Concordia News: Please Post Here

[CostaSmurfette]

In reply to watertheodds....

 

Since the accident, the Costa websites have sprouted personal profiles of their captains, with qualifications, languages spoke, length of service etc...

 

http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/USA/HereForYou/SkilledCrew/KnowCrew/default.htm

 

This move, along with the "open door" policy that was evident this year aboard Costa Classica when I was aboard her in May, seems to signify a more visible approach towards their passengers...not just by way of the behind the scenes tours of the ships on sea days but by being willing to speak candidly about Concordia.

 

It's like any large corporate company, they do try to make themselves more approachable to the public...and if by doing these tours and having the captain's profiles & qualifications open to scrutiny, then to me at least, it has to be a step in the right direction in getting public confidence back.

 

It is not to minimise what happened or to close the chapter, it is done in a genuine need to be open with people.

 

Maybe it is closing the door after the horse has bolted, there will be those who doubtless feel that way....but I see it as a step forward and should be seen as a good thing, they are learning hard lessons...just as Princess did with the Star Princess fire and the more recent deaths of two fishermen that were passed by despite being in distress and seen by passengers.

 

2012 has been a pretty crap year for the cruise industry, it follows some absolutely excellent and relatively trouble free years....Concordia has force the cruise lines...all of them...to wake up and realise that all is not rosy in the garden, and it often takes a major accident to wake industries up and that is what is the saddest part of all this.

[Uniall]

If I said my original username I would get banned again (I was banned for requesting a now ex moderator do their job and deal with some nasty behaviour)....no secret, I am not a secretive person....least I don't think I am, but its your perogative if you think that I am...free country and all that ;)

 

No amount of punishment will ever bring those 32 people back to their loved ones, no amount of punishment will be worse than the mental and physical effects faced by those involved that night who did not do their jobs right or who gave into their fear.

 

We do not live in an ideal world...sometimes I wish that we did, but we do not and we cannot turn the clocks back and bring those people home....but what we can do is learn from it...passengers must learn to take the muster drills more seriously, crews/officers need to be trained and evaluated much better to make sure that they can react in the best way possible when presented with an emergency situation and they must not be afraid to speak out of a senior officer does or says something that they are not comfortable with.

 

As much as you and many others bay for blood, it is not going to change anything...but by taking steps in training, officer candidate choice, ship design and a host of other equally important issues thrown up by Concordia we can all take steps to prevent another 32 or more deaths from another avoidable accident.

 

Your belief that society demanding punishment for evil, bad or improper behavior is equated with "baying for blood" and we should only find ways to prevent a reoccurrence in the future is at best idealistic whimsey and at worst insane.

 

If someone murders another, we prevent them from murdering again by locking them behind bars.

 

If someone acts recklessly and it causes deaths of others, we should ban the culprit from having such a position ever again. If we meet him in public, we should point our finger at him and call him killer and then turn our back on him like a pariah offering him no solace or succor. That is how society can prevent reoccurences.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Uniall

[CostaSmurfette]

All the Tabloids work pretty much the same way internationally across the board. Schettino, being European and presumably knowing how the Europeans tabloid work, sure did give the Sun a run for their money. :o

 

During these intense investigations, one would think the former captain would have more sense than to become fodder for the Supermarket Tabs. But alas, after all the slapstick explanations he has given for his actions, there is one thing known for certain and that is, sense, scruples and honor, he doesn't have a lick of. :(

 

I would be more concerned if he wasn't seen out and about tbh.

 

I would imagine that the individual who took him out in the boat did it with the best intentions in mind...to get him outside after 6 months of not mixing with anyone, he does still have friends inside and outside the industry and they will have been concerned about his mental state and thought a trip out in the sunshine would do him some good.....misguided, perhaps but I can understand how a friend would think he was helping in some way...and unless that friend arranged for the paparazzi to be there, neither of them would have known that the parasite would be waiting to get that prime photo.

