and the people were submitted to the forces of gravity and slipped when they were being taken to the portside lifeboats… I closed the shops to ensure the safety of passengers and us because the clothes and furniture was going from one side to the other and I went from deck 4 to deck 5 to find my friends from the shops, I accompanied them to their cabins adjacent to ours with a torch to find their lifejackets but we were in black out and we couldn’t see anything – the torch was not enough, everything was on the ground, glass, from the televisions, cameras and clothes as if a hurricane had passed through. I got who was with me to dress in warm clothing, but only what they could find in the chaos… the ship was rolling more and more. We went out quickly. It was not possible, because the place was full of people who were in need of help… With me there were 4 crew members in their first contract and we escorted them to the meeting points and we continued on, helping anyone we found along the way. I remember my head turning towards the Roma restaurant and the people passing as if in a box of lego together with seats, glasses and other things… the nurses were up and down with medicines to deck five where they were caring for a woman who was severely injured… I remember… precedence to women and children but the people were trampling the children and elbowing the women… I remember people who were taking photographs instead of helping like they should have, as if they were in an amusement park… I remember people falling on the stairs and twisting and who were rescued by my colleagues and helped to take them out. I remember the shouts from the Tour Office and the Front Desk “don’t go out to the veranda ladies and gentlemen, stay indoors, go to your cabins and get your lifejackets!!” But the people weren’t listening; they were more interested in taking photographs!!! I remember so many of us with tears in our eyes, boys and girls who we had helped out to the lifeboats to return and I remember we had to slide from deck 4 to go from portside to starboard-side because we couldn’t walk anymore and this with the guys in tow and with the Directors to afterwards go to deck 3 were we slipped and so many of us were hurt on the barriers of the lifeboat which was still open and some people ended up in the sea and others were saved when people caught their t-shirts… I remember so many things that I could be here a week, like I remember the faces of the passengers on shore who every now and then told us thank you, like I remember the firefighters were all around the ship helping along with a cruise ship – Caribbean if I am not mistaken – stopped to help… Thank you all of you, but what I have experienced and done was what had to be done… I am not telling this to make a hero of myself but to tell and send a message: “TAKE A PROPER LOOK AT WHAT THESE “INEPT” PERSONNEL OF COSTA HAVE DONE”

 

Katia Keyvanian, GSM aboard Concordia...

 

Unfortunately I don't have my nametag to photograph, because I lost at sea, along with my camera! My name is Katia Keyvanian, I am The GSM (Guest Service Manager) embarked on the 13th of January to substitute my colleague on the Concordia. I can write only a few lines, as I have a train to catch to go home! I would love to be invited by Giletti, Mentana, Vinci and all the other journalists, who without knowledge of the facts and who without verifying their sources, only write nonsense! I wish I could respond to the flood of nonsense and lies that have been said! But for now, until I can say more I can only say this; 'We evacuated 4000 people in the dark, with the ship inclined on it's side, in less than two hours! Those who are "incompetent" are not able to do this. It is not true that the captain was first to leave the ship. I was on the last boat and he remained attached to the railing of deck 3, while the ship was sinking. Shame on you incompetent journalists who wrote that he was the first to leave! I was on the lifeboat, that was sailing away and about to be crushed by the hoist of the sinking ship, which was about to break through our roof. We pulled a lot of guests into the lifeboat who had ended up in the sea, and as we undressed a girl in wet clothes to cover her with a blanket, a guest filmed us with his phone! Shame on you! We executed a rescue operation at sea, and as we pulled another gentleman out of the water, me with a rope tied around my wrist for more strength to pull him up, another man was taking pictures! Shame on you! we had to manage a flock of sheep in jeopardy and then are told that we were incompetent?! Shame on you! While I was inclined to release people who were pushing and screaming, one by one into the boat, a large man who was obviously a passenger smoked a cigarette. When I asked "What the **** are you doing smoking a cigarette in this state, in the dark, with fuel that could come out of the boat?!" and his response was "I need it for stress. I have one thing more to add, before I miss my train ......... We worked for the guests, to save them, to take them to safety, if they are saved, it is only thanks to us alone, all the crew, who did everything. We do not want to be thanked, NO, we have only done our duty, but we do not want to hear all the nonsense, lies, and more lies, just to give you the "scoop" of these so called broadcasts. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the residents of Isola del Giglio, the mayor, who came on board, to verify the situation, (not knowing who he was because he did not have a life jacket!) Thank you with all my heart all, all the islanders who worked for all of us, with maximum availability, giving us their colorful blankets, some even knitted of crochet, looking for cell phone chargers, and so much more. Thanks to all of them. Now I'm off to catch a train and go home. See you soon. Oh, I forgot .... one more thing I would like to say "Shame on you!!"

 

Thanks to Melissa Mango Barrotti Lara for the translation of the above accounts.

