Concordia News: Please Post Here

[cruiserfanfromct]

Cruise ship/ocean liner groundings...casualties or not is immaterial...its just to show it happens to the majority of captains, just cos they don't get the headlines, doesn't mean its a non existant event...

 

Royal Caribbean Monarch of the Seas, 1998...Louis Lines Sea Diamond, 2007.....MSC Poesia, 2012....

 

There have been close calls in the past...but again it takes deaths like Sea Diamond and Concordia for the world to notice.

 

Always the same...dead = wake up call = industry tries to distance themselves from sharp practices whilst hurrying to their lawyers to cover their corporate sterns...

 

All corporations are "deny, deny, deny"...until something like this happens and they go red in the face, suddenly develope a frog in their throat and change the subject as quick as possible (or go back to watching the basketball match)...

 

Distasteful as it is to say that ironically Schettino did the world a favour by bring this behaviour to our attention in the most tragic way possible...that is EXACTLY what he did....

 

Afterall...had it not been noticed, the authorities and cruise lines wouldn't have been scrambling to change their procedures and rules, would they?

 

If Schettino hadn't clumped it on January 13 and he had sailed as planned to Savona on January 14...we wouldn't even be discussing it here, would we?

 

No...we would all be looking forward to our cruises, ships would be carrying out sail by's just as they have done for years and no-one would be any the wiser...

No matter how you slice it CS -- don't know if you're a paid shill or not -- but painting Schettino as the hero who woke the world up to cruise line lax procedures and as the savior of all future cruise ship mishaps doesn't cut it for me. He will always be the poster boy for hubris, poor judgment and terrible leadership, in my view.

[CtheW0rld]

You have made some valid points in some of your posts here. This to me seems like you are grabbing to justify what Schettino did. All things are not equal here; ie: time of day, speed of vessel, and possibly what the Captain may have been doing at this time.

 

To go one step further, you say with what seems to be certainty, that this photo was not photo shopped. I question that as I don't see any type of wake behind the ship. Even at a slow speed, wouldn't there be some distrubance in the water. :confused:

 

also, that captain didn't rip a hole in the side of the ship, killing 32 people.

[CostaSmurfette]

No matter how you slice it CS -- don't know if you're a paid shill or not -- but painting Schettino as the hero who woke the world up to cruise line lax procedures and as the savior of all future cruise ship mishaps doesn't cut it for me. He will always be the poster boy for hubris, poor judgment and terrible leadership, in my view.

 

OK...look at it from this direction...

 

You board your cruise ship (airliner, bus, train etc)...you have your family, friends with you.

 

How do YOU know whether or not the bloke at the controls is not a ******* who was out boozing last night...or is in a bad mood cos he didn't get his oats...or had a row with another crewmember...or isn't feeling well...or is out to commit suicide...or any one of a number of things that could endanger your life?

 

You DON'T know...you trust that bloke with your life without so much as a second thought.

 

There are ******* captains everywhere...you won't know that you have one until that fateful day when the ******* captain screws up.

 

You saying that you doubt there are that many bad captains is like trying to say that it won't rain tomorrow...it might be dry, but then again...

 

So by doing what he did, Schettino revealed a deadly trait...maybe not a common trait...but still a deadly trait that needed exposing and needed to be dealt with. And since the cruise companies went into full on denial mode (with lawyers by their sides) you cannot possibly believe one iota of what they say either.....they can say anything they want to and you as the consumer will believe what you want to hear, they know that and they know what buttons to push.

 

Afterall...had they said "well yes we knew all about our captains playing chicken but we didn't care and we didn't think anyone could get hurt"...everyone would drop cruising like hot bricks in a bonfire - and rightly so.

[CostaSmurfette]

This article, just published a few minutes ago in Italy, states that if the watertight doors, (doesn't specify the numbers or letters of the exact watertight doors) but if the 2 doors that were SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSED HAD BEEN CLOSED LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN, the vessel would have remained afloat longer, maybe 2 hours more and perhaps would have avoided any loss of life. So much for following emergency protocol.

