Concordia News: Please Post Here

[CostaSmurfette]

I haven't watched the Olympics either....much prefer the winter games, much more exciting when they fall over ;)

 

Curently watching another piece of Italian history that is rife with sullied reputations, blood, gore, a little bit of sexual intrigue, the wonderful and totally non politcally correct "The Borgias".....I do like my history...you can learn so much from it ;)

 

Earlier there was a comment made about "pals in Messina"...you might be surprised to learn that many of the Captains and senior officers employed by Costa and Carnival Cruise Lines do indeed hail from Messina, and other parts of the beautiful island of Sicily....a tradition of great mariners is continuing from that idyllic little island.

 

Gli avvocati saranno senza dubbio lavorando sodo per trovare i loro motivi quanto a perché Francesco Schettino dovrebbe essere appeso per le palle... ma non dimentichiamo che nonostante che vogliono giustizia per le vittime, l'unico veri vincitori saranno quegli avvocati a titolo del loro grassi conti bancari e loro commissioni anche più grassi....

 

The lawyers will no doubt be working hard to find their reasons as to why Francesco Schettino should be hung by his balls...but let us not forget that despite wanting justice for the victims, the only true winners will be those lawyers by way of their fat bank accounts and their even fatter commisions....

[MorganMars]

Some additional related information: August 2011 sailby with Captain Massimo Garbarino

 

http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/USA/HereForYou/SkilledCrew/KnowCrew/default.htm#Massimo-Garbarino

 

Previously discussed on CC at http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1548995

 

 

Uni ... take a look at this News video regarding the routes taken by Concordia, interesting to note that the claimed sailby of August 2011 as being in the Daylight by CT is clearly in the darkness!!

 

 

With regard to the Olympics .... not watched it have more interesting things to do and do not take aspirin.

 

[alita]

I've been reading this thread for the last week and have found it fascinating... to have so many knowledgeable, articulate posters with the ability to make an extremely complex situation understandable to the rest of us is amazing. This is a great example of how Cruise Critic can shine and inform those of us who are following along.

 

Please don't ruin it Uniall, try to detach from petty emotion and let this thread continue to educate us all... there are thousands who will be reading these words and they'll be learning more here than they'll learn anywhere else about this tragedy.

[gatour]

Tonka's Skipper/AKK,

 

Thanks for your insight on the operations of commercial vessels. I do have a question.

 

After the Costa sinking/capsizing, I recall that at least two things were changed for the time being until the final report is done. The first was having muster drills before the ship leaves port and the second was the filing of the "float plan" for each sailing.

 

My question is in regards to the second change, "float plan". It sounded like for commercial vessels, the Captain or at least some on the ship has to submit a navigation plan to someone prior to each sailing.

 

Is this correct? If so, what is supposed to happen.

 

The item I read said that this procedure needs to be tightened up and instructions were given on what needs to be tightened. The item I read didn't go into details though.

[clive and anne]

Hi Akk (or can I call you A)

Thanks for that. It does look as though the inside of the funnel is much emptier than it was. Do you think that they will remove the remaining Globes, which i think are something to do with radar/guidance.

What do you think may be happening on the port side, will they be patchingup the hole as well as preparing the frame to hold the flotation tanks ?

Clive

[Tonka's Skipper]

Hi Akk (or can I call you A)

Thanks for that. It does look as though the inside of the funnel is much emptier than it was. Do you think that they will remove the remaining Globes, which i think are something to do with radar/guidance.

What do you think may be happening on the port side, will they be patchingup the hole as well as preparing the frame to hold the flotation tanks ?

Clive

 

 

Morning Folks and A is fine!:D

 

The globes that are left are satellite antennae for navigation/communication. I believe anything sticking up could be a issue, but these are pretty small so maybe its not a issue at this time.

 

As to the rock hole, I believe leaving a hole in the side of the ship is asking for problems, covering it over will prevent unexpected headaches.. They will most likely plate it over.

 

Now some folks say they dont need to cover it as the sponoons will provide the floatation and the limited plans we know of, do not say they are going to cover it over. I still think it better to be eliminate possible issues.

 

JMHO

 

AKK

[Tonka's Skipper]

Tonka's Skipper/AKK,

 

Thanks for your insight on the operations of commercial vessels. I do have a question.

 

After the Costa sinking/capsizing, I recall that at least two things were changed for the time being until the final report is done. The first was having muster drills before the ship leaves port and the second was the filing of the "float plan" for each sailing.

