pachapapa Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I have just watched the TF1 lunch time news.Featured was the sail past by a sister boat of the fleet to which the Costa Concordia belongs.The image of the boat passing the stricken vessel on the rocks with all lights blazing and fog-horns blowing was an extremely disturbing sight.It would seem to me that if the sister-boat leaves it's normal course that it would have been better to have stopped for one minute and dimmed her lights.The morbid voyeurism promoted by the Costa Cruise organisation and abetted by TF1 is frankly disgusting.Link to video clip NOT included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 How do you know it was the sister, it may have been the brother, anyway a boat would not be able to do much would it, far too small? Did it have red or green lifeboats on it or were they lights? Can you see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote user="Quillan"]How do you know it was the sister, it may have been the brother, anyway a boat would not be able to do much would it, far too small? Did it have red or green lifeboats on it or were they lights? Can you see?[/quote]Difficult to see; the TV by the dining room table is a 17" CRT. I think it was going south as the chimney seemed to be about 2/3 rds of the way along the boat in the direction of the right hand side of the TV. If that is not clear the boat was moving across the TV screen from right to left. Impossible to see the lifeships as it was dark but presumably with assumed direction of movement the red ones would be visible and not the green ones on the righthand side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Here is the link, perhaps u can see...my eyes are shot from too much 3D TV.http://videos.tf1.fr/jt-13h/costa-concordia-debut-des-operations-de-pompage-des-cuves-6944130.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Sam Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote user="pachapapa"]I have just watched the TF1 lunch time news.Featured was the sail past by a sister boat of the fleet to which the Costa Concordia belongs.The image of the boat passing the stricken vessel on the rocks with all lights blazing and fog-horns blowing was an extremely disturbing sight.Looked very much like it was keeping a safe distance, with normal lighting for a passenger vessel of its type, but as for the fog-horn sounding, well visibility looked to be fine so one can only guess the bridge officer was sounding the ship's horn to warn or indicate navigational intention.It would seem to me that if the sister-boat leaves it's normal course that it would have been better to have stopped for one minute and dimmed her lights.Perhaps the brakes weren't working, and as for dimming the lights?The morbid voyeurism promoted by the Costa Cruise organisation and abetted by TF1 is frankly disgusting."Morbid voyeurism"? Making way via a safe, approved navigational route more like! Link to video clip NOT included.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Would have thought Captains are being ultra cautious at the moment - and can you imagine the grilling they are getting from all the Mrs Smiths from Iowa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Frankly I am amazed that the lost at sea did not number in the thousands.After scraping the bottom of the boat on it's left hand side, the boat would presumably have continued moving across the water, apparently boats according to SS do not have good brakes.So changing the direction of the movement of the boat would have been the only practical alternative.It is fortuitous that the experienced Captain of the boat was cool and collected and turned the boat to the left, towards the land, making it possible for over 4000 persons to leave the stricken boat.If in the heat of the moment he had turned the boat to the right, it would almost certainly have turned turtle and quickly rested upside down in 140 metres of water with a loss of life at least twice that of the Titanic.Edited: the "left" in the final sentence changed to "right".Soryy about that...happy now "boatswain". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I think more than few will reconsider their plans for a cruise holiday after this ... I have looked over from the top floor of IKEA car park Southampton at the liners that look like huge blocks of flats tied up at the nearby dockside ..too big . You can cruise on container ships and banana boats .I would prefer one of them . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Sam Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 [quote user="pachapapa"]It is fortuitous that the experienced Captain of the boat was cool and collected and turned the boat to the left, towards the land, making it possible for over 4000 persons to leave the stricken boat.[/quote]Well it would appear Schettino has one fan![8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Ice-ni Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It is a sad reflection on 21st century life that when someone does a part of his job correctly it is described as fortuitous.John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Sam Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The transcript of the Preliminary Inquiry: http://www.marsecreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/traduzione_ordinanza_grosseto.pdfHighlights of which include;"The grave imprudence and incompetence that marked the conduct of the suspect at the time when he initiated the rash manoeuvre just mentioned is evident and indisputable. The impact with the reef caused the springing of a leak, with the water flooding the engine rooms and causing the electrical system of the engines to fail, leading to the blackout within the ship, which first veered on the port side, then began to ship water and list on the opposite side.In that predicament the captain, due to incompetence and negligence, underestimated the extent of the damage and failed to notify the coastal authorities of the accident in timely fashion, reporting that an electrical problem was involved (blackout), without mentioning immediately the impact that had caused the springing of the leak and the flow of water into five compartments of the ship’s engine room and thus delaying the implementation of emergency procedures and rescue operations.""The SOS was only sent 30-40 minutes after the impact (as reported by Schettino himself); in the meantime no external alarm signal was given to the coastal authorities to make the real seriousness of the situation aboard understood.""At 10:58 PM the captain ordered the ship to be abandoned and informed the coastal authorities (see the informative report of the commander of the Naval Operational Division of Porto Santo Stefano) but, during the said operations, left the ship when there were still at least a hundred persons