concordia nat geo now

ex_infantry man

its crazy to think that for a vessel of its size the speed in which it sank, only for its perched on a ledge it would be underwater fully, how could the captain have made such a mistake in a sail past that he was ordered to do and then hung out to dry by his superiors to take the blame!! what do ye think should happen in this case??

marlin vs

ex_infantry man wrote: »

its crazy to think that for a vessel of its size the speed in which it sank, only for its perched on a ledge it would be underwater fully, how could the captain have made such a mistake in a sail past that he was ordered to do and then hung out to dry by his superiors to take the blame!! what do ye think should happen in this case??

The Captain is responsible for his ship! and should be held accountable for his mistake after all he is the Captain.He should be made an example of as he was paid to be the Captain and in charge of the safety of the ship and it's passengers.

ex_infantry man

marlin vs wrote: »

The Captain is responsible for his ship! and should be held accountable for his mistake after all he is the Captain.He should be made an example of as he was paid to be the Captain and in charge of the safety of the ship and it's passengers.

true that, but his original course was to sail between giglio and monte argentario, but was instructed to do a sail past of giglio by his superiors in costa cruises when he struck rocks in what turned out to be shallow waters, could his mapping or depth sounders let him down or just human error??

Jesus Shaves

Some Captain he was, left his ship before most of the passengers

ex_infantry man

darokane wrote: »

Some Captain he was, left his ship before most of the passengers

i,d say he panicked, not defending his actions or anything just wanna get into other peoples heads and see what they think about what happened, from what i saw from the documentary filmed through the eye,s and camera,s of passengers aboard, alot of delays about getting passengers off the ship, relaying the incorrect information to crew twas just maddness

lorcan122

I completely don't understand his actions at all, I mean they delayed deploying the lifeboats and when the ship capsized, they only had half the lifeboats because the rest were underneath the water.

Poor Uncle Tom

Captain is responsible, there were no muster drills carried out, a health & safety necessity. There was over an hour between hitting the rock and having the boat blow back into the rocks again, more than enough time to have everyone off the boat safely. There,s no excuse that asshole has a lot a blood on his cowardly hands.

ex_infantry man

has there been a case somewhat like this tried in a court before?

lorcan122

ex_infantry man wrote: »

has there been a case somewhat like this tried in a court before?

Not that I am aware of, this is the first time this kind of thing has happened.

ebbsy

Another of their ships on fire.................

ex_infantry man

ebbsy wrote: »

Another of their ships on fire.................

seems like the company is poorly managed thats for sure

Rovi

Here's the BBC report on the current Costa Allegra incident:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17183134

Cruise ship Costa Allegra adrift off Seychelles

An Italian cruise ship with more than 1,000 people on board is without power in the Indian Ocean following a fire.

The Costa Allegra is adrift in the dark more than 200 miles southwest of the Seychelles, near Alphonse Island.

The ship is from the same fleet as the Costa Concordia, which capsized off the Italian coast in January, killing 32.

Costa Cruises said in a statement that the fire broke out in the electric generators' room. It did not spread and there were no injuries or casualties.

Inspections of the state of the engine room are on-going, the company says.


Ship immobilised
Tugs and "other naval and aerial units" will reach the ship, which has sent out a distress signal, Costa Cruises says.

Commander Cosimo Nicastro of the Italian coast guard told the BBC that it took the crew a few hours to extinguish the fire.

Although the ship is in the middle of the Indian Ocean, there are "no problems for the passengers".

However the ship probably needs to be towed to a Seychelles port, he said.

There are no electric lights on board the ship as the batteries are being used to keep essential machinery going.

The Italian authorities have directed three merchant ships and two fishing vessels towards the stricken liner.

The authorities in the Seychelles say they have sent two tug boats, a coastguard ship and an aircraft to the scene.

There are 636 passengers and 413 crew on board the Costa Allegra, which left Madagascar on Saturday.

It was due to arrive in the Seychelles on Tuesday.

The Costa Concordia ran aground off the Italian island of Giglio on 13 January.

The Concordia's captain, Francesco Schettino, has been accused of manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and abandoning ship before all those aboard were evacuated. He denies any wrongdoing

lorcan122

I could not believe this when I head about it on the news, I think the company is going to go under, no way can it survive after another incident.