 

My question is in regards to the second change, "float plan". It sounded like for commercial vessels, the Captain or at least some on the ship has to submit a navigation plan to someone prior to each sailing.

 

Is this correct? If so, what is supposed to happen.

 

The item I read said that this procedure needs to be tightened up and instructions were given on what needs to be tightened. The item I read didn't go into details though.

 

 

 

 

Good Morning Gatour,

 

Merchant ships do not file any kind of *float or course plans, and pray God they never have to!

 

Masters use their experience to set the safest /most economical courses and distances to get form Port A to Port B. There are some areas, E.I. the English channel, northern gulf of Mexico, approaches to ports that have layed out channels/shipping lanes. These ares have usually high volumes of traffic and/or natural conditions requiring the channels. The Masters follow these for the obvious reasons, but in a emergency can leave them if safety conditions require them to.

 

Now all that said, some ships on routine/repeated voyages, E.I. ferries, cruise ships etc, will likely follow the same routes and these maybe layed out and submitted to the line offices.

 

I really would never want to see the line office or shore authorities setting up firm and required courses/tracks, as sea conditions, traffic and weather conditions change so often and so fast.......it would never work and just lead to more problems.

 

As to the drills, Merchant ships generally have weekly drill as whatever time works best for the vessel operations.

 

AKK

[gatour]

AKK, thanks for the info. I definitely understand about it being impossible to set a definite navigation plan in the real world because of the conditions are always varying. It sounds like they may be required to submit a general navigation plan to the home office and the article that mentioned changing the "procedures" was referencing this process. It definitely seemed to come from one of the cruise line societies.

 

The reason why I was asking, I wonder if perhaps, the Capt submitted the plan from last year when they had official approval from the home office to sail closer to the island than normal. Since this seems to be a process that could fall into a rubber-stamp routine, if he didn't mention that is a different plan than normal, the home office didn't catch it. If the disaster hadn't happened, but later they realized he had sailed closer than usual, he could always say, "But you approved the plan".

 

Then again, the directive/recommendation was just because the home office had problem finding the plan after the disaster.

 

Btw: thanks for not ridiculing my use of "float plan". I know that term is used in recreational boating and is closest analogy that I could come up for the commercial/cruise world at the time of my question.

[cruiserfanfromct]

.....interesting to note that the claimed sailby of August 2011 as being in the Daylight by CT is clearly in the darkness!!

Ah...Wikipedia ... yes, I've found out they are not always 100% correct. Since Wiki is edited by mostly by volunteers, it is prone to human error and there is often the inclusion of incorrect facts. I will make it a point not to quote Wiki going forward.

 

Whether the previous salute was done during the day or at night is not of significant importance, IMO. What is essential to note is that the August sail-by, unlike Schettino's was thoroughly planned and approved by Costa and there is documentation to prove this.

 

The link MM (thanks MM!) posted had a entry by a poster of the letters written to La Stampa regarding the August sail-by. One of the letters was from the mayor of Giglio, Sergio Ortelli, to Captain Massimo Garbarino (note: it was NOT Schettino who performed the August sail-by -- it was Captain Garbarino) Don't know what translation was used -- doesn't look perfect -- but the gist is there.

 

Dear Captain Calisto Massimo Garbarino,

 

After the incredible show last night, (Aug 14 2011, with the passage of the front of Concordia supernave Giglio Porto, I could not avoid from sending a message of appreciation on behalf of our entire community, including tourists guests, honoured by this important event.

 

Thanks to the intercession dear friend Mario Palombo, historical commander of Costa Cruises, we have witnessed a unique spectacle of its kind, has become an indispensable tradition of which I am honoured and that is why I do interpreter of personal thanks to you and his crew begged to extend our gratitude also to the Costa Crociere, which rewards for years now in this way between the island's most beautiful views of the island country.

 

I really hope one day to have a guest in our country, of course in agreement with Mario, irreplaceable and influential supporter of the island.

 

Sincerely

Sergio Ortelli

 

------------

 

On a different note and in the recent news department, Sid it looks like you are right on track -- according to La Repubblica, it looks like Palermo is now the favorite port for the dismantling of the ship:

 

http://genova.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/08/12/news/tutti_vogliono_fare_a_pezzi_la_concordia-40822617/

Edited August 12, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[sidari]

CT ... you found it significant to post that it took place in Daylight hours! the info was on the video link that i posted from youtube and not from Wiki.

 

Well i have to admit that i said Genova would get the work on Concordia due to them having built the ship and not Palermo, that must have come from someone else. I do recal someone did make a post re Livorno and Civitavecchia trying to get the contract.