 

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/cronaca-italia/costa-concordia-francesco-schettino-paratie-aperte-1319722/

 

And as Tonka said last night...its commonplace for watertight doors to be open when at sea...usually cos they are a pain in the wotsit when it comes to freedom of access tween compartments...they are routinely left open on most ships...now the fact that they are not actually meant to be open...well again...its yet another trait that has been exposed by this accident and its another trait that will need to be dealt with in a stronger way than it is currently...

 

The relaxing of doors under blackout is another thing that needs further investigation...Titanic's doors were heavy steel, electrically operated but with a ratchet back-up..and they dropped down from the ceiling, so even if everything else failed, their sheer weight held them sealed shut.

 

Modern ships have doors that run side to side, they are not overly heavy, nor have they got back-up systems that keep them sealed shut in a blackout situation.

 

Progress has screwed up...we have the full bulkheads that Titanic never had, but our watertight doors are inferior to Titanic....you would think that the architects would have got it right by now, but they haven't...

 

As usual, it takes a bad accident for these details to squirm their way out into the public domain....

 

Lots of people playing fast and loose with our leisure time on a cruise ship...its a wonder any of us get on a ship....starting at the architects, to the owners, to the senior crews, to the training, to the authorities doing the certification of the ships and officers...the list is bloody endless of those who have a measure of culpability when things go wrong and all of them hide behind "I know nothing".....

[MorganMars]

Please take into consideration that the reason the ship is on it's side with the starboard cabins underwater is because it is aground, watertight doors or not. So, while the watertight doors may have made a difference if they had decided to stay in deeper water, assuming that they had enough control of the ship to keep it there, once the ship is aground in its current location, it is going to roll on to its side.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

This article, just published a few minutes ago in Italy, states that if the watertight doors, (doesn't specify the numbers or letters of the exact watertight doors) but if the 2 doors that were SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSED HAD BEEN CLOSED LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN, the vessel would have remained afloat longer, maybe 2 hours more and perhaps would have avoided any loss of life. So much for following emergency protocol.

 

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/cronaca-italia/costa-concordia-francesco-schettino-paratie-aperte-1319722/

[cruiserfanfromct]

OK...look at it from this direction...

 

You board your cruise ship (airliner, bus, train etc)...you have your family, friends with you.

 

How do YOU know whether or not the bloke at the controls is not a ******* who was out boozing last night...or is in a bad mood cos he didn't get his oats...or had a row with another crewmember...or isn't feeling well...or is out to commit suicide...or any one of a number of things that could endanger your life?

 

You DON'T know...you trust that bloke with your life without so much as a second thought.

 

There are ******* captains everywhere...you won't know that you have one until that fateful day when the ******* captain screws up.

 

You saying that you doubt there are that many bad captains is like trying to say that it won't rain tomorrow...it might be dry, but then again...

 

So by doing what he did, Schettino revealed a deadly trait...maybe not a common trait...but still a deadly trait that needed exposing and needed to be dealt with. And since the cruise companies went into full on denial mode (with lawyers by their sides) you cannot possibly believe one iota of what they say either.....they can say anything they want to and you as the consumer will believe what you want to hear, they know that and they know what buttons to push.

 

Afterall...had they said "well yes we knew all about our captains playing chicken but we didn't care and we didn't think anyone could get hurt"...everyone would drop cruising like hot bricks in a bonfire - and rightly so.

Whoa, Nelly! Are you implying that by doing what he did, Schettino is going to put an end to all idiocy and incompetency and save us from all accidents in the future?

 

I feel ever so much safer knowing that this man can rewrite emergency manuals to include how to catapult into a lifeboat with a blanket, read charts upside down without glasses while talking on a cell phone and how pull off a "hit and run" with a luxury liner.

[cruiserfanfromct]

Please take into consideration that the reason the ship is on it's side with the starboard cabins underwater is because it is aground, watertight doors or not. So, while the watertight doors may have made a difference if they had decided to stay in deeper water, assuming that they had enough control of the ship to keep it there, once the ship is aground in its current location, it is going to roll on to its side.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

Which begs the question, if the Concordia hadn't run aground again a second time and the watertight doors closed like they were required and the muster procedure starting much earlier, would this have saved more lives? What do you think?

[CostaSmurfette]

Whoa, Nelly! Are you implying that by doing what he did, Schettino is going to put an end to all idiocy and incompetency and save us from all accidents in the future?