aboard ship.""The emergency manoeuvre that the captain performed to bring the ship alongside the coast of the island (which manoeuvre was described by him in detail during the interrogation) is worthless for exempting him from responsibilities or in any case for attenuating the said responsibilities, since it is only natural that what was involved, at that point, was a due act to limit as much as possible the tragic consequences that the serious error committed and admitted unfortunately caused. But there is also serious circumstantial evidence of culpability for the other offences Francesco Schettino is charged with.""Schettino admitted his imprudence under questioning and tried to mitigate the enormity of his error with the subsequent manoeuvre, effected to prevent the moving away of the ship from the coast of Isola del Giglio. Recalling that manoeuvre in detail, Schettino affirms being a “good captain.” That appears to indicate an incredible thoughtlessness in assessing the actual scope of the behaviour engaged in to the detriment of over 4,000 persons entrusted to his responsibility. It is indeed evident that with the said manoeuvre the captain caused the shipwreck of the passengers and the death of verified victims. On this point, concerning the error committed, Schettino admits the circumstance but then goes on to describe the phase of the emergency manoeuvre which, at that point, as stated, at least formed part of his duties. But to this thoughtlessness also must be added the total incapacity to manage the subsequent phases of the emergency created, thus delaying the rescue operations from land.""Finally, the negative evaluation of the individual’s personality includes the fact of having abandoned the ship ahead of all the passengers on board and of having remained over an hour on the reef where he had disembarked in a situation of complete inactivity. In the final analysis the serious incompetence, imprudence and negligence that mark the behaviour of the captain make real and present the danger of repetition of offences of the same sort as those for which we proceed, i.e. of seriously culpable offences committed to the detriment of third parties entrusted, owing to the activity engaged in, to the responsibility of the suspect."Pretty damning stuff![:@] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I have been wondering where the First Officer and Navigation Officer fits in to all this? Surely he must of consulted with at least the Navigation Officer before performing the maneuver and if not then that officer should have raised his concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 If in reality there were only a hundred passengers remaining from what was it 4000 or so? when he took to the lifeboat then I am not surprised that on a vessel of that size he may have missed some, its one thing to stand outside a building during a fire drill checking the muster list altogether another when a ship is rolling over and making as if to sink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Sam Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 [quote user="Chancer"]If in reality there were only a hundred passengers remaining from what was it 4000 or so? when he took to the lifeboat then I am not surprised that on a vessel of that size he may have missed some, its one thing to stand outside a building during a fire drill checking the muster list altogether another when a ship is rolling over and making as if to sink.[/quote]I wonder if he will be using the same excuse?I also wonder why he thought fit to phone a member of the 'Costa crisis team', before considering making the 'Mayday' call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Sam Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 [quote user="Quillan"]I have been wondering where the First Officer and Navigation Officer fits in to all this? Surely he must of consulted with at least the Navigation Officer before performing the maneuver and if not then that officer should have raised his concerns.[/quote]Pity he didn't follow the example of Captain Samuel Clemens, Mississippi Riverboat Pilot better known perhaps as Mark Twain.A female passenger is reputed trying to flatter him by saying, ”My goodness Captain, you must know where every hazard on this River lies!” Captain Clemens replied: “No Madam that would be impossible, I just know where the good water is and keep her there.”I see now that Lloyds AIS tracking has indicated a previous similar course change. On that occasion, although missing the 'uncharted' rock, Concordia was placed even closer to the island!On this occasion who knows, having done it before, the bridge crew may have all been in agreement for the unoffical change of course.These words from a Master Mariner of over 45 years experience;[quote]Cruise ships, like all vessels plying the navigable waters of the world are subject to strict Maritime Rules and regulations including, but not limited to, Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulations, Standards of Training Certification and Watch keeping (STCW), The International Safety Management (ISM) rules, and most importantly, the Rule of the Sea whereby the Master and officers and crew never abandon the ship until all passengers and crew are accounted for, and everything possible has been done to save them. Abandoning those left in your professional care clearly demonstrates the lack of moral fibre of the Master and all those other officers and crew who abandoned, not only their passengers, but their fellow shipmates, and those “professional” mariners who did, in fact, remain at their station waiting for leadership and guidance that was never given from those spineless cowards who deserted their responsibilities and dignity.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 [quote user="pachapapa"]Frankly I am amazed that the lost at sea did not number in the thousands.After scraping the bottom of the boat on it's left hand side, the boat would presumably have continued moving across the water, apparently boats according to SS do not have good brakes. They actually have very good brakes. Some call them ANCHORS.Here is a plot of the ship's route after hitting the reef http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16152603So changing the direction of the movement of the boat would have been the only practical alternative. No-one controlled the ship after it hit the reef - it simply drifted slowly ahead and was eventually pulled back by the anchor(s) which were dropped somewhere near the port.It is fortuitous that the experienced Captain of the boat was cool and collected and turned the boat to the left, towards the land, making it possible for over 4000 persons to leave the stricken boat. The ship actually turned to starboard (that's right for you), but this was due to the anchor chain snubbing rather than any choice by the "captain". If in the heat of the moment he had turned the boat to the right, it would almost certainly have turned turtle and quickly rested upside down in 140 metres of water with a loss of life at least twice that of the Titanic. The vessel drifted to its final position. No choice by anyone. If it had not gone aground it would possibly not have capsized.In any case, if you check the times on the plot, there was around an hour between hitting the reef and running aground. No excuse for not evacuating everyone safely.Edited: the "left" in the final sentence changed to "right". You could try different coloured socks.Soryy about that...happy now "boatswain".