 

I knew that Schettino was not on Concordia last August having seen the same Bio as you for Garbarino.

Costa clearly will say that the route in January was not authorised to deflect criticism of them and to nail down the number of claims that would likely be made against them, after all who would sail with them if they admit that they knew about the plan now some months after it happened.

 

The plan it seems was nail Schettino and make themselves look squeaky clean, anyone with just a bit of common sense can see thats not how it was.

Edited August 12, 2012 by sidari

[cruiserfanfromct]

CT ... you found it significant to post that it took place in Daylight hours! the info was on the video link that i posted from youtube and not from Wiki.

Sid, I was pointing out that the reference to Wiki was where the incorrect information I posted came from. It is now clear, based on the letters to La Stampa that the August sail-by was not performed by day but, at night as you stated, and performed by Massimo Garbarino and not Schettino.

Well i have to admit that i said Genova would get the work on Concordia due to them having built the ship and not Palermo, that must have come from someone else. I do recal someone did make a post re Livorno and Civitavecchia trying to get the contract.

Correct, there are 4 ports vying for the contract.

I knew that Schettino was not on Concordia last August having seen the same Bio as you for Garbarino. Costa clearly will say that the route in January was not authorised to deflect criticism of them and to nail down the number of claims that would likely be made against them, after all who would sail with them if they admit that they knew about the plan now some months after it happened.

Yes, it is quite clear that Costa is throwing Schettino under the bus -- rightly so or not -- remains to be seen.

The plan it seems was nail Schettino and make themselves look squeaky clean, anyone with just a bit of common sense can see thats not how it was.

Even if that's how it was, which is yet to be proven, I think that it would be extremely hard for Costa to fully absolve themselves from any liability just by virtue of the fact that Schettino was a representative of Costa.

 

IMHO based on all the material presented thus far, if I had to assign percentages, I would say Schettino 95% responsible and Costa and others 5% -- *CT retreats to don flamesuit* ;)

Edited August 12, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[cruiserfanfromct]

Here's an amateur video of the August sail-by posted on YouTube by UK's Telegraph. They state that in that sail-by Concordia got as close as 230m -- much closer than the 500m Costa claims. If true, the 230m would obviously had to have been when Concordia was closer to the port of Giglio and not where she hit the rocks.

 

[SomeBeach]

My problem with Costa is that they did not order Schettino to notify or take it upon themselves to notify the Coast Guard as soon as they were aware of the seriousness of the accident. I believe they knew very soon after the accident just how bad it was.

I also believe that Costa knew the Captain was not preparing the passengers to be ready to abandon the ship. The passengers seemed to have taken that upon themselves.

We need the truth from Costa. Whether that will come out in court is something we will have to wait to find out.

 

Ultimately, it was the lies that Schettino was telling the CG, his crew, and the passengers that cost 32 people their lives. As Master of the ship, he needs to be held accountable for his actions.

[SomeBeach]

Here's an amateur video of the August sail-by posted on YouTube by UK's Telegraph. They state that in that sail-by Concordia got as close as 230m -- much closer than the 500m Costa claims. If true, the 230m would obviously had to have been when Concordia was closer to the port of Giglio and not where she hit the rocks.

 

 

We can see from watching the video that they zoom in on the ship. What we don't know is if the setting had been "zoomed in" prior to when we see them zoom in. That can make a difference in preception.

I get what you are saying but the camera setting from the start would need to be known. It would also help to know where the ship was at the point this video was taken.

[cruiserfanfromct]

My problem with Costa is that they did not order Schettino to notify or take it upon themselves to notify the Coast Guard as soon as they were aware of the seriousness of the accident. I believe they knew very soon after the accident just how bad it was.

 

I also believe that Costa knew the Captain was not preparing the passengers to be ready to abandon the ship. The passengers seemed to have taken that upon themselves.

 

We need the truth from Costa. Whether that will come out in court is something we will have to wait to find out.

 

Ultimately, it was the lies that Schettino was telling the CG, his crew, and the passengers that cost 32 people their lives. As Master of the ship, he needs to be held accountable for his actions.

We do know that Schettino had several phone conversations soon after the incident with Roberto Ferrarini, the company's head of marine operations -- but unless the conversations were taped, it isn't clear what was discussed or who placed the calls.

 

Like you, I think too much time was wasted in the rescue efforts. Whether Costa knew the full extent of the severity of the situation and is doing a CYA, or if OTOH, Schettino downplayed the whole scenario, remains to be seen. Either way, I believe Costa is on the hook to some degree.

