Concordia News: Please Post Here

[truck1]

If she isn't broken up, she'll be sold to the highest bidder and become a livestock carrier running out of Saudi Arabia, Egypt or India.

 

They tend to buy up wrecks and run them into the ground in a different guise to their original use. She would made a decent livestock carrier too, once her holes and gashes are sorted.

 

Unless the ship is worthy of razorblades, they go for conversion...especially with the price of secondhand steel being so volatile. Even the venerable old Flamenco that was sold for scrap 3 years ago has resurfaced this week running out of Thailand on 3-4 day cruises to Cambodia...and when I saw her in 2010 she was an absolute wreck in lay up off Port Klang.

 

If they can get Concordia to float, she can be reused somewhere.

 

 

Its in the salvage plan that the ship is going to be righted, floated and towed to an Italian yard, then disposed of acording to Italian regulations. At least thats the plan. Either way, shes going to be scrap metal never to sail again. At this point its up to the insurance company(ies).

[sidari]

Uni ..... Now you are trying to tell me my job it seems! ... the Coroner here has the Final say of Cause of Death and no one else not a court unless the Coroner calls for a Jury to help him or her decide.

 

Re read my post ...

 

With regard to the fire death question, in the UK the Fire Authority are responsible for determining the cause of the Fire. (I KNOW)

 

The Police are responsible for investigating it if the Fire Authority deem it to be a Criminal Act ie Arson (I KNOW)

 

and whoever carries out the Autopsy decides on the cause of the death(appointed by the Cornoner ..that bit i have now added) See Below.

 

"The coroner's court is a court of law, and accordingly the coroner may summon witnesses, and people found lying are guilty of perjury.

Additional powers of the coroner may include the power of subpoena and attachment, the power of arrest, the power to administer oaths, and sequester juries of six during inquests"

[CostaSmurfette]

Going back to Herald of Free Enterprise, which does have some similarity to the Concordia accident.

 

The crux of the investigation with that ship was the bow doors being left open AFTER leaving the quayside.

 

Up until this accident the bow doors on every RoRo ferry were routinely left open for a time after leaving the quayside...now when I say every RoRo, I literally mean worldwide.

 

So although potentially dangerous, it was an accepted method of operation.

 

Now flick back to the route north and south tween Civitavecchia and the ports of Livorno, Savona and Genova.

 

The route takes you between a few islands, close to rock shoals...and as indicated by what happened, there isn't a massive amount of room to move off the suggested course...Concordia was a mere half a mile off, which is very little shoulder space when you consider the size of the ships using the route on a 24/7 basis.

 

The route was well documented, well used on a routine basis...it was the accepted method of operation despite any potential dangers in using it.

 

So now lets compare the human element tween the Herald and Concordia, again they run a sinilar pathway.

 

RoRo doors are the responsibility of the deck officer plus a seaman. This is where it all went wrong on this sailing. The deck officer left the car deck assuming the seaman would close the doors as normal...but he did not check and he left the car deck BEFORE departure.

 

The seaman was taking a nap in his cabin...he wasn't even on the car deck, let alone anywhere near the doors. Hence the doors remained fully open to the sea.

 

Go to the bridge and the actions therein. The master assumed the doors were closed...no indications otherwise. The deck officer joins him on the bridge...all is well....

 

The ferry was behind schedule, so the speed was taken a little higher than normal in the port reaches...this in turn made the ferry squat a little more....which in turn caused water ingress into the car deck.

 

The water increased til the open car deck sloshing about with about 1 meter of water made the ship unstable, she rolled left and right, finally rolling onto her side (fortunately) onto a sandbank which ultimately saved lives...although 193 did die that night.

 

Now go back to Concordia...she was half a mile off the planned course for reasons no-one is entirely clear about as yet, she collected a rock, spun 180 degrees somehow (again no-one as yet knows why or how she did that 180 degree turn, she settled on the shoreline in an identical position to Herald....see below.

 

Now this is where the coroner's verdicts came into play, along with the findings of the investigation and the subsequent CPS involvement against the company and individuals (Uniall)....

 

In October 1987, a coroner's inquest jury into the capsizing returned verdicts of unlawful killing. Seven individuals involved at the company were charged with gross negligence manslaughter, and the operating company, P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd, was charged with corporate manslaughter, but the case collapsed after Justice Turner directed the jury to acquit the company and the five most senior individual defendants (for a discussion of the legal issues, see corporate manslaughter). It did, however, set a precedent that corporate manslaughter is legally admissible in English courts. The disaster was one of a number that influenced thinking leading to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

 

The case partially collapsed against the defendants.