 

Francesco showed his inability to function aboard Concordia for whatever reason it was...his mental state on the night and in subsequent months has got to be questioned...he shows no emotion, he made that (IMO) ill advised interview without a lawyer in sight...that is not the actions of a man who is compos mentis, that is the actions of a man with psychological damage.

 

Tbh I am frankly amazed that he hasn't been hospitalised, his companion on that boat thought he was doing the right thing by taking him out for a run around the bay.....time will inevitably tell if he was right to do so or not.

 

And hindsight is a wonderful thing if you can have it in advance....it's a shame that those peers who were so critical of his actions after the accident had not stood up and spoken out beforehand....if they had, maybe that accident would not have even happened....who knows?

[Uniall]

I would be more concerned if he wasn't seen out and about tbh.

 

I would imagine that the individual who took him out in the boat did it with the best intentions in mind...to get him outside after 6 months of not mixing with anyone, he does still have friends inside and outside the industry and they will have been concerned about his mental state and thought a trip out in the sunshine would do him some good.....misguided, perhaps but I can understand how a friend would think he was helping in some way...and unless that friend arranged for the paparazzi to be there, neither of them would have known that the parasite would be waiting to get that prime photo.

 

Francesco showed his inability to function aboard Concordia for whatever reason it was...his mental state on the night and in subsequent months has got to be questioned...he shows no emotion, he made that (IMO) ill advised interview without a lawyer in sight...that is not the actions of a man who is compos mentis, that is the actions of a man with psychological damage.

 

Tbh I am frankly amazed that he hasn't been hospitalised, his companion on that boat thought he was doing the right thing by taking him out for a run around the bay.....time will inevitably tell if he was right to do so or not.

 

And hindsight is a wonderful thing if you can have it in advance....it's a shame that those peers who were so critical of his actions after the accident had not stood up and spoken out beforehand....if they had, maybe that accident would not have even happened....who knows?

 

OK I got. You're Dominica and you're hiding out in England where you've used your female wiles to get some poor unsuspecting Brit to make these posts for you.................:rolleyes:

[CostaSmurfette]

Your belief that society demanding punishment for evil, bad or improper behavior is equated with "baying for blood" and we should only find ways to prevent a reoccurrence in the future is at best idealistic whimsey and at worst insane.

 

If someone murders another, we prevent them from murdering again by locking them behind bars.

 

If someone acts recklessly and it causes deaths of others, we should ban the culprit from having such a position ever again. If we meet him in public, we should point our finger at him and call him killer and then turn our back on him like a pariah offering him no solace or succor. That is how society can prevent reoccurences.

 

Seriously..I truly hope that you never find yourself in a position where you make a bad judgement and someone perishes as a result.

 

Francesco did not leave Civitavecchia that night with the mindset of "lets ram this ship into a rock and see how many I can kill off".

 

It was a basic misjudgement combined with other issues that he had no control (directly or indirectly) over. He did not murder anyone...least not premeditatedly...it was an accident, an avoidable accident maybe, but still an accident.

 

You could go out in your car one day and absent mindedly forget which is the gas pedal and which is the brake...its been done many times...and you could kill someone.

 

It wouldn't mean that you purposely went out to kill them, it was a mistake...a simple mistake and one that will crucify you for every waking moment til you yourself push up daisies.

 

No amount of villification will bring that person back nor will it make you feel any worse than you already do. There is no point in holding a grudge, it doesn't bring that person back and it shortens your life too.

 

The ship had problems, he made at least one error of judgement, he got scared and he turned into jelly....as we have already discussed, he probably wasn't a good candidate for the job anyway....but what is done, is done.

 

We have to make sure that the same mistales are never made again...just as if you have nixed your gas and brake pedal up and killed someone, you would either give up driving or retake your driving test.

[loubetti]

Innocent till proven guilty only applies in a court of Law. There's already enough facts made public to find him guilty, a hundred times over, in the court of public opinion.

 

That means he should be reviled, scorned and dispised by the public wherever and whenever he is encountered.