 

The initial furore and anger aimed at the crew hurt them deeply and still hurts them deeply....most have returned to sea with Costa, when I was aboard Classica earlier this year, I met with a few and we hugged and they cried and they hurt inside so much about those who never made it home, its an experience that none of them will ever forget and as much as Francesco Schettino and the other bridge officers might not show emotion or remorse, that does not mean that they are not torturing themselves each and every day that goes by, wishing things had been done differently...the clock cannot be turned back, hell...only wish that it could be for everyone's sake, but it cannot.

 

What we as passengers must ensure, along with every crewmember and officer aboard every cruise ship, ferry, ANY and ALL ships...the lessons to be gained from Concordia MUST be learnt and a tragedy cannot be allowed to happen like this again...ever.

[Uniall]

OK...lets take the replies and dig them out a bit...

 

Firstly....the electrical systems and other ancilliary equipment built into the original ship of this class...known currently as Carnival Destiny. She was the seed from which the class came from, the same class that over the years and 2-3 marques later became the Concordia class.

 

Tonka....this is what I was getting at in regard to the wording "redundancy". Destiny is significantly smaller than Concordia and her equally troublesome sibling, Carnival Splendor, yet intrinsically they have identical systems running them...Destiny has a much larger area of redundancy (or room to move in a crisis) within her elecrical and ancilliary systems than Concordia/Splendor/Pacifica et al. Whatever breakdowns Destiny suffers, she handles without so much as a blink, whereas the same breakdown on Concordia was essentially a full power out situation.

 

It is very well documented that in the 6-8 weeks prior to the accident the frequency of electrical type problems with the main gensets and controlroom cabling aboard Concordia was increasing both in regularity and in severity. So much so that had she reached Savona that night, she was to have spent the day not only unloading and loading pax and provisions, but engineers were to be waiting to deal with the electrical issues that she suffered.

 

I know from speaking to both crew and passengers on board in the days leading up to the accident and the night itself that she was behaving pretty badly...often blacking out 3-4 times per 24 hour period. Each time this happened and systems required rebooting, her systems weakened still further.

 

This is why the photo taken on the evening of January 12, 2012 was important to me, it was blatantly obvious that Francesco Schettino was indeed concerned about the ship's behaviour. The passenger told me that throughout the evening other the Chief Engineer came to Francesco and spoke to him, and each time the colour dropped from Schettino's face...again indicative of a problem.

 

The passenger knew it to be the Chief Engineer by the photo of him in the main reception area.

 

Next...the fight of flight syndrome....it is something that we all have and its something that sometimes we have absolutely no control over, no matter how well we are trained to do our duty and/or job.

 

Speaking with Francesco Schettino's peers, it came as a shock to them as to how he reacted to crisis...but by the same token, they too have looked closely at themselves and asked what they would do in his shoes...and these are not all Captains, First Officers & Staff Captains from Costa Crociere, these are peers from a variety of cruise lines and shipping companies. Almost all have said that when the worst happened, they HOPED that they could retain a cool head and do their duty to the best of their ability...BUT...since none of them have ever been placed into that position except on simulators which with the best will in the world is a franction of the real experience, they could NOT guarantee that their own fight or flight reflexes would keep them at the bridge in an emergency situation like Concordia.

 

Human beings have a major problem...their brain often over rules their body and when it happens, there is very little (if anything) that can be done...you either run/crumble or you stay at your post...no-one can ever be 100% sure what they would do until that occasion arises...no-one.

 

Next..the court of public opinion....yes, very vocal, yes, very emotionally charged...again we are mere humans.

 

But...whatever the public at large thinks does not mean bugger all in the confines of a court of law. Different rule book, different set of boundaries...

 

Uniall...as a prosecutor turned defence lawyer (gamekeeper turned poacher)...in your role as prosecutor, it was your duty to ensure that all evidence was presented within a set number of guidelines...it had to be truthful, it had to be backed up (eyewitnesses are notoriously bad in criminal cases) so the need for material evidence that has been verified forensically as being correct and true is essential. Only when the evidence is in and the seams around the evidence are sealed closed do you then proceed with trial...but even then there is no guarantee of conviction.

 

Public flogging and hanging went out a very long time ago...the days of the lynch mob are thankfully long gone...and I would hope that you Uniall, did not prosecute anyone on the wave of public emotion....otherwise there are bound to be alot of people in jail right now with a good excuse to appeal.

 

The judiciary in Italy have a tremendously hard job. I doubt a trial will take place thanks to the abhorrent levels of tabloid stupidity...and the lack of self control of a certain Italian Coast Guard officer who frankly needs sacking since whatever his own personal thoughts about Francesco Schettino are, they have no place in the tabloids....there is nothing worse than a puffed out chest giving it the "I'm the hero, he's a cad" speech a few days out from a tragedy...save it for the legislators and judiciary...on and the investigators too, they will pick it apart whereas the tabloids will make you a star overnight and sensationalise your words.

 

Finally...the speedboat ride...well once again its the paparazzi problem. Just as with Princess Diana & Dodi Fayed, those damned tabloids have their cameramen pretending to be tourists loitering around, nosing their way into business that does not need to be nosing into...like pigs at a trough, waiting to snap that elusive picture..."oh look he is on the toilet...lets see what colour loo roll he uses".