 

This could happen with Concordia if the conclusion is that 32 deaths by unlawful killing....AND...it will happen if the 32 deaths by misadventure conclusion is adopted.

 

Never assume that these individuals from the ship and the companies involved will be tried and convicted...doesn't happen.

 

The difference tween Herald and Concordia is 193 deaths against 32 and if the judiciary cannot make charges stick for 193 deaths, they have little chance of it happening with 32....

 

Oh and as a footnote, Herald was salvaged by SMIT, she was refloated, repaired and for a short time re-entered service before being scrapped later on, so any assumption that Concordia will automatically be scrapped is potentially flawed also.

[Vampire Parrot]

I have a question for those mariners with experience of the "yaw radius" of these ships. On page 12 of the report I have been reading, it states the ship's position at 42

degrees 20 minutes 12 seconds N; 010 degrees 58 minutes 19 seconds E at 2137 hours, and 1.8 miles off Giglio as they begin to make the turn. Seven minutes later, at 2144 hours, the position is 42 degrees 21 minutes 05 seconds N; 010 degrees 56 minutes E, and 0.3 miles off the rocks of Giglio. They've traveled West for 1.5 miles in that seven minutes according to the report, though I don't have the charts to plot the course. Would it typically take that long to make the turn to starboard and head North?

 

The IMO (International Maritime Organization) rules require that in a hard turn to starboard or port whilst underway, a ship's advance must be less than 4.5 times the ship's length. The advance is the distance ahead of the ship (just as she starts the turn) that is required to turn the ship through 90 degrees.

 

Concordia was 290 metres in length, therefore she would require a maximum of 4.5x290 = 1305 metres to turn through 90 degrees. Being a cruise ship she is probably more maneuverable than a typical cargo ship and thus has a smaller turning circle and thus a shorter advance. But I'll assume that Concordia only just meets IMO regulations, i.e. I'll use the worst-case numbers.

 

As she started her turn she was doing 16 knots, so she's taking 3 minutes and 45 seconds to cover a nautical mile, which is 1852 metres. Assuming the turn is a constant radius - which it isn't, it actually tightens and so again my numbers are "worst case" and Concordia would do better - she'd cover 2049 metres total distance for a 90 degree turn to starboard, which would take about 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

 

She didn't need to turn through 90 degrees to miss the rocks, a 70 degree turn would have been sufficient but again I'll ignore that, I'll keep using "worst case" numbers.

 

I would bet a large sum that it would take Concordia less time to make a 90 degree turn and the advance to be significantly less than 1805 metres. I would love to see Concordia's wheel house poster which has all the relevant data on it.

 

So in answer to the question, Concordia should very easily have been able to make the turn to starboard.

 

VP

Edited August 10, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[CostaSmurfette]

The IMO (International Maritime Organization) rules require that in a hard turn to starboard or port whilst underway, a ship's advance must be less than 4.5 times the ship's length. The advance is the distance ahead of the ship (just as she starts the turn) that is required to turn the ship through 90 degrees.

 

Concordia was 290 metres in length, therefore she would require a maximum of 4.5x290 = 1305 metres to turn through 90 degrees. Being a cruise ship she is probably more maneuverable than a typical cargo ship and thus has a smaller turning circle and thus a shorter advance. But I'll assume that Concordia only just meets IMO regulations, i.e. I'll use the worst-case numbers.

 

As she started her turn she was doing 16 knots, so she's taking 3 minutes and 45 seconds to cover a nautical mile, which is 1852 metres. Assuming the turn is a constant radius - which it isn't, it actually tightens and so again my numbers are "worst case" and Concordia would do better - she'd cover 2049 metres total distance for a 90 degree turn to starboard, which would take about 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

 

She didn't need to turn through 90 degrees to miss the rocks, a 70 degree turn would have been sufficient but again I'll ignore that, I'll keep using "worst case" numbers.

 

I would bet a large sum that it would take Concordia less time to make a 90 degree turn and the advance to be significantly less than 1805 metres. I would love to see Concordia's wheel house poster which has all the relevant data on it.

 

So in answer to the question, Concordia should very easily have been able to make the turn to starboard.

 

VP

 

VP.....is it possible, given the situation on the bridge at the time, that the turn was done in panic and thus overcompensated...ie too much and fast, rather than slow and methodical?

[Vampire Parrot]

CostaSmurfette - in my opinion, the turn was made far too late and not enough rudder was initially applied.