 

Just getting back to this thread...

 

"Facts", what facts? The court of public opinion is meaningless unless an Italian court wishes to follow it.

[loubetti]

loubetti, did it make you feel good to insult blondes? Hope so because it only proves that you have to use insults to attempt to back up your statements which makes everything else you have to say mean less. I respect anyone on here that has any opinion whether I agree or not as long as they don't resort to child like insults.

I have an opinion on the Captain and no, it's not favorable but I am also waiting for the facts to come out.

I can say with complete honesty that should he be cleared of all charges and get another ship to command (something I believe would never happen) I would not cruise with him. I wouldn't even get in a row boat with him.

 

Insult blondes? Are you kidding! He will likely get another ship, but not with Carnivore...er... Carnival. I have a captain friend who already stated that to me.

 

We don't have the facts yet, however many have tried and convicted him.

[loubetti]

Yep...that's exactly right...and some folks, uhm, Schettino had too much fake blonde hair in the form of a sub-par dancer clouding his vision the night of January 13, 2012. So much so he didn't see (lack of glasses -- right!) a massive 9.9 square mile granite rock island coming right at him and the 4,200 people who put their lives in his trust. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, mea culpa, I forgot the extra "o" on "too", Otherwise, when was the last time you hit a rock on a ship?

 

Hint: I've been there and done that, and while the evacuation was no where's near as bad as Concordia, it was no day at the beach either.

[Uniall]

Seriously..I truly hope that you never find yourself in a position where you make a bad judgement and someone perishes as a result.

 

Francesco did not leave Civitavecchia that night with the mindset of "lets ram this ship into a rock and see how many I can kill off".

 

It was a basic misjudgement combined with other issues that he had no control (directly or indirectly) over. He did not murder anyone...least not premeditatedly...it was an accident, an avoidable accident maybe, but still an accident.

 

You could go out in your car one day and absent mindedly forget which is the gas pedal and which is the brake...its been done many times...and you could kill someone.

 

It wouldn't mean that you purposely went out to kill them, it was a mistake...a simple mistake and one that will crucify you for every waking moment til you yourself push up daisies.

 

No amount of villification will bring that person back nor will it make you feel any worse than you already do. There is no point in holding a grudge, it doesn't bring that person back and it shortens your life too.

 

The ship had problems, he made at least one error of judgement, he got scared and he turned into jelly....as we have already discussed, he probably wasn't a good candidate for the job anyway....but what is done, is done.

 

We have to make sure that the same mistales are never made again...just as if you have nixed your gas and brake pedal up and killed someone, you would either give up driving or retake your driving test.

 

Your theory of crime and punishment is inane and is contrary to western law in both Common Law and Napoleonic Code nations.

 

In Common Law countries, if you act in a reckless manner and people die, you are guilty of reckless homicide which is a step between pre meditated murder and man slaughter. If you act negilgently, you are guilty of negligent homicide which is equivilent with man slaughter.

 

In most Codal countries, Reckless and some negligent conduct can be equivilent to murder.

 

Anyone who believes that there is even a remote possibility that Schittino did not act negligently and most probably acted recklessly has been living with Alice in Wonderland and probably has been reincarnated as the March Hare.

 

With all due respect, I think you'd better leave the Mad Hatter's tea party and find a way to get back through the looking glass.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Uniall

[Uniall]

Just getting back to this thread...

 

"Facts", what facts? The court of public opinion is meaningless unless an Italian court wishes to follow it.

 

You are just plain wrong about the court of public opinion. It can be a very damning life when people treat you like scum. As I've pointed out before, OJ Simpson was reviled by the public and hawked by the authorities because the court of public opinion found him guilty of murder.

 

He moved from California, to Florida, to Nevada but it didn't help. The minute he stepped out of line he was prosecuted and thrown into prison on charges that would have resulted in probation for anyone else.

 

As they used to say: "what goes around, comes around but it's the wait that hurts".