 

Yes...we all know about the paparazzi and how they can collapse a judicial inquiry or court case.....Richard Murdoch (the owner of the Sun and the idiot who allowed phone bugging strikes again). Yes...we know exactly what the game is...and thanks to the SUN and the rest of the tabloids any real evidence has been tainted, diluted and totally screwed...bit like the now infamous footage of water running down the stairs allegedly on Concordia that was actually Carnival Sensation in May 2009 when a pipe burst on board......

 

But hey...makes a great headline though, doesn't it? ;)

 

Even IF everything you say is true (which I don't accept at all), none of it absolves Schittino from primary culpability.

 

As a matter of law, as Master of the Vessel, he ordered a maunuever that put the ship, passengers and crew in a Danger Zone. Then, to exacerbate his guilt, he abandoned his post and duty to protect the passengers and crew.

 

When I provided legal advice on Workplace Saftey in ten states, I was amazed how those with tech or engineering backgrounds concentrated on equipment failure, while those with legal or military background concentrated on human errors and mistakes.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Uniall

[Uniall]

A couple more accounts from crew that night :

 

Ship's photographer Diego Nobile...

 

 

 

Katia Keyvanian, GSM aboard Concordia...

 

 

 

Thanks to Melissa Mango Barrotti Lara for the translation of the above accounts.

 

The initial furore and anger aimed at the crew hurt them deeply and still hurts them deeply....most have returned to sea with Costa, when I was aboard Classica earlier this year, I met with a few and we hugged and they cried and they hurt inside so much about those who never made it home, its an experience that none of them will ever forget and as much as Francesco Schettino and the other bridge officers might not show emotion or remorse, that does not mean that they are not torturing themselves each and every day that goes by, wishing things had been done differently...the clock cannot be turned back, hell...only wish that it could be for everyone's sake, but it cannot.

 

What we as passengers must ensure, along with every crewmember and officer aboard every cruise ship, ferry, ANY and ALL ships...the lessons to be gained from Concordia MUST be learnt and a tragedy cannot be allowed to happen like this again...ever.

 

You just don't get it. I'm beginning to wonder if you have a hidden relationship with Costa Cruise Lines and or Schittino beyond that of a paying customer.

Regardless, the heroic actions on the part of mid or low level crew doesn't absolve Schittino from his guilt, it serves to highlight and spotlights Schittino's arrogance in being the primary and effecient cause of the tragedy and his dereliction of duty after the collision.

People died and a ship was lost because Schittino was on an ego trip, that put the ship in danger, by "showboating" how close he could get to the shore to "salute" a pal and then went for a romantic dinner with a would be inamorta.

 

The lesson to be learned from this tragedy is to remove any officers who display arrogant and egomanical traits demonstrating a pre dispostion to showboat

Edited August 7, 2012 by Uniall

[Tonka's Skipper]

Tonka...a couple of clarifications if I may.

 

There were at least two phone conversations that night.

 

The first being the alledged "distraction" call tween Capt Schettino and an unknown person. The conversation was ongoing whilst the initial blackout happened...I say blackout cos at the time, that is what it appeared to be.

 

The phone call itself seems to have been taken or made from the anteroom to the rear of the main bridge floor, thus a good 20-30ft away from the controls and windows, the room has a single entrance of approximately 12ft width into the bridge floor, it contains the duplicate fire, flooding, watertight door panels etc.

 

The second call was to HQ to initially inform of a problem with the electrical systems, at that point the boards will have started to light up giving notice that flooding was occurring and in which areas of the hull.

 

The problem is that the second call was made via the phone on the bridge and not the one in the anteroom where all the panels would have been impersonating a Christmas tree on steroids.

 

I was aboard Costa Classica earlier this year and made a point of asking pertinent questions when on the bridge and in the engine control room during the behind the scenes tour. The crew were extremely candid and they felt at ease in how they explained the probable chain of events that night.

 

It has to be said that the use of the phones will need to be clarified, especially as to which phone used for each call and whether or not anyone was in the anteroom at the time the panels started lighting up indicating a serious flooding issue.

 

But to all intents and purposes the crew felt they were dealing with another issue with the electricals when the lights intially went out...the ship had been behaving badly for ages, so to make the assumption that it was just another outtage is, to a degree, a natural response.

 

In respect to whether Capt Schettino was on or off bridge duty....as much as the buck stops with him as Master, he was, infact, on Captain's public duties...dining room, mingling with pax...the control of the ship was in the hands of his Staff Captain and his First Officer at the time the accident happened.....he took control afterwards but at the time the lights went out, he was not specifically in charge of the ship.

 

There is also debate regarding his actions afterwards too.

 

Whether he delegated command of the evacuation to his senior officers whilst he co-ordinated things on the ground still has to be confirmed...or if his flight reflex won over his fight reflex, no-one really knows or understands and it will eventually come out in the wash later on.