Atlantic Dawn

Interesting story behind the Costa Allegra, it was originally built in 1969 as the container ship Annie Johnson and later converted in 1992 to the Costa Alegra





http://members.chello.nl/~h.brink01/costa%20allegra.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Allegra

Poor Uncle Tom

Where was the second picture taken? Just curious.

ex_infantry man

thats absolutely mad!! a container ship it was no doubt, ooooh there defo goin to go under after this people will lose faith in safety aboard there vessels unless they come up with something drastic, i remember watching a documentary series it was on over few weeks on nat geo of the costa serena and was impressed by it that i would have booked a cruise on it, but don,t think i would now

Atlantic Dawn

ex_infantry man wrote: »

thats absolutely mad!! a container ship it was no doubt, ooooh there defo goin to go under after this people will lose faith in safety aboard there vessels unless they come up with something drastic, i remember watching a documentary series it was on over few weeks on nat geo of the costa serena and was impressed by it that i would have booked a cruise on it, but don,t think i would now

Yes and on Costa Cruises website the information for the ship gives a build date of 1992 which is a tad deceiving. The stern looks very out of place on a cruise ship.

http://www.costacruise.com/usa/costa_allegra.html

lorcan122

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Interesting story behind the Costa Allegra, it was originally built in 1969 as the container ship Annie Johnson and later converted in 1992 to the Costa Alegra





http://members.chello.nl/~h.brink01/costa%20allegra.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Allegra

Wow that is amazing, must have taken some work to transform that into a cruise liner, I actually can't believe that.

Cardinal Richelieu

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Where was the second picture taken? Just curious.

Doesn't say actually but the Costa Allegra seems to have operated on the South East Asia route so China, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan.

Atlantic Dawn

1 Irish person aboard

http://www.costacruises.co.uk/B2C/GB/Info/allegra_statement.htm

lorcan122

The cruise industry is going to suffer quite a bit with all these incidents, not just this company.

Poor Uncle Tom

The cruise industry doesn't exactly have a clean record for losing people overboard anyway.

ex_infantry man

i went on and priced a cruise on the costa website last night, the prices have been slashed to half priced on most cabins

cyrusdvirus

landlubber question re the Concordia.

The visible damage is on her port side, yet she rolled to her starboard. I would have thought there would be sub divisions running lengthways along the hull for watertight integrity, so how did she roll to starboard?

Did they try counter flooding to keep her on an even keel in order to get the lifeboats launched? And did it all go wrong?

OR am i completely wrong with the watertight integrity thinking and the watertight divisions only run perpendicular to the keel?


Oh, and Yaaay for the forum.

Poor Uncle Tom

gatecrash wrote: »

The visible damage is on her port side, yet she rolled to her starboard. I would have thought there would be sub divisions running lengthways along the hull for watertight integrity, so how did she roll to starboard?

Apparently there are no devisions running lengthwise, the compartments are devided across the width along the ship.

When the engines eventually stopped working due to flooding the ship was a mile or so out to sea and was listing to the side the damage was on, but it was broad side to the open sea and dead in the water so it was vulnerable to the wind.

The wind caught it like a sail and pushed it back towards land. In the process it pushed the ship over to list towards the opposite side, the side it eventually rested on when it came back in contact with land.

cyrusdvirus

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Apparently there are no devisions running lengthwise, the compartments are devided across the width along the ship.

When the engines eventually stopped working due to flooding the ship was a mile or so out to sea and was listing to the side the damage was on, but it was broad side to the open sea and dead in the water so it was vulnerable to the wind.

The wind caught it like a sail and pushed it back towards land. In the process it pushed the ship over to list towards the opposite side, the side it eventually rested on when it came back in contact with land.

So even though she was flooding the starboard section of the keel hit the rock shelf while she was still flooding to port, in the deeper water. And she STILL managed to pivot on the starboard keel?

How strong were the winds?

Not that i'm doubting you, it certainly is plausible,

Poor Uncle Tom

You got it in a nutshell, as I understand it.

The winds were 24mph which wasn't great on it's own but the ship was sitting just 26ft deep in the water and 100ft above the waves x 1,000ft long to catch the wind.