Edited August 7, 2012 by Uniall

[cruiserfanfromct]

...Francesco did not leave Civitavecchia that night with the mindset of "lets ram this ship into a rock and see how many I can kill off".

 

It was a basic misjudgement combined with other issues that he had no control (directly or indirectly) over. He did not murder anyone...least not premeditatedly...it was an accident, an avoidable accident maybe, but still an accident.

 

You could go out in your car one day and absent mindedly forget which is the gas pedal and which is the brake...its been done many times...and you could kill someone.

 

It wouldn't mean that you purposely went out to kill them, it was a mistake...a simple mistake and one that will crucify you for every waking moment til you yourself push up daisies.

 

No amount of villification will bring that person back nor will it make you feel any worse than you already do. There is no point in holding a grudge, it doesn't bring that person back and it shortens your life too.

 

The ship had problems, he made at least one error of judgement, he got scared and he turned into jelly....as we have already discussed, he probably wasn't a good candidate for the job anyway....but what is done, is done.

 

We have to make sure that the same mistales are never made again...just as if you have nixed your gas and brake pedal up and killed someone, you would either give up driving or retake your driving test.

Sorry but Schettino's unilateral decision to go wandering off course for a thrill is quite different than the car accident analogy you use here. The ex-captain was playing it fast and loose with Concordia's route, straying waaaaaay too close to the rocks for reasons known and unknown.

 

Furthermore, if it was a known to Schettino that the electrical system was acting up, as you pointed out, and the instruments weren't working properly and in spite of this, decided to do this daredevil stunt anyway, then I can think of no other analogy for this sort of gross negligence.

[loubetti]

Did Schettino act in a "reckless manner"? Did Robin Woodall on QE2? The latter captain kept his job because no one was killed.

 

My feeling is, the charts were not accurate, and Schettino forgot about "squat". We all know what "squat" is, right? Indeed, he was going fast as was Woodall. Woodall even had a pilot on board when we hit the uncharted rock, and in this case it was at some 25 knots.

 

I just want the facts, not the court of public opinion, as everyone is probably going to Google to look up "squat".

 

Have ya' ever been on a ship that hit a rock? Tell me your story! Because I will tell you mine!!!

 

This thread is getting quite tired and old, and there is not much sense being made by many comments.

 

I'm not holding Schettino without blame, but some of you want him drawn and quartered, and I think some of you folks have not a clue. Sorry.

Edited August 7, 2012 by loubetti

[CostaSmurfette]

Sorry but Schettino's unilateral decision to go wandering off course for a thrill is quite different than the car accident analogy you use here. The ex-captain was playing it fast and loose with Concordia's route, straying waaaaaay too close to the rocks for reasons known and unknown.

 

Furthermore, if it was a known to Schettino that the electrical system was acting up, as you pointed out, and the instruments weren't working properly and in spite of this, decided to do this daredevil stunt anyway, then I can think of no other analogy for this sort of gross negligence.

 

There is a scenario for that too...a pretty uncomfortable one that does make you wonder how often it has happened before (but without the obvious drastic results).

 

Orders....comply or find a new employer.

 

Last year Carnival Magic frequently sailed way too close to Stromboli on the wrong side of the island, doing close calls, giving the villagers a blast on the horn and showing the world what they were doing via the specially twizzled about webcam above the bridge.

 

There is no way on earth that the route taken was done on a whim...least not by the company's most senior Captain.

 

My own personal thoughts are, like with RSSC a few years ago playing dodgeball with Faraglioni Rocks off Capri, like the footage of an MSC ship getting extremely close to land off Capri earlier this year, the companies are instructing their Captains to carry out sail by's BUT...and this is importat...they distance themselves from those orders in the event of it going pearshaped.

 

You will have noticed that Costa Crociere upper management threw Schettino under the bus within 48 hours of the accident...distancing themselves from any potential orders being given to strafe Giglio, if indeed it was so ordered...which I believe that it was, just not sure by whom at this point.