 

Bottom line is that mistakes and issues came together that night and a web was cast with only one ending and once the web was started, there was no stopping it until it had come to a natural completion.

 

The fury felt by "Joe Public" is entirely understandable...but so is the fury of the crew who were accused of being inept and who saved lives that night without a thought of their own lives.

 

This interview was done shortly after the accident, a young man who looked after children aboard Concordia...I have given the English translation below the link...

 

http://tribunatreviso.gelocal.it/cronaca/2012/01/16/news/ho-salvato-20-bimbi-sulla-nave-del-terrore-1.3069664

 

 

 

You will note the reaction to questions about Capt Schettino and the initial grounding....this young man had no axe to grind, he spoke from his experiences that night from what he saw and heard and nothing more, he isn't led by the interviewer at all.

 

 

 

 

I may not have been clear in my wording, I fully understand that there were 2 calls.

 

1. If the Master was on the first call and if there was a electrical problem, common sense would have required the Master to stop the sail by and bring her off shore. This would not have reqiured him to end the call, but do nothing more then call out for the Duty Officers, to bring her away form the coast, something they could have done without a detailed/specific course on the Master part.

 

I find it odd the Master has not mentioned there was a electrical failure nor has the media or the Costa office mention this. At least to my knowledge.

 

However Sidari has mentioned this,

 

Still a major error on the part of the Master and he was not in personal danger at that time.

 

2. Once the casualty happened, he was on the phone with the Costa Office for a hour......you have to wonder why it took a hour to tell them he has major damage. He known the engine room was flooded and the power has gone out, more then enough reason the order the passengers to muster stations and the setting up of the lifeboats to be loaded in a short time.

 

This was not a matter of avoiding panic, the situation required these actions be taken promptly is avoid panic and further danger to the passengers and crew.

 

These were plainly duty's of the Master. Why he do not give these orders promptly. Well is fairness to the Master we will have to await his testamony and the preliminary reports.

 

 

Lastly abandoning the vessel and directly operations from ashore has no merit at all! This was tried once by a cruise liner Master from Greece when his vessel was sinking off the coast of South Africa...he went to jail for a number of years.

 

This is such a joke in warrants no further comment.

 

I still stand by my position that there are 3 main causes here,

 

1. The lack of action on the part of the Master.

 

2. The lack of action on the part of the bridge duty officers

 

3. The policies and actions of the Costa executives, and by extension the Carnival Corporations executives and operation staff. This may include design/maintenance/operation issues with the vessel.

 

AKK

[CostaSmurfette]

 

When I provided legal advice on Workplace Saftey in ten states, I was amazed how those with tech or engineering backgrounds concentrated on equipment failure, while those with legal or military background concentrated on human errors and mistakes.

 

I think that you will find that the majority of accidents are caused by a mixture of causal factors.

 

Both human error - usually inability to process events and realising that danger exists + an inability by a subordinate to intervene either due to intimidation, fear of belittlement or basic "well, he/she must realise its wrong" so wait for them to fix it.

 

And mechanical issue(s) - usually a breakdown of a main element of instrumentation or powerplant or a partial failure of a system that then causes a waterfall effect leading to multiple failures in various systems that essentially overloads the people charged to take care of it, thus rendering them completely overwhelmed.

 

There is also an element of chain of command breakdown too...sadly that happens alot more than people realise and invariably costs lives - such as the inability to question something that doesn't seem correct, which is then ignored down the line.

 

There is no one clear cut reason for a tragedy like Concordia, it is down to measures from both the physical element (ie the ship and the systems therein etc) + the human element (breakdown in command chain, basic judgement error, hierarchy tween officer grades etc).

 

The chain of command is fragile under stress, and when that chain of command drops a vital link, then the chain of events takes over like a freight train without any brakes...

 

The machine is only as good as the human who designed, built, maintained and drove it...you cannot have a failure in one element without a failure from another that then leads to more failures right down the line.

 

The buck stops with the boss, but that does not mean that he or she is ultimately the only culprit.

[CostaSmurfette]

Lastly abandoning the vessel and directly operations from ashore has no merit at all! This was tried once by a cruise liner Master from Greece when his vessel was sinking off the coast of South Africa...he went to jail for a number of years.

 

This is such a joke in warrants no further comment.

 

 

The Oceanos case (along with Scandinavian Star) are thankfully rare events. Oceanos officers and crew had a very bad case of flight...as did the officers from Scandinavian Star, the latter with the loss of over 140 people.

 

The pax from Oceanos have the entertainment crew to thank for their escape....incidently the same entertainment crew saved lives again a few years later aboard Achille Lauro when she caught fire and sank.

 

It does make you think about training for the officers, whether it needs updating somehow...simulator training is OK but can never replicate the real thing and - like on the bridge - I still feel there is way too much reliance on technology, both in training and in day to day operation of ships (and aircraft).

 

One area I feel that does require looking closely at is maybe a better understanding of psychological effects of extreme stress on ship officers and senior crew.....is there enough training to assist them in controlling that flight reflex when things go so badly wrong as in the case of Concordia.