[cruiserfanfromct]

We can see from watching the video that they zoom in on the ship. What we don't know is if the setting had been "zoomed in" prior to when we see them zoom in. That can make a difference in preception.

 

I get what you are saying but the camera setting from the start would need to be known. It would also help to know where the ship was at the point this video was taken.

Good points. I could be wrong but from the outline of all the buildings, it looks like it was taken close to the port.

[SomeBeach]

Good points. I could be wrong but from the outline of all the buildings, it looks like it was taken close to the port.

 

That is my guess too, the open area at the port entry.

[CostaSmurfette]

Not to burst anyone's bubble here but has anyone stopped to wonder if Schettino was on the bridge officer listing as Staff Captain with Gabarino in August?

 

We all know that Staff Captain's take the bridge when the Master is off duty or on more public orientated duties with the pax.

 

The bio's on the Costa website only go as far as the Captains....but they do not show the full list of senior officers that served with them during their tenures on each ship.

 

So just cos Gabarino was LISTED as Captain in August, does not actually say that he was in control of the ship during the sail-by in August...that "priviledge" could have been one of a few officers serving as a part of his crew that week.....and could have been Schettino.

 

Fully qualified Captains do sometimes take on the part of Staff Captain on occasions, that spot is not always taken by an ex Safety Officer grade training upto Staff Captain.

 

In the two cruises where I happened to be a passenger with Schettino on the bridge officer list, in June 2008 out of Hong Kong he was listed as Safety Officer and in April 2010 on the Singapore to Savona repositioning he was listed as Staff Captain. Both times it was aboard the significantly smaller (and much loved) Costa Allegra.

 

The Captain for both of the above cruises was the same man, the very charming Sicilian, Captain Donato (who also took his equally charming wife with him too).

 

There is also something odd that happened in May this year aboard Classica that I still have yet to understand...given the Concordia accident and the furore that surrounded it.

 

In April 2011 I spent 3 weeks aboard Costa Victoria from Buenos Aires to Savona, with Captain Pennisi.

 

Each of the Allegra cruises and the Victoria cruises, we had full evac drills every 7 days...so over the three cruises I attended a total of 13 full evac drills.

 

But...when aboard Classica this May from Dubai to Venice, a three week cruise, I only attended the one full evac drill, on the day prior to sailing (we had an overnight in Dubai). This was with Captain Derin.

 

For the life of me I cannot understand why we only had the one full evac drill for a three week cruise whereas on all the other cruises we had them every 7 days without fail.

 

Which makes me ask the question.....is a 7 day repeat drill under the company's control or the discretion of the Captain?

[Tonka's Skipper]

We all know that Staff Captain's take the bridge when the Master is off duty or on more public orientated duties with the pax.

 

 

THE vessels MASTER is NEVER off duty! With all due respect CS.......you need to understand the basics here

 

The Master of the vessels first responsibility is the safety of his vessel, passengers, crew and cargo.

 

any and all other duty's take a far back seat..especially playing pretty boy in the MGR! If any thing the staff Captian should be in the MDR playing pretty boy with the passengers, NOT THE MASTER.

 

 

LAW OF THE SEA........101 and if you have the background you have claimed you know this

 

This is the bases of a Masters job..............no staff caption, which is a glorified chief Mate, can take over that responsibility.. The Master cannot transfer it either! So even if the Staff Captain was on the bridge, it is his job to call the Master to the bridge in plenty of time to take what ever actions are required for the safely of the ship. It is the Master job in this sail bye thing to know that his place was on the bridge early and in plenty of time to make sure the vessels was being handled and navigated safely.

 

 

 

There is no way around this ...There is no room for debate or discussion........end of story!

 

 

 

AKK

Edited August 12, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[CostaSmurfette]

We all know that Staff Captain's take the bridge when the Master is off duty or on more public orientated duties with the pax.

 

 

 

 

The Master of the vessels first responsibility is the safety of his vessel' date=' passengers, crew and cargo.

 

any and all other duty's take a far back seat..especially playing pretty boy ihn the MDR!

 

This is the bases of a Masters job..............no staff caption, which is a glorified chief Mate, can take over that responsibility.. The Master cannot transfer it either! So even if the Staff Captain was on the bridge, it is his job to call the Master to the bridge in plenty of time to take what ever actions are required for the safely of the ship. It is the Master job in this sail bye thing to know that his place was on the bridge early and in plenty of time to make sure the vessels was being handled and navigated safely.