 

I think there was a certain amount of advantage taken too. They knew Schettino was a loose cannon who was known to take the occasional risk...so who better to have do this order, even though they knew the ship was not running well...if the worst happened, blame it on Schettino, he's a cowboy.

 

I am not saying that this is how it went, but the potential is certainly there...a captain with a questionable level of ability and a reputation to take risks, throw in a ship with issues on a dark night in January.

 

That phone call could well have been Schettino arguing against doing the ordered sail by for all we know...it would certainly answer a few questions, not least the behaviour 24 hours beforehand when he was noted to be out of sorts and not really "right" in himself.

 

Costa Crociere, Carnival, MSC, RSSC and the rest of the lines are all guilty to some degree of pushing the boundaries....unfortunately it was Costa Crociere who was tripped up.

 

The question is, if the order was given, who gave it...and how far up the food chain did it come from?

 

Genova or Miami?

[Tonka's Skipper]

OK.I have a question..or questions...most of the ship I deal with are dry cargo and tankers so I don't know that much about watertight doors on cruise liners.

 

 

The whole point of putting in watertight doors deep inside a ships hull is to allow passage during normal operating conditions. E. I. the doors open.

 

As CS noted........the Titanic style doors when triggered, automatically lowered into a sealed position. Yet today the doors are sealed electrically and when power is lost the seal is loosened and the door is no longer watertight???

 

This is me makes no sense.....why have watertight doors that don't seal during a emergency.

 

1. Is this correct the doors don't seal during a power outage?

 

2. Is there a regulation or law that says the watertight doors on a cruise ship are required to be closed when as sea?

 

AKK

[CostaSmurfette]

It also needs to be remembered that the individual on Giglio that was the whole reason for strafing the island was the very same person who was the most critical of Schettino's abilities as a captain after it all went pearshaped.

 

Coincidence?....I doubt it very much.

[loubetti]

Sorry but Schettino's unilateral decision to go wandering off course for a thrill is quite different than the car accident analogy you use here. The ex-captain was playing it fast and loose with Concordia's route, straying waaaaaay too close to the rocks for reasons known and unknown.

 

Furthermore, if it was a known to Schettino that the electrical system was acting up, as you pointed out, and the instruments weren't working properly and in spite of this, decided to do this daredevil stunt anyway, then I can think of no other analogy for this sort of gross negligence.

 

Do you know for a FACT that it was a "unilateral" decision on Schettino's part? How were the charts? As to the electrical issues on these ships, who do we blame for that? Should Schettino figure that the electrics are so bad that he should not attempt this? Is he to blame for a faulty electrical system on these ships?

 

I say, perhaps bad charts, electrical system, too fast, and "squat".

 

I am not defending Schettino, but I need to know more facts.

 

Cover up coming, trust me.

[CostaSmurfette]

OK.I have a question..or questions...most of the ship I deal with are dry cargo and tankers so I don't know that much about watertight doors on cruise liners.

 

 

The whole point of putting in watertight doors deep inside a ships hull is to allow passage during normal operating conditions. E. I. the doors open.

 

As CS noted........the Titanic style doors when triggered' date=' automatically lowered into a sealed position. Yet today the doors are sealed electrically and when power is lost the seal is loosened and the door is no longer watertight???

 

This is me makes no sense.....why have watertight doors that don't seal during a emergency.

 

1. Is this correct the doors don't seal during a power outage?

 

2. Is there a regulation or law that says the watertight doors on a cruise ship are required to be closed when as sea?

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I asked similar questions when aboard Classica and the chief engineer told me that the doors relax during a power outtage...ie...they hold tight under normal operation but if a power outtage happens, the time taken tween the outtage and the relief genset kicking in has been known to release the doors enough to allow them to be opened manually with little or no effort required, the seal is effectively broken. It is something that has been brought up by crews, not just on Costa ships but on other ships built by Fincantieri.