 

It looks like once Captain Schettino finally realised his ship was in danger he applied full starboard rudder. Being an experienced mariner, he knew that even if the bow missed the rocks - which it did - that his stern would also be in danger. This is because a ship's pivot point is generally about 1/3 the length of the ship from the bow, i.e. the stern swings out in the opposite direction to which rudder is applied.

 

So Captain Schettino then applied port rudder so that his stern would swing to starboard and remain clear of the rock but by then he'd run out of room and options.

 

BTW I also study marine and aircraft accidents.... because it's better to learn from everyone's mistakes rather than just one's own. Also it gives me a good insight into the political games that get played in some countries. Games that the UK's MAIB and AAIB are pretty much immune to, I'm glad to say.

 

VP

[CostaSmurfette]

CostaSmurfette - in my opinion, the turn was made far too late and not enough rudder was initially applied.

 

It looks like once Captain Schettino finally realised his ship was in danger he applied full starboard rudder. Being an experienced mariner, he knew that even if the bow missed the rocks - which it did - that his stern would also be in danger. This is because a ship's pivot point is generally about 1/3 the length of the ship from the bow, i.e. the stern swings out in the opposite direction to which rudder is applied.

 

So Captain Schettino then applied port rudder so that his stern would swing to starboard and remain clear of the rock but by then he'd run out of room and options.

 

BTW I also study marine and aircraft accidents.... because it's better to learn from everyone's mistakes rather than just one's own. Also it gives me a good insight into the political games that get played in some countries. Games that the UK's MAIB and AAIB are pretty much immune to, I'm glad to say.

 

VP

 

Thanks VP....

 

So...in theory...had the manoever not been so hard or sharp, we might not be looking at a hole with a rock in it, rather a large dent but without much (if any) actual penetration...maybe?

 

However...this is where the panic mode comes into play...you see the problem, you try to avoid the problem and you oversteer (for want of a better phraseology)...not intentionally oversteer, but the natural action/reaction that in the heat of a moment tends to mess up an otherwise well executed plan.

 

I know to outsiders it can be almost impossible to imagine a mindset where a person "forgets" that his or her vessel is 290m long, thus has a set pivot point that requires "X" amount of room to avoid a collision....but in the split seconds tween seeing the rock, realising that rock is in the way and making the decision to take avoiding action and then actually doing what is required to try and avoid that inaminate object, the dimensions of the thing you are moving can frequently get lost, especially if you get distracted in the middle of it all....spatial disorientation and bang, there goes the rock straight into the side.

 

It's a bit like parking a car close to a bollard...you KNOW the bollard is there, you can see it, you consciously decide on the way to avoid the bollard, you start the required movements and then, just like a blindspot, you get in a mess or are momentarily distracted where your concentration is taken away from where that bollard is and you promptly slam the car into the bollard...wasn't intentional but it happened. A simplistic way to look at the ship Vs rock scenario, but one that most drivers will relate to.

 

Oh and I agree on the MAIB/AAIB...they never get caught up in the political side, its probably why they are both frequently invited to investigate accidents in other countries, since they both "get on with it" without being distracted by political or emotional pressures being applied to get "the right conclusion".

[Vampire Parrot]

So...in theory...had the manoever not been so hard or sharp, we might not be looking at a hole with a rock in it, rather a large dent but without much (if any) actual penetration...maybe?

 

He was so close that if he'd have turned slightly less hard he might have taken out the entire side of the ship against the rock. Costa Concordia would then have sank in minutes as almost every compartment would have flooded. I don't think Schettino overcontrolled the ship; I think once he realised his position he did everything possible to avoid hitting the rocks.

 

Captain Schettino is a very experienced Captain, he was an expert at mooring and unmooring Concordia, he knew how she handled, and he would not have forgotten that he'd got 250m of ship behind his bridge. Hence his turn to port once the bow had cleared the rock.

 

VP

[CostaSmurfette]

He was so close that if he'd have turned slightly less hard he might have taken out the entire side of the ship against the rock. Costa Concordia would then have sank in minutes as almost every compartment would have flooded. I don't think Schettino overcontrolled the ship; I think once he realised his position he did everything possible to avoid hitting the rocks.

 

Captain Schettino is a very experienced Captain, he was an expert at mooring and unmooring Concordia, he knew how she handled, and he would not have forgotten that he'd got 250m of ship behind his bridge. Hence his turn to port once the bow had cleared the rock.