What I find extrordinary is that the 100,000 tonnes+ weight was pushed over in the opposite direction by those winds. The water already flooded in must have helped with this by flooding new areas as the ship was being righted by the winds.

The really frightening thing is that if there were no winds, the ship would have sank when the engines failed at a mile or so out to sea in much deeper water. With the ineptitude shown by the overall leadership on the ship in this case that would certainly have lead to hundreds if not thousands of lives being lost.

Nature came to the rescue, and to better effect than the captain of the liner did.

cyrusdvirus

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You got it in a nutshell, as I understand it.

The winds were 24mph which wasn't great on it's own but the ship was sitting just 26ft deep in the water and 100ft above the waves x 1,000ft long to catch the wind.

What I find extrordinary is that the 100,000 tonnes+ weight was pushed over in the opposite direction by those winds. The water already flooded in must have helped with this by flooding new areas as the ship was being righted by the winds.

The really frightening thing is that if there were no winds, the ship would have sank when the engines failed at a mile or so out to sea in much deeper water. With the ineptitude shown by the overall leadership on the ship in this case that would certainly have lead to hundreds if not thousands of lives being lost.

Nature came to the rescue, and to better effect than the captain of the liner did.

THAT'S the bit that is making my jaw bounce along the ground....

it really does go to show that even something as massive and seemingly sturdy as this ship is just a plaything when nature gets mildly annoyed.

ex_infantry man

gatecrash wrote: »

THAT'S the bit that is making my jaw bounce along the ground....

it really does go to show that even something as massive and seemingly sturdy as this ship is just a plaything when nature gets mildly annoyed.

now ya said it, and as they say " the bigger ya are the harder you fall "

roundymac

Saw a report on yesterdays Sunday Independent that the captain had left his glass's in his cabin and was having difficulty reading his radar. Also there were quotes from another captain whose was a mentor to the Concordia captain, he stated that he would rarely admit to making a mistake, hence the delay in issueing a distress call.
Mmm, the part about the glass's sounds dodgy to me, surly there was another officer on the bridge who was qualified to navigate if the captain's eyesight was giving trouble.

lorcan122

roundymac wrote: »

Saw a report on yesterdays Sunday Independent that the captain had left his glass's in his cabin and was having difficulty reading his radar. Also there were quotes from another captain whose was a mentor to the Concordia captain, he stated that he would rarely admit to making a mistake, hence the delay in issueing a distress call.
Mmm, the part about the glass's sounds dodgy to me, surly there was another officer on the bridge who was qualified to navigate if the captain's eyesight was giving trouble.

Heard that as well, he was meant to be a very arrogant man as well, so maybe he was micro managing and just wanted to do all the work. He didn't go to the trial, just his lawyer as he did not want to face the crowds.

LiamoSail

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You got it in a nutshell, as I understand it.

The winds were 24mph which wasn't great on it's own but the ship was sitting just 26ft deep in the water and 100ft above the waves x 1,000ft long to catch the wind.

What I find extrordinary is that the 100,000 tonnes+ weight was pushed over in the opposite direction by those winds. The water already flooded in must have helped with this by flooding new areas as the ship was being righted by the winds.

The really frightening thing is that if there were no winds, the ship would have sank when the engines failed at a mile or so out to sea in much deeper water. With the ineptitude shown by the overall leadership on the ship in this case that would certainly have lead to hundreds if not thousands of lives being lost.

Nature came to the rescue, and to better effect than the captain of the liner did.

Is this speculation or was it reported by any sort of credible source?

Firstly, she struck the rock on her port side while on a Northerly heading, and later grounded, listing heavily to starboard on a SW'ly heading. I'd imagine the Capt. did what he could to bring her around like that to put her aground in that position

Secondly, given she was listed to port initially, turning to port would have been quiet difficult (as your turning circle is increased if turning towards the side you're listing to). Its likely that in the process of swinging the ship, the free surface put her over to starboard

Your point about the wind seems to be that while the ship was on a northerly heading and listing to port, that the wind pushed her over to starboard. For that to happen, the wind would have had to be westerly. If the wind were westerly, how would it have brought her back on to the island? A westerly wind would push her east towards the main land. In any case, it would be far more likely I'd think for the wind to alter the heading, rather then for the wind to push her over