 

As to whether or not they are meant to remain shut when at sea, I believe so but there are several accounts of doors being wedged open by crew who are working tween compartments.....so its a bit like the hours logging, its potentially open to falsifying and lapses. The panel does light up if a door is open when it shouldn't be but its taken as a work in progress and not taken seriously...which it should be.

[cruiserfanfromct]

There is a scenario for that too...a pretty uncomfortable one that does make you wonder how often it has happened before (but without the obvious drastic results).

 

Orders....comply or find a new employer.

 

Last year Carnival Magic frequently sailed way too close to Stromboli on the wrong side of the island, doing close calls, giving the villagers a blast on the horn and showing the world what they were doing via the specially twizzled about webcam above the bridge.

 

There is no way on earth that the route taken was done on a whim...least not by the company's most senior Captain.

 

My own personal thoughts are, like with RSSC a few years ago playing dodgeball with Faraglioni Rocks off Capri, like the footage of an MSC ship getting extremely close to land off Capri earlier this year, the companies are instructing their Captains to carry out sail by's BUT...and this is importat...they distance themselves from those orders in the event of it going pearshaped.

 

You will have noticed that Costa Crociere upper management threw Schettino under the bus within 48 hours of the accident...distancing themselves from any potential orders being given to strafe Giglio, if indeed it was so ordered...which I believe that it was, just not sure by whom at this point.

 

I think there was a certain amount of advantage taken too. They knew Schettino was a loose cannon who was known to take the occasional risk...so who better to have do this order, even though they knew the ship was not running well...if the worst happened, blame it on Schettino, he's a cowboy.

 

I am not saying that this is how it went, but the potential is certainly there...a captain with a questionable level of ability and a reputation to take risks, throw in a ship with issues on a dark night in January.

 

That phone call could well have been Schettino arguing against doing the ordered sail by for all we know...it would certainly answer a few questions, not least the behaviour 24 hours beforehand when he was noted to be out of sorts and not really "right" in himself.

 

Costa Crociere, Carnival, MSC, RSSC and the rest of the lines are all guilty to some degree of pushing the boundaries....unfortunately it was Costa Crociere who was tripped up.

 

The question is, if the order was given, who gave it...and how far up the food chain did it come from?

 

Genova or Miami?

I can't think of just one compelling reason Costa would risk the monetary sums and human casualities by ordering this too-close-for-comfort "salute". Just today, another lawsuit was filed to the tune of $400 MILLION dollars by the family of the violinist on board. These are staggering amounts. And all this for what? ---- For what exactly? So a couple of people on the tiny island of Giglio who had posted on FB that the Concordia would be buzzing by in a few moments could snap a photo to put on their wall? What in devil's name would Costa have to gain by having Schettino wave bye-bye to the head waiter's family and a former captain or impress an ex-dancer? Any clues? I'm all ears.

[Tonka's Skipper]

I asked similar questions when aboard Classica and the chief engineer told me that the doors relax during a power outtage...ie...they hold tight under normal operation but if a power outtage happens, the time taken tween the outtage and the relief genset kicking in has been known to release the doors enough to allow them to be opened manually with little or no effort required, the seal is effectively broken. It is something that has been brought up by crews, not just on Costa ships but on other ships built by Fincantieri.

 

As to whether or not they are meant to remain shut when at sea, I believe so but there are several accounts of doors being wedged open by crew who are working tween compartments.....so its a bit like the hours logging, its potentially open to falsifying and lapses. The panel does light up if a door is open when it shouldn't be but its taken as a work in progress and not taken seriously...which it should be.

 

 

 

That has got to be the dumbest way to build a watertight door, one that works only when the power is on...or the emergency power!...........So basically when the power goes off,the compartmentalization of the hull is meaningless. No wonder there was water all over the Concordia!

 

Sorry,I am actually LOL here.........ok..........one of my sayings..........*every naval architect should be required to sail for 1 year, on the 1 of every class of vessel he designed to learn what is good and what is not*!