 

 

 

There is no way around this ...There is no room for debate or discussion........end of story!

 

 

AKK[/quote']

 

You missed the point totally.

 

Gabarino is listed as Captain for the August sail-by.

 

However, there is no evidence that Gabarino was on the BRIDGE during the sail-by in August.

 

Ganarino could have been anywhere on the ship and the Staff Captain/First Officer etc was on the bridge during the sanctioned sail-by.

 

And for all anyone knows, that person could have been Schettino or any one of a large number of other officers employed by Costa Crociere.

 

The Captain bio's on the Costa Crociere DO NOT list the officers UNDER their command on the tenures aboard specific ships, there is no way of knowing who had actual digits on the wheel during the August sail-by...just as there is no way of knowing who had their digits on the wheel during the subsequent January one either.

 

You assume it would be the Captain with digits on the wheel at the time, but there is no guarantee of that. It makes no difference who has ultimate responsibility as that is moot...what is unknown is who was "driving", not who had ultimate responsibility. We know who had ultimate responsibility for the ship...we fo not know who was at the wheel on either of the sail-by's.

[SomeBeach]

You missed the point totally.

 

Gabarino is listed as Captain for the August sail-by.

 

However, there is no evidence that Gabarino was on the BRIDGE during the sail-by in August.

 

Ganarino could have been anywhere on the ship and the Staff Captain/First Officer etc was on the bridge during the sanctioned sail-by.

 

And for all anyone knows, that person could have been Schettino or any one of a large number of other officers employed by Costa Crociere.

 

The Captain bio's on the Costa Crociere DO NOT list the officers UNDER their command on the tenures aboard specific ships, there is no way of knowing who had actual digits on the wheel during the August sail-by...just as there is no way of knowing who had their digits on the wheel during the subsequent January one either.

 

You assume it would be the Captain with digits on the wheel at the time, but there is no guarantee of that. It makes no difference who has ultimate responsibility as that is moot...what is unknown is who was "driving", not who had ultimate responsibility. We know who had ultimate responsibility for the ship...we fo not know who was at the wheel on either of the sail-by's.

 

Oh good Lord! That was a planned, special event. If you know as many Captains as you do crew, you should know the Captain was on the Bridge. You can bet your bottom dollar that he knew exactly where his ship was even if he wasn't "driving" the ship.

What we do know for sure is that his ship did not end up with a rock in its side and laying in the port.

Edited August 12, 2012 by SomeBeach

[Tonka's Skipper]

You missed the point totally.

 

Gabarino is listed as Captain for the August sail-by.

 

However, there is no evidence that Gabarino was on the BRIDGE during the sail-by in August.

 

Ganarino could have been anywhere on the ship and the Staff Captain/First Officer etc was on the bridge during the sanctioned sail-by.

 

And for all anyone knows, that person could have been Schettino or any one of a large number of other officers employed by Costa Crociere.

 

The Captain bio's on the Costa Crociere DO NOT list the officers UNDER their command on the tenures aboard specific ships, there is no way of knowing who had actual digits on the wheel during the August sail-by...just as there is no way of knowing who had their digits on the wheel during the subsequent January one either.

 

You assume it would be the Captain with digits on the wheel at the time, but there is no guarantee of that. It makes no difference who has ultimate responsibility as that is moot...what is unknown is who was "driving", not who had ultimate responsibility. We know who had ultimate responsibility for the ship...we fo not know who was at the wheel on either of the sail-by's.

 

 

 

No you missed the point..this is simply a matter of seamanship. The Master place was on the bridge during an sail bye because:

 

1 His vessel was massive and close in shore.

 

2. Small boat traffic.

 

3. There could be any number of vessel malfunctions that being close inshore, could especially dangerous.

 

 

 

............If the Master of that ship other vessel was not on the bridge during the sail bye...and I was in management, I would have him fired and on the beach at the next port and charges against him for dereliction of duty and unsafe seamanship would be file with the local license issuing board. .......His place was on the Bridge!.

 

and to clear up something..........whether the Master is actually touching the joy stick or not............is not the point..he is either doing it himself or he is giving commands to the person, helmsman or whoever! This same thing is in force when any Officer is in charge.