 

I feel ever so much safer knowing that this man can rewrite emergency manuals to include how to catapult into a lifeboat with a blanket, read charts upside down without glasses while talking on a cell phone and how pull off a "hit and run" with a luxury liner.

 

I wish it was that easy.

 

But with the actions of that night, and the investigations that are currently ongoing, what you can be assured of is that there will be specific regulations, evaluations and other safety orientated issues put in place to make accident's/incidents of this sort less common and easier for the powers at be to be able to pick out dubious practice, potentially dangerous or questionable behaviour and essentially be "more in control" of what people such as Captains are doing.

 

It seems to me that there wasn't enough seriousness taken when Schettino's peers voiced concerns about his abilities and conduct...it all came out AFTER the accident. That is no good, the information should have been made known immediately any disquiet was felt and dealt with either by demotion, retraining or a combination of penalties available.

 

Chances were certainly missed in regard to behavioural issues and abilities - especially an (in)ability to function under stress.

 

I am hoping that the investigations will change alot of procedural and personnel issues...not paper over the cracks and forget about them til the next accident, but really look closely at dealing effectively with the various human failures, training failures, design failures, protocol failures and basically, if they have to rewrite the entire shebang, then so be it.

 

Upto now, its been blind eye turning from all directions and only saying "well we all knew he was an idiot" after the event...that serves no purpose other than to rile the ones left to pick up the pieces.

 

Changes are needed, some of which are going to be costly both in financial and in human terms...but at the end of the day, the last thing we as consumers need is a quick fix of a band-aid, it has to be thorough, it has to be meaningful and above all else it must be enforced across the board, no exceptions.

[CostaSmurfette]

Which begs the question, if the Concordia hadn't run aground again a second time and the watertight doors closed like they were required and the muster procedure starting much earlier, would this have saved more lives? What do you think?

 

That is like asking how long is a piece of string....no-one will ever know unless water tank tests are done with a scale model that is bristling with sensors and other electronic recording gadgetry.....which is all way too expensive, even if it would prove the point one way or the other and answer a host of questions about the behaviour of the ship that night and if the evacuation timings could have been extended etc.

[CostaSmurfette]

Evacuation times always make me smile....look at the average airliner, everyone out in 90 seconds or less....

 

OK...90% that is doable....but then you look at the tests and you watch the cabin crew training films....

 

Everyone in a jumpsuit and trainers and not a single piece of hand luggage or duty free to be seen.

 

You know what the biggest cause of injury is from an airliner evacuation is...broken glass injuries from duty free being tossed down the slide first and friction burns from the slide against bare flesh...

 

You're told not to take anything with you down that slide, but no bugger takes a blind bit of notice...

 

It's like a story I heard from a crewmember on Classica...she was on Concordia when the accident happened and there were a few passengers who wanted to take their luggage with them onto the lifeboats....they were due to disembark in Savona the next day and thought it would be fine to lug their suitcases onto the lifeboats and they were most put out when they were told to please leave them on the ship....

 

Human reactions can be so off the wall sometimes...people do some seriously stupid things when under stress...just makes you throw your hands in the air and give up...

[MorganMars]

With all the "what ifs," are you saying that this latest article has convinced you that closing the watertight doors would have resulted in no loss of life? As to what I think, I think that everything at this point is just opinion.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

 

Which begs the question, if the Concordia hadn't run aground again a second time and the watertight doors closed like they were required and the muster procedure starting much earlier, would this have saved more lives? What do you think?

[cruiserfanfromct]

With all the "what ifs," are you saying that this latest article has convinced you that closing the watertight doors would have resulted in no loss of life? As to what I think, I think that everything at this point is just opinion.

 

Regards,

MorganMars

I said saved more lives NOT "resulted in no loss of life". Please reread my post. It goes without saying that all that is posted here is pure conjecture and opinion, after all, no one here was actually there on the bridge that night in any official capacity. Is this not a discussion board where thoughts and opinions are shared and discussed based on what is read and watched elsewhere? Are we not allowed to have a viewpoint? :confused:

[CostaSmurfette]

The more I think about the evacuation that night, the more it is a bloody miracle that so many managed to get off the ship.

