Cruise Ship Costa Concordia - MERGED THREADS

[sarafina]

Maybe his "eye" = "tourist navigation system"??

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by sarafina

Maybe his "eye" = "tourist navigation system"??

.....

But....

Costa Concordia Disaster: Initial investigations hold captain and navigation system responsible | Latest CNN News

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Now let's see what all the CF members that always write that eyeball nav is best and proven, think about that.

Name them .

I wonder if the Chartplotter on the Bridge also had the warning "not to be used for navigation"

[s/v Jedi]

For those who can't find it: it has been _the_ #1 item on BBC world news for the past 4 hours or more

BBC News - Costa Concordia: Captain Schettino 'turned too late'

ciao!
Nick.

[storyinframes]

The company must have advised the captain to take as much blame on his own head as possible. Sacrificing 1 guy is affordable; the whole company going under is not.

This radio chat btwn the captain and the port official is not very convincing to me. The subtext of the whole conversation boils down to one thing. -- the captain is extraordinarily coward and negligent and bcoz of that some people hv lost life.

In my opinion, i think the captain could be those Ferrari type rash captain but it is just too hard to swallow the fact that he wd act like sissy.

I don't know, I feel that way.
Lot of truth will pour out in a couple of months

[CarinaPDX]

The latest on BBC is that the Italian Coast Guard first learned of the disaster from cell phone calls from passengers on board. They said they "never" got a radio call from the captain, although clearly an hour or so into the situation communication had begun. Pretty bad...

I also picked up somewhere that the UK was denying responsibility for chart errors. The ship is required to have paper charts (although a raster of the paper chart could also have been used), and the suggestion is that the captain was using a small-scale (large area) chart to navigate past the island. The small-scale chart of the area does not include the surrounding rocks. This would explain the captain's claim that the hazards weren't on the chart. Of course to pilot that close to an island the largest-scale chart should have been used. It will be interesting to see if this really was the source of the error; it seems quite plausible.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

The latest on BBC is that the Italian Coast Guard first learned of the disaster from cell phone calls from passengers on board. They said they "never" got a radio call from the captain, although clearly an hour or so into the situation communication had begun. Pretty bad...

I also picked up somewhere that the UK was denying responsibility for chart errors. The ship is required to have paper charts (although a raster of the paper chart could also have been used), and the suggestion is that the captain was using a small-scale (large area) chart to navigate past the island. The small-scale chart of the area does not include the surrounding rocks. This would explain the captain's claim that the hazards weren't on the chart. Of course to pilot that close to an island the largest-scale chart should have been used. It will be interesting to see if this really was the source of the error; it seems quite plausible.

I find it hard to believe -- Schettino said he thought he was 50 - 100 meters from where the rocks were supposed to be. He could never have estimated such a distance on a large-scale (large area) chart and he surely would have noticed the lack of detail.

I would bet that he was using electronic navigation, and I think he also said something about a "tourist navigation system".

So I doubt that he was using, or at least relying primarily on a large-scale paper chart for a very close-in maneuver. I really doubt. But if he did -- it was recklessness to the point of insanity.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by capngeo

Interesting graphic from Spiegel... I had heard that he grounded somewhat South, sailed through deep water, then veered inland to put her on the rocks. I guess the graphic confirms that. Granted the initial grounding was stupidity, but steaming aground in her present location was brilliant.

I agree with you there, IF he had steering and actually executed that maneuver. If he did, he may well have saved more lives, although maybe not. Since the boat was so tipped, all the moving furniture etc. may well have injured or killed people, or have made it impossible for them to escape.

[jdanel]

Photos: Costa Concordia Disaster

This url links to a picture of what looks like a hole in the starboard side in the white paint area above the waterline.

My conjecture is that the ship was listing as it drifted toward the shore and hit that small rock that you can see sticking out of the water about 30 m off the starboard side. That would account for the "sudden lurch" that several have mentioned and it may or may not have thrown the captain off the ship.

Leakage at that point would also seem likely to increase the careening to starboard.

Thoughts?

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Eleebana

You've got to love armchair opinions, particularly those who would have done it a whole lot better with 20/20 hindsight. Undoubtedly the ship should not have got any where near "the rock", but once it struck the rock, the texbook solutions cease to work. Maybe he did try to do exactly what you suggest, but the severley disabled ship would not respond to command. I know I'm being stupid here but, I seriously don't think any of us can say that any action we might have taken would have had any better result. I am amazed that the casualties have been so few.

a

I don't think there's anything wrong with armchair opinions. A lot of options have been discussed, and eventually we'll find out more facts. Meanwhile, what's wrong with speculating about what might have worked and not worked? Where's the harm?

[jdanel]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I agree with you there, IF he had steering and actually executed that maneuver. If he did, he may well have saved more lives, although maybe not. Since the boat was so tipped, all the moving furniture etc. may well have injured or killed people, or have made it impossible for them to escape.

Yes, IF...

Could/would the list to starboard have caused the ship - drifting without power - to make that turn to the left without intentional steering being involved at all?

[CarinaPDX]

Dockhead- As I noted, he could have been using the raster versions of the electronic charts instead of paper charts. In that case he may not have zoomed in far enough to load the large-scale chart. It is just speculation at this point, but it would explain the captain's comment about not seeing the rocks on the chart. Only time will tell ... this is an unfolding story.

Also, I recently picked up that the captain's testimony to the CG included an admission that he had begun the turn too late. Clearly eyeballing a turn with that large a ship approaching hazards nearby is a pretty macho (& foolish) stunt.

In time the truth about this will be known. Seemingly the captain made mistakes of navigation and judgement, that we can all understand, that caused this accident. The behavior afterwards is more problematic. It makes me wish that the captains of cruise ships were 100% captains and 0% entertainers of guests...

[Cotemar]

Oh now it’s clear, Captain Francesco Schettino said he did not abandon the ship.
He said he tripped and fell into a lifeboat.
His 1st officer must have tripped into the same lifeboat.

You just can’t make this crap up.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Silverado6x6

In this age of the info web I think having an intact fully restored vessel of this size back in service might actually be counter productive. That by its very existence it will be in the spotlight every single day and the smallest incident no matter how trivial can be plastered on the internet instantly.

For shareholders it may be more of a safe hedge to simply erase it, scrap it, don't allow it to possibly generate anything negative in the upcoming years, a name change will only further the superstitions.

I think it will be quickly forgotten once out of the limelight like most things.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by jdanel

Yes, IF...

Could/would the list to starboard have caused the ship - drifting without power - to make that turn to the left without intentional steering being involved at all?

Darned if I know! At some point they lost power, and, presumably, steering. That's why I wonder if he gets the credit for safely parking it on the ledge ... that and he seems to have screwed up so many other things.