Whoa. Cruise ship goes down.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086527/Costa-Concordia-accident-Pictures-cruise-ship-sinking-coast-Italy-Titanic-like-scene.html

According to a friend-of-a-friend, this was the same ship she was on that tore its hull open hitting a dock in Sicily. Their departure was delayed while it was being repaired, but then as they were leaving they hit a tanker.

I bet the captain's a drunk.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Wow. I'd go with drunk as well.

That photo almost looks shooped.

[Cain]

I'll say this for the Daily Mail: they may be a terrible newspaper, but they pay for some brilliant photos.

I've seen that story on about six different sites and three 24 hour news channels, and that is the first time I've seen it from that angle.

Last I heard, about 12 hours ago, was that 3 were confirmed dead, with another 70 missing.  One of the major problems in organising an escape was that, well, it was capsizing.  People couldn't get to the lifeboats they were supposed to, not without climbing equipment.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Captain was near catatonic drunk and/or a complete fucking idiot. You see the slope angle of the headland? Well that's how it probably continues underwater. The rock doesn't just disappear in a sheer face as soon as it meets the sea. And, just in case the driver of this particular ship was under the impression that this was the case, look at the ten foot high tooth of rock, sticking up, under the yellow funnel - that probably isn't the result of a pillar formation.

What I'm saying is, it doesn't require the ability to read a chart or gps location to know what's going to happen to a ship when it goes round there, it takes a casual glance at the geography.

[East Coast Hustle]

Actually, the ship is there because the captain tried to steer it into shallow waters to make the rescue easier. It was much further offshore when the accident happened.

And the accident with it hitting the dock (back in 2008) was due to extremely high winds, not negligence or error on the part of the crew.

[East Coast Hustle]

That said, the entire thing reads like a case study in how a ship's crew should not react in such a situation.

The lifeboats could have been deployed without problem if the crew hadn't waited until the list had gotten unrecoverable before they even started herding passengers to the 04 deck.

Popular theory around here (among the people who know what they're talking about when it comes to large vessels) is that there was a power failure that knocked out primary AND backup steering. Of course, nobody likes the "sometimes shit like this just happens at sea" explanation and when that is combined with the errors made AFTER the ship had already hit the reef I'm guessing they're gonna hazelwood the captain.

[navkat]

Nah man, I'm with P3nt on this one. There were some basic Rules Of The Road 101 fuckups that went on here and some damned poor common sense practices. Captain had no business steering a disabled vessel toward civillian structures with civillians onboard either. A rescue is not supposed to be easer, it's supposed to be successful.

This could have been far worse if he'd lost control before running aground and took out other vessels or a retaining structure.

[East Coast Hustle]

Nah man, I'm with P3nt on this one. There were some basic Rules Of The Road 101 fuckups that went on here and some damned poor common sense practices. Captain had no business steering a disabled vessel toward civillian structures with civillians onboard either. A rescue is not supposed to be easer, it's supposed to be successful.

This could have been far worse if he'd lost control before running aground and took out other vessels or a retaining structure.

I'm afraid that it seems you and Pent are both talking out your asses.

Please, explain to me which rules of the road were violated here.

There were plenty of fuckups AFTER the ship hit the reef (though trying to get closer to shore was not one of them) but with the information provided I don't see how you can make that judgment.

You are aware that there are actually a set of navigational rules called "rules of the road", right?

[East Coast Hustle]

Also, please explain to me how making a rescue effort easier does not raise its chances of success.

[navkat]

Of course I am. I was in the Navy. I used to work with a Maritime consultancy firm.

Look, I don't have a copy of COLREGS in front of me but Captain is ultimately responsible to avoid collision with structures and other vessels. A disabled vessel of that size would have the right of way but I'm also certain it would be considered poor navigation and unsafe to continue to steer a capsizing vessel whose navigaion is unpedictable at best further inland to port...especially in favor of ensuring the lives of the crew and civilians by abandoning ship and getting lives safely clear of the doomed vessel.

No, I can't point to which ROTR says that but I do know there's a "comon sense clause" and I'm certain that's COLREGS and not exclusive to USCG.

[navkat]

What I mean is if the vessel was in danger of collision with another vessel or structure, it would have been appropriate to navigate until that danger was lessened but as it was, the vessel was disabled to the point of imminent capsize and insead of getting the crew and passengers to abandon, the Skipper opted to navigate further inland without capacity for appropriate signal or protocol, in close quarters with other vessels and structures. Why? What benefit did it ultimately have? Survivors would have had a better chance further offshore in the safety of rescue boats in Kpacs than vertical.

[East Coast Hustle]

Again, assuming there was a power failure that knocked out steering I don't see how you can hold the captain responsible for that.

Point taken, though, about it being a bad idea to steer that large a vessel towards port if the steering couldn't be completely trusted at that point. And yeah, there is a common sense clause in COLREGS.

Just one more thing to add to the list of things they did wrong after the vessel initially hit the reef.

Also, apparently the captain was one of the first people to abandon ship (if early reports are accurate). If that proves to be the case I hope they make a serious example of him.

[East Coast Hustle]

Maybe he was trying to get closer to shore because he was aware that his crew had no fucking idea how to deploy lifeboats correctly.

[East Coast Hustle]

Of course, had he stayed in deeper water they would have deployed on their own once the hydrostatic switches were activated. Though with the lifeboats on the 04 deck that means most of the cabins would have been submerged at that point.

[navkat]

Right. And all I'm saying is that this is the most Basic Seamanship stuff...which means the Skipper was either not firing on all cylandars that day or got his Captain's License from a mill.