 

Not cos of the circumstances surrounding the cause(s) of the accident but the sheer number of people and the sheer size of the ship...

 

Getting 4000 people to move anywhere quickly is a feat in itself...never mind at night, on a listing deck, multiple languages, multiple mobility levels, multiple ages and in their formal outfits too....

 

I know the media let rip into the crew, but c'mon.....they pulled off a miracle....I know 32 didn't get home, but the law of averages and all that, it's totally incredible that there were not more than 32 lost that night.

 

Setting aside what went on up on the bridge cos that will be debated into the next millennium....the grass roots crew and junior officers did a bloody brilliant job that night, they were absolute heroes...and when you consider how young the majority of cruise ship crew are, it just blows you away how they got so many to safety in a relatively short time.....and NONE of them had ever been through that before, they are trained but nothing compares to the real thing...

 

Those lads and lasses did an amazing job...they certainly do not deserve the crap they received from the media and other people...

[cruiserfanfromct]

The more I think about the evacuation that night, the more it is a bloody miracle that so many managed to get off the ship.

 

Not cos of the circumstances surrounding the cause(s) of the accident but the sheer number of people and the sheer size of the ship...

 

Getting 4000 people to move anywhere quickly is a feat in itself...never mind at night, on a listing deck, multiple languages, multiple mobility levels, multiple ages and in their formal outfits too....

 

I know the media let rip into the crew, but c'mon.....they pulled off a miracle....I know 32 didn't get home, but the law of averages and all that, it's totally incredible that there were not more than 32 lost that night.

 

Setting aside what went on up on the bridge cos that will be debated into the next millennium....the grass roots crew and junior officers did a bloody brilliant job that night, they were absolute heroes...and when you consider how young the majority of cruise ship crew are, it just blows you away how they got so many to safety in a relatively short time.....and NONE of them had ever been through that before, they are trained but nothing compares to the real thing...

 

Those lads and lasses did an amazing job...they certainly do not deserve the crap they received from the media and other people...

Agreed. I think most of the crew did an amazing job. Glad to see some were able to take action despite their ineffective captain.

[CostaSmurfette]

Agreed. I think most of the crew did an amazing job. Glad to see some were able to take action despite their ineffective captain.

 

And what is even better is that despite everything that happened, most are back at sea with Costa Crociere.

 

That isn't just brand or employee loyalty, that speaks volumes that they trust the company and they trust their senior officers....one bad apple has not ended their career and that has to be applauded.

 

The ones I spoke to earlier this year all said they wanted to get back onto the ships right away but the comapny insisted they had psychotherapy first, some said their families were not keen at first but understood the need to return...and not for the financial reasons, but for their own self confidence and sanity.

 

They won't ever forget that night, but its an amazing show of inner strength and determination that they have returned to the ships after what was so much more than their ultimate nightmare.

[MorganMars]

I read your post. I was just asking if the article had changed your viewpoint in any way.

 

Of course, we are allowed to have a viewpoint. That is why I am posting here, to express my opinions and to hear others. My original point regarding the watertight doors was that it may or may not have made a difference in the eventual outcome, as the flooding of the decks in the ships current resting place is due to the ship laying on its side and that watertight doors would not be a factor in that position. That is my opinion based on past experience.

 

So, with that, I think I'll add a sig line that I 've seen on another board:

All posts are my opinion unless there's a link. Disclaimer -- the author of this post is not responsible for the reader's over-reaction to or misinterpretation of the author's opinion, nor for any subtext assumed by the reader and not specifically stated by the author. ;)

I said saved more lives NOT "resulted in no loss of life". Please reread my post. It goes without saying that all that is posted here is pure conjecture and opinion, after all, no one here was actually there on the bridge that night in any official capacity. Is this not a discussion board where thoughts and opinions are shared and discussed based on what is read and watched elsewhere? Are we not allowed to have a viewpoint? :confused:

[Uniall]

Dear Mr. Uniall

 

How can you be taken seriously when at every turn you just ooze sarcasm.

 

I like many am waiting for the REAL truth. You are a professional man, yet have great difficulty in spelling a name.

