(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/14/article-2086527-0F749BBB00000578-586_964x556.jpg)
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.
Wow. I'd go with drunk as well.
That photo almost looks shooped.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: navkat on January 15, 2012, 01:12:47 PM
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. :lulz:
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?
Also, please explain to me how making a rescue effort easier does not raise its chances of success.
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.
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.
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.
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. :lulz:
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.
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.
Well yeah....I mean I'm just the cook and even I know this shit.
There's also a larger theme at work here. You wouldn't get me on a cruise ship anyway, but you sure as HELL wouldn't get me on one operated by Carnival. They've had a pretty dismal track record over the last several years. I wonder what it will take to make them actually start paying attention to little things like "properly training the crew" and "keeping up on maintenance of vital ship systems".
Now they're reporting that the ship was 5 or 6 nautical miles closer to shore than it should have been on that route, with eyewitnesses on Giglio corroborating. They've recovered the black box, so I imagine we'll know alot more in the next week or so. I'm already of the opinion that the captain should have the book thrown at him for abandoning ship before all the passengers were safely off, if it turns out that the accident itself WAS caused by human error/bad judgment rather than a system failure, well, there will be a very special place reserved in sailor hell for that Captain.
Now I feel bad for my earlier statement about him being "hazelwooded". Sounds like this guy is gonna deserve whatever happens to him.
I've been on Carnival. It's a floating YMCA for fat families with no taste buds, sub par cleanliness standards and no savvy whatsoever when it comes to judging quality vs. cost.
Just because they charge you $15 a drink in international waters, and they present you a bacon-wrapped piece of "faux mignon" with balsamic swirled around the plate and call it the "Captain's Dinner" doesn't mean you're getting "the best." Dickhead
You're better off treating your wife to that $105 facial stateside, paying for a sitter and drinking Redstripe in a rowboat for $8 for FOUR instead of ONE.
The internet will get you all the cheap mexican blankets you need for half price and they'll smell better.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Are ships this size fitted with some kind of - if a huge gaping hole gets torn in the hull - contingency features? Complex system of moving bulkheads and pumps or something? When they hit the reef was there any other possible outcome other than capsize and sink? Maybe the crew didn't realise how bad the damage was? :eek: I'm trying to think of any possible excuses for not evacuating immediately. Crashing into the shore would stop the boat sinking I guess, maybe the captain thought it'd be part salvageable? Maybe the wreckage is more valuable to the company than the lives of the passengers and crew?
Yes. But there's standard operating procedures and "knowin when to fold em." That's why cruise shp el capitans get dinero mucho.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 15, 2012, 04:30:58 PM
Are ships this size fitted with some kind of - if a huge gaping hole gets torn in the hull - contingency features? Complex system of moving bulkheads and pumps or something? When they hit the reef was there any other possible outcome other than capsize and sink? Maybe the crew didn't realise how bad the damage was? :eek: I'm trying to think of any possible excuses for not evacuating immediately. Crashing into the shore would stop the boat sinking I guess, maybe the captain thought it'd be part salvageable? Maybe the wreckage is more valuable to the company than the lives of the passengers and crew?
Nah, small holes can be patched/pumped/sealed off from the rest of the ship with watertight doors (depending on where exactly the hole is) but something that size is pretty much unrecoverable.
I hadn't even considered that his attempt to reach shallower waters might have been dictated by his employers' desire to lower the cost of the salvage operation. It's certainly within the realm of possibility, but as the captain he should have disregarded any orders given to that effect.
ETA: With what I know of Carnival, I'd say they're more likely to pull some shit like that than any of the other major cruise lines.
Divide the salvageable value of the wreck by probable fatality rate, multiplied by the cost of out of court settlement. I'd imagine if that number is much more than 2 or 3 then the loss of life would become pretty much irrelevant in the eyes of the accountants. Negative publicity would obviously factor in somewhere.
If that is indeed the captain's motivation for steering aground... wow. That's evil.
First thought that hit my head: The bastard was more interested in saving his ship than in saving the passengers & crew.
Contrast this with the Antarctic sinking, where they piled everyone into lifeboats as soon as they realized they'd struck, before even doing an assessment...3 hours later, the ship goes down, with everyone watching from the lifeboats, a hour after that, the Argentinian navy shows up and takes everyone home. If they'd delayed, well, best not to think of things like being in Antarctic water for whatever fraction of an hour you can survive for.
That's one reason I'm VERY glad that my captain and chief engineer are also the co-owners of the company. There's literally no way for there to be a conflict of interest between saving the ship and saving the crew.