 

But as I have said all along, you can be the best trained individual in the world and still end up a jibbering wreck with complete brain fog in a real emergency.

 

There is no easy answer to any of what happened on Concordia that night...specualtion and sensationalism aside, no-one will ever know what REALLY happened except those who were there on the bridge...and if they froze, got brain fog, had no control over their flight reflex...well...they are the ones who have to live with it and at the end of the day, they are guilty of being a human being who screwed up royally.....there by the grace of God go any one of us....none of us know how we will react in an emergency, even those with the best training the world can provide can still get scared to death.

[Uniall]

I think that you will find that the majority of accidents are caused by a mixture of causal factors.

 

Both human error - usually inability to process events and realising that danger exists + an inability by a subordinate to intervene either due to intimidation, fear of belittlement or basic "well, he/she must realise its wrong" so wait for them to fix it.

 

And mechanical issue(s) - usually a breakdown of a main element of instrumentation or powerplant or a partial failure of a system that then causes a waterfall effect leading to multiple failures in various systems that essentially overloads the people charged to take care of it, thus rendering them completely overwhelmed.

 

There is also an element of chain of command breakdown too...sadly that happens alot more than people realise and invariably costs lives - such as the inability to question something that doesn't seem correct, which is then ignored down the line.

 

There is no one clear cut reason for a tragedy like Concordia, it is down to measures from both the physical element (ie the ship and the systems therein etc) + the human element (breakdown in command chain, basic judgement error, hierarchy tween officer grades etc).

 

The chain of command is fragile under stress, and when that chain of command drops a vital link, then the chain of events takes over like a freight train without any brakes...

 

The machine is only as good as the human who designed, built, maintained and drove it...you cannot have a failure in one element without a failure from another that then leads to more failures right down the line.

 

The buck stops with the boss, but that does not mean that he or she is ultimately the only culprit.

 

Every occurence in the world has multiple causes but they don't provide a defense or absolve the guilt of a human being who intentionally or negligently puts everything in motion.

 

Techies and Engineers might argue that the tragedy was caused by an electrical (or some other) mechanical problem but the law doesn't allow Schittino to use that as a defense.

 

The Law will (not maybe but will) decide in good time that the train of events that killed 32 people was put in motion by the egomanical arrogance of Schittino who put the ship on a dangerous course to impress a friend and then went for a romantic dinner. Then during the ensuing results, he abandoned his post, while other crew were still saving passengers, and left everyone to their own fate. You try to defend him as just being "human" and freezing in an emergency. It's not a defense for a Master of the vessel to argue that he's just human and froze in an emergency after putting the death scenario in motion with his own arrogance.

 

Schittino has earned the undying emnity, hatred and animosity of every right thinking human being for the remainder of his life and should never be put in a position overseeing the safety of others. He shouldn't be hired as a school crossing guard.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Uniall

[Tonka's Skipper]

The Oceanos case (along with Scandinavian Star) are thankfully rare events. Oceanos officers and crew had a very bad case of flight...as did the officers from Scandinavian Star, the latter with the loss of over 140 people.

 

The pax from Oceanos have the entertainment crew to thank for their escape....incidently the same entertainment crew saved lives again a few years later aboard Achille Lauro when she caught fire and sank.

 

It does make you think about training for the officers, whether it needs updating somehow...simulator training is OK but can never replicate the real thing and - like on the bridge - I still feel there is way too much reliance on technology, both in training and in day to day operation of ships (and aircraft).

 

One area I feel that does require looking closely at is maybe a better understanding of psychological effects of extreme stress on ship officers and senior crew.....is there enough training to assist them in controlling that flight reflex when things go so badly wrong as in the case of Concordia.

 

But as I have said all along, you can be the best trained individual in the world and still end up a jibbering wreck with complete brain fog in a real emergency.

 

There is no easy answer to any of what happened on Concordia that night...specualtion and sensationalism aside, no-one will ever know what REALLY happened except those who were there on the bridge...and if they froze, got brain fog, had no control over their flight reflex...well...they are the ones who have to live with it and at the end of the day, they are guilty of being a human being who screwed up royally.....there by the grace of God go any one of us....none of us know how we will react in an emergency, even those with the best training the world can provide can still get scared to death.

 

Sorry I cannot agree...........saying they were afraid doesn't in any way relieve them of their duty and responsibility! I again point out that this was a calm night, light wind and near shore.......no reason for a trained mariner to run around like a chicken without a head.

 

As to the technology.I am not sure how technology is involved when all the Master needed to do was give a order to bring her off shore or not do a sail bye/showboat tour!

 

 

I do agree that when the facts come out, despite the early on passenger comments about the actions of the crew at the lifeboats, the junior officers and crew member will be the hero's in all this.

 

 

As to training .......the best possible is done today.........how a individual will react to the actual emergency cannot be trained.....that is indeed something that only the actual event so bring out.