 

VP

 

Of course, this is based on the assumption that Schettino was infact "at the controls" immediately prior, during and immediately after the collision....so far there is an assumption that he was at the helm that night....are we sure that he was?

 

Lets throw another possibility into the mix.....we haven't heard alot from another officer on the bridge that night, Ciro Ambrosio.

 

This is another one of those "what if" scenario's...

 

What if it was Ciro Ambrosio at the controls that night and he stuffed it up...and Schettino is covering (taking the fall) for Ambrosio?

 

It is not unheard of for a more senior officer to take the fall of a junior subordinate in the event of an accident, to misguidedly save that junior subordinate's career prospects and from possible legal action.

 

Now if Ambrosio's level of experience with a 290m ship was far less than Schettino...which is totally conceivable, since Ambrosio is significantly younger than Schettino...what would be the chances that the senior man is covering for the younger, less experienced one?

 

It has always been the assumption that Schettino was at the helm throughout...but can we know for certain...is there a way to knowfor certain that it was indded Schettino at the helm...I am not sure that there IS a way to prove it....at least he may have been at the helm at some point but as to when, who can actually verify that?

 

At least with aviation accidents you can tell which controls are being used by whom due to the dual controls in the cockpit, so its a relatively easy case of deduction.....but on a ship....not so easy to differentiate as to who had his or her digits on the helm.

[CostaSmurfette]

The actions of getting off the ship etc could have been done to take the focus away from Ambrosio...and lets be honest here, it definitely managed that since all focus has been on Schettino and none of it on the very quiet Ambrosio.

 

If this has happened, Schettino is not the first senior officer to fall on his sword on purpose to protect other officers.

 

There has been so much coverage of what Schettino either did or said that the other person in the frame has largely been forgotten, Ambrosio.

 

Of course, it could also have been a combination of both Schettino & Ambrosio that ultimately ended with Concordia where she is now.

 

What part did Ambrosio play...did Schettino purposely cover for him by taking all the media frenzy away from Ambrosio?

 

Answer....we do not know.

 

Is it possible that Schettino did infact fall on his own sword, thus sacrificing his career and his reputation to protect his junior officer(s)?

 

Answer...yes, it is possible that Schettino has taken the heat to protect others on the bridge that night.

[Uniall]

Uni ..... Now you are trying to tell me my job it seems! ... the Coroner here has the Final say of Cause of Death and no one else not a court unless the Coroner calls for a Jury to help him or her decide.

 

Re read my post ...

 

With regard to the fire death question, in the UK the Fire Authority are responsible for determining the cause of the Fire. (I KNOW)

 

The Police are responsible for investigating it if the Fire Authority deem it to be a Criminal Act ie Arson (I KNOW)

 

and whoever carries out the Autopsy decides on the cause of the death(appointed by the Cornoner ..that bit i have now added) See Below.

 

"The coroner's court is a court of law, and accordingly the coroner may summon witnesses, and people found lying are guilty of perjury.

Additional powers of the coroner may include the power of subpoena and attachment, the power of arrest, the power to administer oaths, and sequester juries of six during inquests"

 

Former colleagues of mine operate a law firm iwith offices in Chicago & London (Lincoln Inn). I consulted with them on a case where the findings of the Coroner were disputed by both sides in Civil Court. The Civil Court Judge heard evidence and decided, prior to trial, to quash the Cornoner's COD and allowed both Plaintiff and Denfendant's COD views to be introduced at trial as Contributing Causes Of Death.

 

So, I know the Coroner's COD can be challenged and overturned in the UK

Civil & Criminal Courts. Are we having a semantic problem here?

[cruiserfanfromct]

Answer...yes, it is possible that Schettino has taken the heat to protect others on the bridge that night.

 

If that's true then it's perplexing he would go on Italian television and state, “At that moment, I went up to the deck and ordered the ship to be put on manual navigation and I didn't have command, that's to say being in charge of sailing the ship, that was the officer,”. This is taped as told on Italy's Canale 5 television. Sounds like he's shifting the blame down the line of command and in no way protecting others on the bridge.

[CostaSmurfette]

Former colleagues of mine operate a law firm iwith offices in Chicago & London (Lincoln Inn). I consulted with them on a case where the findings of the Coroner were disputed by both sides in Civil Court. The Civil Court Judge heard evidence and decided, prior to trial, to quash the Cornoner's COD and allowed both Plaintiff and Denfendant's COD views to be introduced at trial as Contributing Causes Of Death.

 

So, I know the Coroner's COD can be challenged and overturned in the UK

Civil & Criminal Courts. Are we having a semantic problem here?