 

Emi

 

The truth has been right in front of you from the first hours. A Dare

Devil Show Off ordered the ship and many passengers to their doom and then turned Coward to save himself.

 

I ooze sarcasm because I believe that those who deny these underlying truths either refuse to see the truth because they don't want to believe it or they have a secret agenda to protect Costa and or Captain Coward.

[qtlikeme]

Agreed. I think most of the crew did an amazing job. Glad to see some were able to take action despite their ineffective captain.

 

I also agree that the crew did an amazing job but IMO critical time was wasted waiting for the abandon ship order!!!!! There were crowds of passengers waiting on the lifeboat decks within 10 minutes of the collison with the rock! It has been stated that the majority of the casualties were found on the 4th deck which was the lifeboat deck. If the lifeboats had been loaded and lowered earlier they would have made it to shore before the listing of the ship increased to the point that the port side lifeboats couldn't be lowered easily! As it was, the earliest lifeboats ashore went back to the ship and were able to load more passengers but as the boat listed more and more this became too dangerous. It was the DELAY that was the reason for the majority of the casualties. All the passengers could have been safely ashore in the 50 minutes that was wasted before the call to abandon was finally sounded!

 

Any one of those officers on the bridge that knew the seriousness of the problem should have been able to start the evacuation immediately. So what if they were overstepping their order of command. They would have been a hero!!!! My husband and I sensed the seriousness of the situation almost immediately and we don't have any formal seaman's training..... it was so obvious that the ship had hit something and was listing first to the port (didn't stay level for very long) and then very soon after to the starboard side.

 

The memories are so vivid and I get angry about the delay whenever I think about that night!!

 

It should never have happened!!!

[Uniall]

Every cruise line carries out fly by sailings...you cannot place a rule for one and not for the rest. ALL cruise lines have played Russian Roulette with quaysides, rocks, volcanoes, islands, other ships and other hard/immovable objects for decades....some even smacked their ships too (HAL Westerdam did a spot of ice kissing in Alaska last year, P&O's Oriana took a chunk out of a quayside, a few RCI's have taken lumps out of themelves and quaysides over the years too...they were all at it), but it wasn't til this accident that the industry woke up and realised that maybe it ain't such a good idea afterall...

 

As usual...it takes a fatal accident for people to wake from their corporate complacent comatose state and decide to change their ways...

 

It was an accident waiting to happen....to A cruise ship, belonging to A cruise line.....they were all as complacent as each other....no winners for the top prat award, they are all equally guilty of turning a blind eye.

 

This answer is precisley why I believe you have secret agenda to defend Captain Coward and Costa Costa Cruises at all costs as your secret agenda. You don't deny that the fly by is inherently dangerous but defend the practice by arguing every one does it.

 

Remember you mother's rule: "just becasue everyone else does it, doesn't mean you're going to do it?"

 

 

The more I read your posts, the more I'm convinced that you are employed by Costa Cruise Lines.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Uniall

[cruiserfanfromct]

I read your post. I was just asking if the article had changed your viewpoint in any way.

 

Of course, we are allowed to have a viewpoint. That is why I am posting here, to express my opinions and to hear others. My original point regarding the watertight doors was that it may or may not have made a difference in the eventual outcome, as the flooding of the decks in the ships current resting place is due to the ship laying on its side and that watertight doors would not be a factor in that position. That is my opinion based on past experience.

 

So, with that, I think I'll add a sig line that I 've seen on another board:

All posts are my opinion unless there's a link. Disclaimer -- the author of this post is not responsible for the reader's over-reaction to or misinterpretation of the author's opinion, nor for any subtext assumed by the reader and not specifically stated by the author. ;)

 

Fair enough MM. But you did not answer my original question:

 

Original question Posted by cruiserfanfromct to MorganMars

Which begs the question, if the Concordia hadn't run aground again a second time and the watertight doors closed like they were required and the muster procedure starting much earlier, would this have saved more lives? What do you think?

[stella_mare]

Stella ... Welcome to the thread and thanks for the link re the doors, doors number 12 and 13 were open for quite some time prior to the collision with others it would appear being opened and closed as people passed through.

 

So the graphic goes to prove that for the Majority of the sea time the doors were closed apart from 12 and 13, it will be interesting to see where those two doors are in relation to the opening in the Hull and the flooding that took place.