 

I would like to point out that of the 1000, give or take crew members on the Concordia.only one is known to have run away.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[CostaSmurfette]

Uniall...a question for you...maybe two questions....

 

 

When you were a prosecutor, did you ever have a case that landed on your table that you had doubts about the guilt of the defendant?

 

Now think carefully before you reply cos I know that it is impossible to be absolutely sure about someone's guilt...even if the evidence is stacked up against them, the jury can always chuck a curveball and aquit them.

 

You come across as someone who has been on the conviction side of the fence and become disillusioned by it...almost...and I mean no offence by this....you seem to have a really sad attitude, as if you yourself have been wronged by something or someone within the judiciary system that you worked in, you are a very bitter person, someone detached from seeing other potential angles to a case or indeed a potential defendant.

 

In the UK, we are not allowed to make public a defendant's previous offences (antecedence) incase it adds prejudice to a trial jury to convict no matter what. From what I have seen on documentaries, the US system seems to allow such antecedence revealing to assist in getting that conviction, and sometimes that opens the door later on to a successful appeal.

 

Are you now a poacher instead of the gamekeeper through disillusionment with the judiciary or are you just a bitter man with an axe to grind?

 

You do not know the details or facts of January 13, 2012...none of us do...but you seem hell bent on lynching a single individual for something that was almost certainly caused by multiple elements that conspired and came together that night with the ultimate loss of 32 people.

 

Sorry and all that but you surely come across as someone who enjoyed being a prosecutoir and who did the job extremely well but who has been p*ssed on from a great height by a peer and you are out to convict any "boss" who screwed up, even if they are not the sole reason for the problem.

[CostaSmurfette]

As to training .......the best possible is done today.........how a individual will react to the actual emergency cannot be trained.....that is indeed something that only the actual event so bring out.

 

I would like to point out that of the 1000' date=' give or take crew members on the Concordia.only one is [b']known[/b] to have run away.

 

 

 

Known...how does anyone know...from the tabloids that reported the badly translated words of a person too busy puffing his own chest out and running his mouth off to all and sundry?

 

Not exactly a perfect source of information...instead of making himself to be the hero, he should have been instructed by his bosses to say nothing until after he was interviewed by the investigators and authorities. Mr DiFalco's words do not constitute an accurate account, and those that came afterwards were muddled and, to a degree, encouraged by the tabloids asking leading questions which rapidly turned into Chinese whispers.

 

 

Most importantly here...as a mariner yourself....are there enough safeguards against mental breakdown in the event of an accident?

 

Are potential officers screened for physcological issues that might affect their performance in an emergency?

 

If not...or at least not to any real degree...do you feel that a more psychological approach could be beneficial in light of Concordia or do you think it will be given "lip service" and ignored til the next time?

[Tonka's Skipper]

Known...how does anyone know...from the tabloids that reported the badly translated words of a person too busy puffing his own chest out and running his mouth off to all and sundry?

 

Not exactly a perfect source of information...instead of making himself to be the hero, he should have been instructed by his bosses to say nothing until after he was interviewed by the investigators and authorities. Mr DiFalco's words do not constitute an accurate account, and those that came afterwards were muddled and, to a degree, encouraged by the tabloids asking leading questions which rapidly turned into Chinese whispers.

 

 

If you are saying the Master didn't leave the vessel.........you should talk to him........it stated that he left the vessel to direct operations from there. I am a bit surprised you didn't know that.

 

 

Most importantly here...as a mariner yourself....are there enough safeguards against mental breakdown in the event of an accident?

 

Are potential officers screened for physcological issues that might affect their performance in an emergency?

 

If not...or at least not to any real degree...do you feel that a more psychological approach could be beneficial in light of Concordia or do you think it will be given "lip service" and ignored til the next time?

 

 

 

 

If you are saying the Master didn't leave the vessel.........you should talk to him........it stated that he left the vessel to direct operations from ashore. I am a bit surprised you didn't know that.

 

 

I feel want I said, each will know there reaction when the emergency occurs.

 

I am not a big believer in psychic testing. But I have to admit some testing may weed out a person with obvious problems.

 

I also don't believe the USCG is the right group to handle Merchant Marine testing

 

 

AKK

[CostaSmurfette]

If you are saying the Master didn't leave the vessel.........you should talk to him........it stated that he left the vessel to direct operations from ashore. I am a bit surprised you didn't know that.

 

 

I feel want I said' date=' each will know there reaction when the emergency occurs.

 

I am not a big believer in psychic testing. But I have to admit some testing may weed out a person with obvious problems.

 

I also don't believe the USCG is the right group to handle Merchant Marine testing

 

 

AKK[/quote']

 

He left the ship...however there are two scenario's here...one being scared to death ( a very human failing) or he wrongly assumed that he might be better off on the ground co-ordinating things whilst being in contact with subordinates on the ship (sounds great in theory but didn't quite go to plan in practice...but you don't know til you try or are placed into that situation...judgement error or plain misguided, who knows).