 

You're gun jumping surely?

 

There has not been a ruling as yet as to whether or not the cause of death was unlawful or misadventure/accidental on any of the 32 victims...the inquests were opened and adjourned subject to the conclusion of the accident investigation to allow bodies to be repatriated to their families for inturnment, no absolute cause of death or reason for those deaths has been reached yet.

 

So you cannot rule out, nor rule in, any challenge to the COD ruling since none has yet been made.

[cruiserfanfromct]

...Oh and as a footnote, Herald was salvaged by SMIT, she was refloated, repaired and for a short time re-entered service before being scrapped later on, so any assumption that Concordia will automatically be scrapped is potentially flawed also.

All the reports I've read thus far indicate the vessel will be scrapped. However, anything is possible, but your suggestion (in a previous post) that Micky Arison sells his luxury liner for purposes of transporting sacred cows in India is totally whacked!

[CostaSmurfette]

If that's true then it's perplexing he would go on Italian television and state, “At that moment, I went up to the deck and ordered the ship to be put on manual navigation and I didn't have command, that's to say being in charge of sailing the ship, that was the officer,”. This is taped as told on Italy's Canale 5 television. Sounds like he's shifting the blame down the line of command and in no way protecting others on the bridge.

 

So by that, he wasn't at the helm immediately prior to the collision...only during and immediately afterwards.

 

However, I would like to see the original Italian transcript and have it retranslated to check on context accuracies, the Italian language is truly awful to translate correctly.

 

That aside, it also sounds like Ambrosio who may have been at the helm in the lead up to the collision, and therefore the potential is that it was Ambrosio who took the ship off the planned course unintentionally and Schettino then took avoiding action which failed to avert the tragedy, but due to the proximity of the rock vs the size of the ship, the collision was inevitable, the only unknown in that would be exactly where the impact would occur and the damage that could be done by that impact.

 

Schettino, if this scenario is close to what happened, is actually taking his role as ultimate commander on the ship to its full definition...he is taking the blame for the entire episode despit not being the one who started the chain of events that ultimately cost the lives of 32 passengers and crew and the CTL of Concordia.

 

There is no denying that Ambrosio has effectively vanished off the face of the earth since the accident in regard to media etc. He has kept his head down throughout...and that is typical for someone who is being protected.

 

Ambrosio's actions that night hold the key to what really happened, not Schettino.

[cruiserfanfromct]

 

My User Name is my Gaelic Clan name: The Niall Clan (O, Mac & Mc - Neill)

 

 

Erin go Bragh! Top o' the mornin' to ya Uni! ;)

[CostaSmurfette]

All the reports I've read thus far indicate the vessel will be scrapped. However, anything is possible, but your suggestion (in a previous post) that Micky Arison sells his luxury liner for purposes of transporting sacred cows in India is totally whacked!

 

Arison doesn't own the ship anymore...the insurers do, and they can sell it to the highest bidder for scrap or conversion, the only stipulation being that it gets a new name and flag registration.

 

Herald of Free Enterprise was a CTL, exactly as Concordia is, yet she was righted, patched up and sold on...name change, flag registry change and put back into service, not for long but she was back in service before eventually going to scrap.

Edited August 10, 2012 by CostaSmurfette

[Uniall]

You're gun jumping surely?

 

There has not been a ruling as yet as to whether or not the cause of death was unlawful or misadventure/accidental on any of the 32 victims...the inquests were opened and adjourned subject to the conclusion of the accident investigation to allow bodies to be repatriated to their families for inturnment, no absolute cause of death or reason for those deaths has been reached yet.

 

So you cannot rule out, nor rule in, any challenge to the COD ruling since none has yet been made.

 

You don't comprehend or understand the discussion that's taking place between Sadari and myself. So, your comment doesn not fit into the context of that discussion.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Uniall

[CostaSmurfette]

In relation to conversion from cruise ship to livestock carrier, here are two conversions...one a car carrier to livestock..but they give a visual as to what a livestock looks like and that once patched up, the Concordia hull could be shaved of the upper decks and converted...

 

Not that far fetched really....propulsion systems etc can be dealt with in the conversion yard...

 

http://www.meyerwerft.de/page.asp?lang=e&main=1&subs=0&did=825

 

http://www.meyerwerft.de/page.asp?lang=e&main=1&subs=0&did=822

[clive and anne]

Good news, the port camera has been moved.

The not so good news is that the salvage operation isnt in the centre of the screen and much farther away than we had with last salute.