 

What is not known is the state of the doors after the collision.

 

Hello, Sidari. Hopefully there is more on the VDR to sort through that will shed more light. Canessa pointed out that WTDs 12 and 13 were on Deck B (forward) and utilized by the laundry staff. WTD 24 was Deck A aft and primarily utilized by the buffet service staff wheeling carts to the elevators to get to the upper decks, etc. Not sure where these doors are situated in relation to the gash and flooding that took place.

 

Perhaps the schematic on p. 47 of this PPT may indicate it (?) This slide shows the Costa Serena which is more or less identical to Concordia. I am not at all sure if the numbers relate to the WT compartments/doors or something else. I really do not know how to read these types of things.)

[CtheW0rld]

This answer is precisley why I believe you have secret agenda to defend Captain Coward and Costa Costa Cruises at all costs as your secret agenda. You don't deny that the fly by is inherently dangerous but defend the practice by arguing every one does it.

 

Remember you mother's rule: "just becasue everyone else does it, doesn't mean you're going to do it?"

 

 

The more I read your posts, the more I'm convinced that you are employed by Costa Cruise Lines.

 

you're still reading them? i'm not.

[cruiserfanfromct]

I also agree that the crew did an amazing job but IMO critical time was wasted waiting for the abandon ship order!!!!! There were crowds of passengers waiting on the lifeboat decks within 10 minutes of the collison with the rock! It has been stated that the majority of the casualties were found on the 4th deck which was the lifeboat deck. If the lifeboats had been loaded and lowered earlier they would have made it to shore before the listing of the ship increased to the point that the port side lifeboats couldn't be lowered easily! As it was, the earliest lifeboats ashore went back to the ship and were able to load more passengers but as the boat listed more and more this became too dangerous. It was the DELAY that was the reason for the majority of the casualties. All the passengers could have been safely ashore in the 50 minutes that was wasted before the call to abandon was finally sounded!

 

Any one of those officers on the bridge that knew the seriousness of the problem should have been able to start the evacuation immediately. So what if they were overstepping their order of command. They would have been a hero!!!! My husband and I sensed the seriousness of the situation almost immediately and we don't have any formal seaman's training..... it was so obvious that the ship had hit something and was listing first to the port (didn't stay level for very long) and then very soon after to the starboard side.

 

The memories are so vivid and I get angry about the delay whenever I think about that night!!

 

It should never have happened!!!

Thanks for this account qtlikeme. I remember you were on this thread early on and were actually on the Concordia that night. Have you been able to put this past you? Has it been easy or not so easy? Were you able to settle with Costa or are you with the groups that are still waiting?

[loubetti]

Hey there Lou!

 

Actually Lou.....the make sure his vessel is safe and operating properly is indeed the Master responsibility........' date=' 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[/quote']

 

Hello, my friend! Always a pleasure, captain! :)

 

So, how does Schettino know about a pending electrical or other issue / failure? Was he advised of it? Not that the ship isn't known for them, but...

 

Did he create the charts?

 

Again, not holding him without blame, but those who want to keel haul him I do not agree with......yet.

 

We'll see. I'm still sitting on the fence when it comes to him.

[CostaSmurfette]

I mentioned a few pages back a photograph taken on board Costa Concordia on the 12th January, 2012...24 hours prior to the accident.

 

I have had permission to post it here from the family that is in the photo with Francesco Schettino.

 

The photo is important...the body language, facial expression of Francesco Schettino is not comfortable, almost fearful. He has, in the months since the accident been portayed as someone who loved being infront of a camera lens...this photo shows that for whatever reason, he was not comfortable at all being there.

 

That is the look and body language of a man with alot on his plate, someone who is not comfortable and who is under strain....even overwhelmed by something. It was seconds later that the Chief Engineer took him to one side and spoke to him, the colour drained from his face and he left the area for a time. Prior to the photo, the husband in the photo spoke to him and he said that Francesco came across as if he was pre-occupied and not at all himself. The family had also sailed with him before and noticed a marked change in his demeanor.

 

Remeber, this is 24 hours BEFORE the accident.

Edited August 8, 2012 by CostaSmurfette