 

When you say that you do not feel the USCG should handle the MM testing, why...what concerns do you have...are they not qualified enough or do you feel its not unbiased or stringent enough?

 

In an emergency you automatically think of the coast guard or lifeboat service, but...who checks their performance under stress...ther could be a potentially significant conflict of interests there perhaps...

[Uniall]

Uniall...a question for you...maybe two questions....

 

 

When you were a prosecutor, did you ever have a case that landed on your table that you had doubts about the guilt of the defendant?

 

Now think carefully before you reply cos I know that it is impossible to be absolutely sure about someone's guilt...even if the evidence is stacked up against them, the jury can always chuck a curveball and aquit them.

 

You come across as someone who has been on the conviction side of the fence and become disillusioned by it...almost...and I mean no offence by this....you seem to have a really sad attitude, as if you yourself have been wronged by something or someone within the judiciary system that you worked in, you are a very bitter person, someone detached from seeing other potential angles to a case or indeed a potential defendant.

 

In the UK, we are not allowed to make public a defendant's previous offences (antecedence) incase it adds prejudice to a trial jury to convict no matter what. From what I have seen on documentaries, the US system seems to allow such antecedence revealing to assist in getting that conviction, and sometimes that opens the door later on to a successful appeal.

 

Are you now a poacher instead of the gamekeeper through disillusionment with the judiciary or are you just a bitter man with an axe to grind?

 

You do not know the details or facts of January 13, 2012...none of us do...but you seem hell bent on lynching a single individual for something that was almost certainly caused by multiple elements that conspired and came together that night with the ultimate loss of 32 people.

 

Sorry and all that but you surely come across as someone who enjoyed being a prosecutoir and who did the job extremely well but who has been p*ssed on from a great height by a peer and you are out to convict any "boss" who screwed up, even if they are not the sole reason for the problem.

 

I didn't realize that you are also a psychologist. For the good of society you should surrender your license. You are so wrong on so many counts about me.

 

First, I had a long, varied and sucessful legal career. I spent 30 years in state & fedral government service (20 as a prosecutor & 5 as an administrator and 5 as an administrative law judge) and 15 years in private practice (as a civil litigator and criminal defense attorney). I did well enough to be able to retire at 60 and devote the rest of my life to hobbies and travel including cruising about 3 months a year.

 

Second, as a prosecutor, I had many cases I refused to prosecute for lack of evidence or had serious doubts of their guilt. In fact, I used to rail against some of my colleagues who would "pile on charges" hoping something would stick. I took my oaths of office as an attorney and as a prosecutor and the cannons of ethics very seriously.

 

I not a bitter person at all. Except for societal changes which I abhor, I'm the happy leprechaun I use as my Avatar. But what I find extremely troubling is the evolution of western culture and society that has allowed bleeding hearts to have more concern and empathy for the criminal than they have for the innocent victims. I am angered that these hand wringers have destoyed society's sense of outrage at everything from the mugging of the elderly to serial killers and rapists. In my view society has both a right and a duty to sharpen and encourage a "sense of public outrage" to protect the weak and defenseless against the evil and predetory members of society.

 

Your, ad nauseum, defense of Schittino is ample indication for me of your preference to protect the perp over the victim.

 

As for the differences between Anglo and American pre trial comments, I discussed that issue at length many pages ago. I don't agree with the Brit mind set that allows the curtailing of free speech or the curtailing the right to remain silent. Those mind sets were some of the underlying reasons we, politely, asked you to leave in 1776.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Uniall

[Tonka's Skipper]

He left the ship...however there are two scenario's here...one being scared to death ( a very human failing) or he wrongly assumed that he might be better off on the ground co-ordinating things whilst being in contact with subordinates on the ship (sounds great in theory but didn't quite go to plan in practice...but you don't know til you try or are placed into that situation...judgement error or plain misguided, who knows).

 

When you say that you do not feel the USCG should handle the MM testing, why...what concerns do you have...are they not qualified enough or do you feel its not unbiased or stringent enough?

 

In an emergency you automatically think of the coast guard or lifeboat service, but...who checks their performance under stress...ther could be a potentially significant conflict of interests there perhaps...

 

You seem to think just because a Master or crew member is afraid he has the right ti run away. You need to understand when you join a vessel a Master you take responsibility for the vessel, crew and cargo..that is a DUTY.....a personal Duty.

 

His place was on board that vessel until everyone was off or he had done everything humanly possible to safe them and the ship. Then he has the right to leave his command.

 

As to the USCG.the men and woman out there doing sea rescues and protecting the coast are all heros and I nothing but the highest respect for them.

 

The Captain of the port offices are not that well trained in what the merchant marine is or how civil ships operate. Some maybe, but not most of them.

 

They are very good at bring out rule books and writing up violations of rules, often without understanding of what and why the rules are there.

 

Sorry..my opinion here, 30 years in this industry I have seen the shore side USCG muck things up many times.

 

AKK

[CostaSmurfette]

You seem to think just because a Master or crew member is afraid he has the right ti run away. You need to understand when you join a vessel a Master you take responsibility for the vessel' date=' crew and cargo..that is a DUTY.....a personal Duty.