My own opinion is that the ship hit the rock, obviously the Capts fault, he then, or at least someone on the bridge then got it together enough to put her aground and in the process is probably responsible for avoiding the loss of a couple of hundred life's

lorcan122

LiamoSail wrote: »

My own opinion is that the ship hit the rock, obviously the Capts fault, he then, or at least someone on the bridge then got it together enough to put her aground and in the process is probably responsible for avoiding the loss of a couple of hundred life's

But if he had launched the lifeboats as soon as he had hit the rock, instead of waiting around, he might have saved more lives, he was just being careless with human lives in my opinion.

Poor Uncle Tom

LiamoSail wrote: »

Is this speculation...

No it's not.

I was looking for a link for you, but thanks to Sean Sherlock it isn't possible.

Information is courtesy of my memory after seeing the Discovery Channel's Cruise Ship Disaster: Inside the Concordia.

LiamoSail

lorcan122 wrote: »

But if he had launched the lifeboats as soon as he had hit the rock, instead of waiting around, he might have saved more lives, he was just being careless with human lives in my opinion.

The ship was sinking, I don't know how quickly she was going down, but there's no chance that they could have got as many off as they did get off if they had left her in position and allowed her to sink

All those found onboard in the days after would certainly have gone down with the ship for a start. Putting her aground was the best thing to do, and certainly saved hundreds of lives

I've never sailed on cruise ships, however I work at sea and have done more lifeboat drills then I care to remember. On a real ship (I don't count cruise ships as real ships), with 30+ trained professionals in a real abandonment situation, there would be quiet a degree of panic, and nothing would run as smoothly as in drills. So I can only imagine what it would be like in a real situation on a cruise ship, given you have hotel staff etc in charge of some lifeboats, with 4000 passengers panicking, the majority of whom haven't a clue what they are doing, and the remaining minority being either drunk, stupid or both. It would be an absolute nightmare, and most likely be extremely unorganised and inefficient. Getting the ship aground was the safest thing to do in my opinion to allow more time to abandon

I would also factor in the advantage that being closer to the shore allowed lifeboats do multiple runs, which would obviously be beneficial in case the list prevented the launching of boats on one side

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

No it's not.

I was looking for a link for you, but thanks to Sean Sherlock it isn't possible.

Information is courtesy of my memory after seeing the Discovery Channel's Cruise Ship Disaster: Inside the Concordia.

There's no need for a link thanks, was just asking as I find it quiet difficult to believe that it was the wind alone that put her there. Obviously the inquiry should determine this, but I'd be extremely sceptical of the wind alone being solely responsible for her going aground where she did, or the wind causing her to go over on her starboard side. Free surface would I imagine be a far more relevant factor

Poor Uncle Tom

We all find it difficult to believe the wind did all that. Maybe you are right that there were other factors involved as something like this is seldom caused by one error alone but a series of mistakes which lead to a disaster.

LiamoSail

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

We all find it difficult to believe the wind did all that. Maybe you are right that there were other factors involved as something like this is seldom caused by one error alone but a series of mistakes which lead to a disaster.

Sorry, what I meant was that obviously hitting the rock in the first place was down to navigating errors. My only point about the wind was that I would imagine that the ship was then deliberately put aground, rather then simply ending up there as a result of wind/current

cyrusdvirus

There is a element of speculation on the part of the Discovery/Nat Geo documentary too.

They stated the ship lost power quite early on in the crisis, yet the pictures of the Concordia show her lit up like a christmas tree as she's coming close to land.

Poor Uncle Tom

gatecrash wrote: »

There is a element of speculation on the part of the Discovery/Nat Geo documentary too.

They stated the ship lost power quite early on in the crisis, yet the pictures of the Concordia show her lit up like a christmas tree as she's coming close to land.

The emergency lighting had kicked in at that stage, but all power was lost for a while before it did.

Of course you are right that the exact details of what happened can't be pieced together that fast, but the bigger elements of the event are accurate as they are taken from AIS, several eye witness, coast guard communication, bridge cameras, etc.

LiamoSail

What's the story with the VDR? Someone mentioned to me the other day it wasn't working. Is that true?