The more I think about it the more I just can not believe this accident happened!
I mean here is a ship with over 1000 women and lots of them were mother-in-laws! You mean NO ONE was standing behind the Capitan telling him how to drive the ship!
Just amazing and now women everywhere can use this as an excuse to backseat drive.
__________________
Don't ask a bunch of unknown forum people if it is OK to do something on YOUR boat. It is your boat, do what you want!
The current plight of the Costa Concordia reminds me of a comment made by Churchill.
After his retirement he was cruising the Mediterranean on an Italian cruise liner and some Italian journalists asked why an ex British Prime Minister should chose an Italian ship.
“There are three things I like about being on an Italian cruise ship” said Churchill.
“First their cuisine is unsurpassed. Second their service is superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first”.
__________________
Rick I
Toronto in summer, Bahamas in winter.
The current plight of the Costa Concordia reminds me of a comment made by Churchill.
After his retirement he was cruising the Mediterranean on an Italian cruise liner and some Italian journalists asked why an ex British Prime Minister should chose an Italian ship.
“There are three things I like about being on an Italian cruise ship” said Churchill.
“First their cuisine is unsurpassed. Second their service is superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first”.
The outer rock of Le Scole is accurately 287 meter outside the coastline of Giglio, so that gives an indication how close the Concordia came to shore.
There is another factor that plays a certain role and that is the Bernouille-effect that a moving ship creates and the tonnage of Concordia is as such that one has to be very, very careful entering undeep waters. And certainly at that reckless speed of 15 knots +.
It is very easy to say that sailing close by the shoreline was not an exemption without mentioning the proper distance one should keep.
On a monstership like Concordia your visual awareness is reduced to zero as distances are distorted by the sheer height of the ship and the position one has on the bridge that stretches over 40 meters in width. And than we talk business in daylight, not mentioning that the ship sailed in the night with very, very low visuality, blinded by the ship' s abundant illumination as well.
The whole business whether charts were electronic or paper renders useless by the fact that this ship should never had come so dangerous close to shore in the first place.
Some of the twisted metal left behind on the sea floor after she hit the rock. Note the thickness of the metal and how it has been twisted at cold temperatures. Gives you an idea of the forces involved.
I have not read most of the comments in this thread, so I apologize if this is a duplicate of a previously posted link. This blow-by-blow analysis indicates that while the captain was certainly at fault for maneuvering far too fast and far too close to the shore and causing this accident, he did handle the ship surprisingly well AFTER hitting the rock(s). Had the ship sunk farther offshore there would certainly have been significantly more deaths.
According to what has been reported so far he did not handle anything. The vessel was powerless soon after the collision and it was the wind that pushed Concordia ashore on its present location.
According to what has been reported so far he did not handle anything. The vessel was powerless soon after the collision and it was the wind that pushed Concordia ashore on its present location.
That is not the analysis provided on the gcaptain site. The video clearly shows at what point the bow thrusters were employed to turn the boat and assist the current/wind to move the ship to its final resting point near the shore.
The facts are that the ship did hit the rocks as a result of the decision of the captain with or without the actual or implied approval of Costa. The action were defiantly imprudent (especially with hindsight) given the proximity of of know hazards and the speed of the vessel. The Italian authorities believe that these actions justify bring criminal charges. What happened after the impact is in part know facts but also a lot of speculation. Publicly there is a lot of speculation as to the operation of the motors .... What is uncertain is what the role of the captain was after the impact, due in part to the changing story put out by the captain, but also to very different versions that have been put into the public arena by various eye witnesses, videos and photographs. What is clear is that the ship under the authority of the captain failed to notify authorities and passenger of the deteriorating situation on board which may well resulted in the death toll being as high as it is. What is increasing probable is that the actions of some of the ships crew and another captain who happened to be on board helped to keep the toll down to what it ended up being. The issue that appears to incense the Italian authorities was the early departure of the captain and some of his officers into a life boat leaving significant numbers of passengers on board.
To put it another was we have an Italian dish consisting of a lot of pasta (the blame on to others), the questionable influence of sauce and the captain not donating any meat balls to the meal.
After the ship hits the rocks on the port side putting a gash in the hull, I would think the list to port would be almost immediate due to the size of the gash on the port side. How severe that list becomes must not be sufficient enough to prevent the ship from changing its list from port to starboard due in part to the turn and/or the impact and contour of the subsequent resting point.
It now seems apparent to me that the captain and his first officer were ordered off the bridge by the "mutineers" and that's why they were in a lifeboat together and that's why he was making up excuses not to go back on board when ordered to do so by the port captain.
__________________
___________________
1984 Catalina 36 Mk I
Santa Barbara, Calif.
The CC group as you call them is the very opposite from what we are: inactive in everything they are just bystanders. Users of a facility which is far astern of any real "seafeeling". Freed from any responsibility save good behaviour they use the services offered by a number of companies.
That' s a world of difference. No more Nicholas Montsarrat's scenarios but Disneylike stupidities.
All they can do is gossip. Cruising that way is not for the rich but for the poor.
Leave them at their own level.
I agree. You don't ask the cargo how it feels about the hold, or the baby about the skills of the obstetrician. Any opinion expressed is from a viewpoint situated well below the necessary standards of awareness to be anything more than idle speculation.
I'm glad people enjoy modern cruising, but I certainly don't have to listen to their opinions about it. They have one role to play: to possess sufficient funds.
Thread drift alert!
If the supercosmos knows anything at all, then it would seem likely it would know about mankind's inventions (including time and space).
I suspect superstition existed well before main churches got in on the act.
Major religions, it could be argued, are superstition corporatized.
Nautical superstitions, on the other hand, are just seamanlike prudence!
Linear Mode
Recent Discussions