 

It will be interesting to is if there is a real regulation or law to keep them open. The fact is as you have found out.is in normal operation the crews will leave them open!

 

AKK

[CostaSmurfette]

I am not 100% sure here but when Carnival Splendor had her fire, I believe she had door problems...along with the failed CO2 system and other defects that contributed to her accident.

 

In some ways, Carnival Splendor could be seen as a warning that all was not right with the design & fit of that marque.

 

The new design is the Dream class, one of which is on the blocks for Costa Crociere with at least another on option.

 

The Dream class is basically another Concordia class but with a rounded rump...it would be interesting to see if any design changes have been made that take account of the design flaws found in the Concordia class as a direct result of Carnival Splendor's fire and, of course, the Concordia CTL.

 

Fincantieri know there are design issues and that there are operational issues....Costa Pacifica was the last of the line for that design...and Destiny is about to be rebuilt almost from the keel upwards.

 

One of the biggest problems, design wise, of the Destiny/Conquest/Concordia range of ships is the blind alley design when you have several decks that you cannot get from stem to stern without going either a deck up or down...that is one of the most potentially dangerous design issues that you can have aboard a ship and something made worse by stretching the original marque. It's something that shouldn't have been included into a modern cruise ship...but it has and the ships were certified for use.

 

I will be aboard Pacifica in December, I admit to hating the big ships and she will be the first one of her type that I will sail aboard...I intend taking a very close look at her design too and asking questions about her.

 

And as we pull out of Civitavecchia to go to Savona on December 15, I will take myself up onto the fantail and I will remember those who didn't make it home...and hope that we never see anything like that happen ever again. Won't bring them back or change what happened, but they mustn't be forgotten.

[Tonka's Skipper]

Do you know for a FACT that it was a "unilateral" decision on Schettino's part? How were the charts? As to the electrical issues on these ships, who do we blame for that? Should Schettino figure that the electrics are so bad that he should not attempt this? Is he to blame for a faulty electrical system on these ships?

 

I say, perhaps bad charts, electrical system, too fast, and "squat".

 

I am not defending Schettino, but I need to know more facts.

 

Cover up coming, trust me.

 

 

Hey there Lou!

 

Actually Lou.....the make sure his vessel is safe and operating properly is indeed the Master responsibility........, next the Chief Engineer as well. If he had any idea that the electrical system or any system is nor operating correctly and may interfere with his safe operation and navigation of the his vessel he has a professional Duty to move away from the danger , E. I. no sail byes.

 

 

As to the sail byes and who decided to do it, we have hashed this out a number of times........the facts still need to come out.

 

My HO.is that the sail by was done by the Master to show off to a shore Captain and something about a head waiters family. It is also my opinion that the Costa office staff was fully aware of the sail byes and approved of them in the past, which make them responsible as well!

 

AKK

[cruiserfanfromct]

Do you know for a FACT that it was a "unilateral" decision on Schettino's part? How were the charts? As to the electrical issues on these ships, who do we blame for that? Should Schettino figure that the electrics are so bad that he should not attempt this? Is he to blame for a faulty electrical system on these ships?

 

I say, perhaps bad charts, electrical system, too fast, and "squat".

 

I am not defending Schettino, but I need to know more facts.

 

Cover up coming, trust me.

Anything is possible but in this case, all the evidence points to Schettino making this decision on his own. If you can provide proof to the contrary, I'll be glad to consider it.

 

Supposing Costa ordered the risky manuever and it was not Schettino's fault at all -- maybe Costa should have known he wasn't on the bridge that night but out to dinner and entertaining instead, Costa should have known that when he got back to the bridge seconds before impact and took command, navigating by sight, he didn't have his glasses on and was on his talking on his cell phone. Blame it on Costa -- they should have known -- NOT.