 

His place was on board that vessel until everyone was off or he had done everything humanly possible to safe them and the ship. Then he has the right to leave his command.

 

As to the USCG.the men and woman out there doing sea rescues and protecting the coast are all heros and I nothing but the highest respect for them.

 

The Captain of the port offices are not that well trained in what the merchant marine is or how civil ships operate. Some maybe, but not most of them.

 

They are very good at bring out rule books and writing up violations of rules, often without understanding of what and why the rules are there.

 

Sorry..my opinion here, 30 years in this industry I have seen the shore side USCG muck things up many times.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I am not saying, not have I ever said, that he was right to react to his fear and leave the ship...but I am saying that cos he showed an ultimately human trait that can affect anyone regardless of their position or training, doesn't necessarily earn him a lynch mob.

 

I (we) can only imagine what went through his mind that night...the abject fear when the ship listed, blind panic and brain fog...now some on the bridge held it together, he and others did not...doesn't make him or anyone else less of a man, it just shows that he perhpas was not commander material...something that would have been detected during psychological evaluation prior to his promotion from Staff Captain....

 

To back this point up are the reports of some of his peers regarding him as flighty and occasionally being almost reckless in his actions in the past.

 

So you have to ask...if his peers noticed this behaviour, why then didn't the authorities notice it when putting him through his captaincy training?

 

Which brings us neatly to your feelings about shoreside operations with the coast guard...how they aren't always right in how they evaluate things and importantly people.

 

Given Francesco's previous record of the occasional risk taking as a more junior rating and shortly after being made up to Captain a sign of things to come...and if so...who would have been charged to see those signs and act on them...and why, ultimately, no apparent action was indeed taken if he was the risk that some of his peers have stated?

 

Wheels within wheels....

Edited August 7, 2012 by CostaSmurfette

[CostaSmurfette]

Going more into performance...are we potentially looking at a corporate blind eye as well as a coast guard blind eye in relation to the training of ship's officers?

 

I don't just mean on cruise ships, but the entire shipping industry as a whole...?

 

There have been several accidents in recent years involving all sorts of ships that, on the face of it, should have been avoidable...

 

Yes, it is down to a combination of human and mechanical issues that causes the majority of these accidents, but is there a glaring problem with the training of bridge crew's that involves evaluations being too loose?

 

Tonka...you've been in the business 30 odd years, so you will have seen more than a few people come through the ranks....in that time have you thought that any of them maybe should not have reached high ranking through actions that you have witnessed?

 

Again in the aviation industry there has been alot of fast tracking both in the cockpit and on the ground, that has at times been a causal factor in accidents.

 

Where you have people such as Captains, pilots, air traffic controllers etc who have alot of pressure to do the right thing and who ultimately have people's lives in their hands on a day to day basis....are the authorities who train them and who place them into those responsible positions complacent, is the training & evaluation processes out of date?

 

Mental breakdowns that happen to air traffic controllers, for example, are common...especially after an incident where the confidence is so severely knocked that they simply cannot function and do their job.

 

Could that happen to an officer aboard a ship.....an incident, such as an overboard, affect them so badly that their ability to function falls to bits...and what safeguards are there to prevent that loss of function?

 

How can the authorities screen out candidates who might lose function in an emergency?

 

I personally feel that post Concordia, evaluations and that includes reports of potentially risky actions, should be part and parcel of the decision making before anyone is promoted to a higher rank, especially to a commander type rank where the pressure to "do the right thing at all times, come what may" is imperative.

[Tonka's Skipper]

I am not saying, not have I ever said, that he was right to react to his fear and leave the ship...but I am saying that cos he showed an ultimately human trait that can affect anyone regardless of their position or training, doesn't necessarily earn him a lynch mob.

 

I (we) can only imagine what went through his mind that night...the abject fear when the ship listed, blind panic and brain fog...now some on the bridge held it together, he and others did not...doesn't make him or anyone else less of a man, it just shows that he perhpas was not commander material...something that would have been detected during psychological evaluation prior to his promotion from Staff Captain....

 

To back this point up are the reports of some of his peers regarding him as flighty and occasionally being almost reckless in his actions in the past.

 

So you have to ask...if his peers noticed this behaviour, why then didn't the authorities notice it when putting him through his captaincy training?

 

Which brings us neatly to your feelings about shoreside operations with the coast guard...how they aren't always right in how they evaluate things and importantly people.

 

Given Francesco's previous record of the occasional risk taking as a more junior rating and shortly after being made up to Captain a sign of things to come...and if so...who would have been charged to see those signs and act on them...and why, ultimately, no apparent action was indeed taken if he was the risk that some of his peers have stated?

 

Wheels within wheels....

 

 

now.that I can agree with!

 

I may be bold here and this is only a opinion based on what I have seen............he was never a real Master, he was a pretty boy with good interpersonal skills with the passengers! Thats how he got his job!