 

 

That is the point!..again end of story not debate or defense possible

 

AKK

Edited August 12, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[CostaSmurfette]

No you missed the point..this is simply a matter of seamanship. The Master place was on the bridge during an sail bye because:

 

1 His vessel was massive and close in shore.

 

2. Small boat traffic.

 

3. There could be any number of vessel malfunctions that being close inshore' date=' could especially dangerous.

 

 

 

............If the Master of that ship other vessel was not on the bridge during the sail bye...and I was in management, I would have him fired and on the beach at the next port and charges against him for dereliction of duty and unsafe seamanship would be file with the local license issuing board. .......His place was on the Bridge!.

 

and to clear up something..........whether the Master is actually touching the joy stick or not............is not the point..he is either doing it himself or he is giving commands to the person, helmsman or whoever! This same thing is in force when any Officer is in charge.

 

 

That is the point!..again end of story not debate or defense possible

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Basically then, there are no ship's masters who do not break the rules...both written and unwritten...who say they were on the bridge at a given time, when infact they were asleep in the cabin or wherever.

 

Assuming that this is correct for all officer ratings, they are always where they are meant to be, doing what they are meant to be doing....

 

Mikhail Lermontov's master was in his cabin changing his wet clothes when the pilot took the cruise ship down a route known to be risky and off the usual charted route. Despite being questioned by the other senior officers, the pilot carried on....the ship hit rocks, the master then returned to the bridge asking *** was going on (or words to that effect)....the passenegrs were told that dinner would be delayed an hour and that there was no danger...except the crew were wandering about in lifejackets and it was only after the wine glasses used during the wine tasting fell off the table due to the ship going down by the head and listing, did the full evacuation order go out.

 

Luck more than judgement almost everyone got off...an engineer died.

 

Herald of Free Enterprise's master was on the bridge, chuntering a bit cos he was late departing Zeebrugge. Loading completed his 2IC left the car deck assuming the rating in charge of the bow doors would do what was neccessary...ie close the watertight inner door and then the outer shell doors. The 2IC went up to the bridge and told master that all was ready for sea...without physically checking. The ship left the quayside, the master increased the speed and the ship took on water, became unstable and toppled over onto a sandbank...193 dead. Oh and the one who was sposed to be closing the doors....he was fast asleep in his cabin when the ship was loading and did not wake up til after the ship toppled over.

 

Essentially there are way too many assumptions that just cos its the rule of the sea that the master must be at a specific place during a specific time or manoever that the master or any of his officers will indeed be there...

 

Of course, after the event they can SAY they were there, but no-one can actually PROVE that they were there.

[BlackHawk1]

As Tonkas's Skipper suggests, it would be very foolish not to seal the hull, as there are still many contaminants on board. Even with most of the fuel being off loaded, there is still large quantities of lub oil and hydraulic oil still on board plus probably lots of other things not friendly to the environment.

 

Regards.

[Uniall]

Basically then, there are no ship's masters who do not break the rules...both written and unwritten...who say they were on the bridge at a given time, when infact they were asleep in the cabin or wherever.

 

Assuming that this is correct for all officer ratings, they are always where they are meant to be, doing what they are meant to be doing....

 

Mikhail Lermontov's master was in his cabin changing his wet clothes when the pilot took the cruise ship down a route known to be risky and off the usual charted route. Despite being questioned by the other senior officers, the pilot carried on....the ship hit rocks, the master then returned to the bridge asking *** was going on (or words to that effect)....the passenegrs were told that dinner would be delayed an hour and that there was no danger...except the crew were wandering about in lifejackets and it was only after the wine glasses used during the wine tasting fell off the table due to the ship going down by the head and listing, did the full evacuation order go out.

 

Luck more than judgement almost everyone got off...an engineer died.

 

Herald of Free Enterprise's master was on the bridge, chuntering a bit cos he was late departing Zeebrugge. Loading completed his 2IC left the car deck assuming the rating in charge of the bow doors would do what was neccessary...ie close the watertight inner door and then the outer shell doors. The 2IC went up to the bridge and told master that all was ready for sea...without physically checking. The ship left the quayside, the master increased the speed and the ship took on water, became unstable and toppled over onto a sandbank...193 dead. Oh and the one who was sposed to be closing the doors....he was fast asleep in his cabin when the ship was loading and did not wake up til after the ship toppled over.

 

Essentially there are way too many assumptions that just cos its the rule of the sea that the master must be at a specific place during a specific time or manoever that the master or any of his officers will indeed be there...

 

Of course, after the event they can SAY they were there, but no-one can actually PROVE that they were there.

 

There you ago again. Your persist in the belief, if other people break the rules, everyone can break the rules. Bad conduct by others does not justify bad conduct by you.