 

Even if hitting the rocks was not the Captain's fault, was it Costa's fault too that he abandoned ship, refused to get back on? Refused to help passengers? Was it Costa's fault he gave press interviews immediately following stating the rocks were NOT on the chart? Give me a friggin break! :rolleyes:

Edited August 7, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[CostaSmurfette]

That has got to be the dumbest way to build a watertight door' date=' one that works only when the power is on...or the emergency power!...........So basically when the power goes off,the compartmentalization of the hull is meaningless. No wonder there was water all over the Concordia!

 

Sorry,I am actually LOL here.........ok..........one of my sayings..........*every naval architect should be required to sail for 1 year, on the 1 of every class of vessel he designed to learn what is good and what is not*!

 

It will be interesting to is if there is a real regulation or law to keep them open. The fact is as you have found out.is in normal operation the crews will leave them open!

 

AKK[/quote']

 

On the Titanic the bulkheads didn't go high enough...doors worked fine though.

 

It's as if the designers do the bare minimum to prevent a problem arising rather than sit at the drawingboard and make sure it never happens again.

 

The thing in the way is the $$$$$...all these safety alterations cost money and if the owners paid the $$$$$, it would mean less ships built cos they would have a higher unit cost.

 

The maritime architects (Joe bloody Farcus) spent more money on kitch & neon than safety, those huge atriums and glass roof thingies do precious little to keep you alive in the event of a capsize or sinking...as long as it looks pretty, people will forget that they are on a ship that will sink if holed....maybe the architects will get their priorities right one day...we can but hope...

 

You are absolutely right...it is truly laughable...or at least it would be had it not cos so many lives over the years.

 

As for the doors being left open on purpose....I am so pleased that you have seen it too....cos it does make you wonder what the hell is going on...why have the damn doors if no-one is going to use them?

[Uniall]

Did Schettino act in a "reckless manner"? Did Robin Woodall on QE2? The latter captain kept his job because no one was killed.

 

My feeling is, the charts were not accurate, and Schettino forgot about "squat". We all know what "squat" is, right? Indeed, he was going fast as was Woodall. Woodall even had a pilot on board when we hit the uncharted rock, and in this case it was at some 25 knots.

 

I just want the facts, not the court of public opinion, as everyone is probably going to Google to look up "squat".

 

Have ya' ever been on a ship that hit a rock? Tell me your story! Because I will tell you mine!!!

 

This thread is getting quite tired and old, and there is not much sense being made by many comments.

 

I'm not holding Schettino without blame, but some of you want him drawn and quartered, and I think some of you folks have not a clue. Sorry.

 

Schittino killed 32 people. He is primarily responsible (not soley respsonsible) for their deaths. Anyone who denies that is absolutely bonkers. Just listen to yourself. You equate one captain with another as if the actions are all that matter and the results shouldn't affect the outcome. I'm telling you that you know nothing about the law. Your are arguing a theory that is contrary to the law in every western nation.

 

If Schittino had not ordered the ship close to shore no one would have died. It's the deaths that make it homicide. Additional factors don't get you off the hook unless you can show they would have casued the deaths even if the Schittino had not ordered the ship close to shore for his showboat antics. You seem to believe that the same actions should be judged equal regardless if they have different consquences.

 

You shouldn't give legal opinions until you go to law school. The first thing they teach you is the general rule only applies when specific facts are present. Delete one fact or add another, the rule changes.

 

You & others are demonstrating how western society has destroyed the concept of personal responsiblity for your own actions and the results of your actions. If you cause the deaths of 32 other people through negligence or reckless conduct you will go to prison. If it only causes property damage you may get a fine or a warning.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Uniall

[Tonka's Skipper]

The reports I read say that the QM !1 also had a fire in the electrical system, which is similar to the dream class, (Concordia, splendor, etc), but the reports say the actions of a well trained crew contained the fire and changes were made to the system.

 

I also read parts of the USCG investigation (not Captain of the port) which had a lot of issues with the Splendor fire including noting that the changes made to the QMII were not added to the Splendor and would have reduced the fire damage.

 

CS as you can guess I am not a big fan of Carnival Corporation!. LOL

 

AKK