[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Sam Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 http://news.qps.nl.s3.amazonaws.com/Grounding+Costa+Concordia.wmvFollowing the plot of the Concordia in the above link, it can be seen she was making 16 knots but immediately prior to the collision, the speed starts to reduce. Following the collision, her speed drops considerably, down to 6 knots on passing the port.No data yet from the 'Black Box' recorders as yet, but it's fairly safe to assume all propulsion power was lost as the speed continues to decline. From around the 21:00 mark, note the pivot of the vessel. Comment from elsewhere, including two Dutch skippers travelling as passengers, indicate at this point the bow thrusters were brought into operation to turn the vessel - quite plausible as they would only be effective at the low speed indicated.Following the turn, she was subject to the tide and a 12 knot (?) breeze which 'sailed' her into her final resting position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Thanks, SS, that's a much better version of the plot than the one I posted above.As I said, I think the stop and reversal of direction was probably due to the anchor snubbing. I don't think that by then any power was available for bow thrusters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Watching that tracking was really spooky, all I can say is that the passengers had a really lucky escape, maybe aided by the use of the bow thrusters but in any case the bulk of the credit must go to whatever god you choose to believe in.It was almost ghoulish watching the ship get ever closer to the rock marked on the chart, incredibly that is exactly where she ended up after the slow drifting turn.Sorry, not the same rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just john Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Having seen the results of the captains handling of the vessel and subsequently, it begs the question who decided he was fit, and are they a fit person to be responsible for positioning any other captains? Beat the Captain up by all means but where is the responsibility of the company for his appointment? I would guess that any other captain in their employ should now demonstrate their suitability; the buck stops at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 [quote user="Salty Sam"]http://news.qps.nl.s3.amazonaws.com/Grounding+Costa+Concordia.wmvFollowing the plot of the Concordia in the above link, it can be seen she was making 16 knots but immediately prior to the collision, the speed starts to reduce. Following the collision, her speed drops considerably, down to 6 knots on passing the port.No data yet from the 'Black Box' recorders as yet, but it's fairly safe to assume all propulsion power was lost as the speed continues to decline. From around the 21:00 mark, note the pivot of the vessel. Comment from elsewhere, including two Dutch skippers travelling as passengers, indicate at this point the bow thrusters were brought into operation to turn the vessel - quite plausible as they would only be effective at the low speed indicated.Following the turn, she was subject to the tide and a 12 knot (?) breeze which 'sailed' her into her final resting position. [/quote]Jesus! Is that what happened! Por Cristo the passengers were lucky.Downloaded the file and played it on the TV, difficult to comprehend the enormity of it all.Question: When the liner changes colour from green to yellow, what does that signify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 [quote user="just john "]Having seen the results of the captains handling of the vessel and subsequently, it begs the question who decided he was fit, and are they a fit person to be responsible for positioning any other captains? Beat the Captain up by all means but where is the responsibility of the company for his appointment? I would guess that any other captain in their employ should now demonstrate their suitability; the buck stops at the top.[/quote]This is why I said in another thread there is a lot more to come out yet and before we all draw any conclusion's we need to wait and see. Already some of the initial 'facts' have turned out not to be quite correct, with the exception of course that the ship sank. With international passengers on board the Italians will not be able to cover anything up.I believe the 'black box' has already been recovered because the ship didn't break up and divers could go straight to it. You won't hear anything about what it has recorded until the enquiry. All we know, because of the transponder, is its track but we don't know minute by minute what was done and when. We shall have to wait and see what CCISM (Commissione Centrale di Indagine sui Sinistri Marittimi) comes up with during it's investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Sam Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 [quote user="nomoss"]Thanks, SS, that's a much better version of the plot than the one I posted above.As I said, I think the stop and reversal of direction was probably due to the anchor snubbing. I don't think that by then any power was available for bow thrusters.[/quote]It's been reported elsewhere; "The Wasa Wärtsilä CT300 bow thrusters have their own power generators near the thruster package itself, so it is independent of and does not rely upon the ship's generating system."Obviously the truth will out once all the data has been analysed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 OK! Found color code.Collision Danger = Red with bold outline (TCPA <= 30 minutes, CPA <= 1/2 mile) Vessels marked as collision danger also have the CPA and TCPA printed and an audible alarm may be invokedUnderway = Green (speed > 1 Knot, AIS update received during past 5 minutes)Stationary = Yellow (speed < 1 Knot, AIS update received during past 5 minutes)Lost signal = Orange with cross through it (AIS update not received during past 5 minutes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 If you have a TV with Internet the track is viewable from youtube.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5mbKt7rQkQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now