But thanks Giglio News for keeping your promise to me

 

Clive

[CostaSmurfette]

You don't comprehend or understand the discussion that's taking place between Sadari and myself. So, your comment doesn not fit into the context of that discussion.

 

Uniall, do you have to be so obnoxious all the time?

 

Tell you what, instead of being all steamed up over anything that I might say, go to you usercp onsite and place me on ignore, then you won't see my posts and you will avoid having a hissy fit over them.

Edited August 10, 2012 by CostaSmurfette

[MorganMars]

Vampire Parrot,

 

Thank you, so much. That was my gut instinct, but I much prefer having the facts and figures. I appreciate you providing the details.

 

Thanks, again,

MorganMars

 

The IMO (International Maritime Organization) rules require that in a hard turn to starboard or port whilst underway, a ship's advance must be less than 4.5 times the ship's length. The advance is the distance ahead of the ship (just as she starts the turn) that is required to turn the ship through 90 degrees.

 

Concordia was 290 metres in length, therefore she would require a maximum of 4.5x290 = 1305 metres to turn through 90 degrees. Being a cruise ship she is probably more maneuverable than a typical cargo ship and thus has a smaller turning circle and thus a shorter advance. But I'll assume that Concordia only just meets IMO regulations, i.e. I'll use the worst-case numbers.

 

As she started her turn she was doing 16 knots, so she's taking 3 minutes and 45 seconds to cover a nautical mile, which is 1852 metres. Assuming the turn is a constant radius - which it isn't, it actually tightens and so again my numbers are "worst case" and Concordia would do better - she'd cover 2049 metres total distance for a 90 degree turn to starboard, which would take about 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

 

She didn't need to turn through 90 degrees to miss the rocks, a 70 degree turn would have been sufficient but again I'll ignore that, I'll keep using "worst case" numbers.

 

I would bet a large sum that it would take Concordia less time to make a 90 degree turn and the advance to be significantly less than 1805 metres. I would love to see Concordia's wheel house poster which has all the relevant data on it.

 

So in answer to the question, Concordia should very easily have been able to make the turn to starboard.

 

VP

[cruiserfanfromct]

I spoke to crew in May this year when aboard Classica, many of the crew were aboard Concordia on the night of the accident and over the previous few months during their previous deployment.

 

Concordia was well known and had a reputation for mechanical and electrical issues, moreso that her siblings in the fleets (Carnival & Costa fleets, that is). One of the technical crew used a well known phrase in the UK..."Concordia... lei è stato un lavoro di venerdì sera..."...which translates to Concordia, she was a Friday night job...meaning not well put together and always causing headaches.

 

It is actually quite strange, she was a long standing favourite for many of the crew and passengers alike, but she could be a bit of a "diva" sometimes. The crew spoke of her with surprising affection...surprising cos of what she was, just a ship, but past crew aboard her really enjoyed working aboard her, warts and all. They also miss her too, as do alot of her repeat passengers. I am not a big ship person by any means, but her interiors were stunning to look at, she had quite a following.

 

Were you on the Classica as a passenger or in some type of official capacity? It's amazing how you're able to obtain inside and classified information. What's your secret?

 

We have an expression here too pertaining to Friday nights -- this might have something to do with why the crash happened -- it translates into Italian as, "Venerdì Notte Puttana". Ironic this happened on a Friday night.

Edited August 10, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[cruiserfanfromct]

TONIGHT on Italian television new underwater diving footage of wreck. Will discuss the "strange dust" that's being talked about. Hopefully someone will upload it to YouTube for us to watch. Stay tuned.....

 

http://www.agi.it/in-primo-piano/notizie/201208101348-ipp-rt10128-concordia_dubbi_su_pulviscolo_le_immagini_del_blitz_subacqueo

[CostaSmurfette]

Were you on the Classica as a passenger or in some type of official capacity? It's amazing how you're able to obtain inside and classified information. What's your secret?

 

We have an expression here too pertaining to Friday nights -- this might have something to do with why the crash happened -- it translates into Italian as, "Venerdì Notte Puttana". Ironic this happened on a Friday night.

 

I was on the behind the scenes tour of the ship when at sea tween Alexandria and Corfu along with 7 other English speaking passengers who. like myself, were given opportunity to sit and chat with the crew. If ever you have the chance to do a tour like these, you should take it up as it really is very enlightening in regard to the inner workings of the ships and you can learn alot of "insider" information too...and the crew are generally only too happy to chat with you and answer questions.