For me, this is validation for being big on redundancy in flashlights and always having at least one, preferably more (Doug's e-Picos are great backups and they fit in a dressy clutch purse). A little headlamp, like the diminutive Petzl Zipka would be priceless in this situation.

Safety certainly did not appear to be first with this particular ship. Sounds like this incident would be an interesting case study in survival psychology - especially those who heeded incompetent commands by crew, and those who did not.

God help disabled people in these kinds of disasters. What a horror.

We had a lengthy discussion of cruise ship EDC after one was stranded for days by power failure in the Pacific (Mexico, as I recall). I didn't see that thread in a cursory search but will look again. Next to a flashlight, think I'd make carrying a whistle a priority - at all times. And my passport, a credit card and cash....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/euro...ry.html?hpid=z2


"Passengers described a scene reminiscent of “Titanic”, saying they escaped the ship by crawling along hallways, desperately trying to reach safety as the lights went out..."

"... the experience was like a disaster movie."

Found that previous cruise ship (crippled by power outage) EDC thread. It was a very good discussion - a different situation but we were all big on carrying flashlights and the importance of being able to see runs across all disasters.

http://forums.equipped.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=211180&page=1

This is also a good reason not to go with the cheap, below the waterline, cabins on a cruise ship. I will never cruise on a ship unless I have a balcony suite. Yeah it's more expensive, but if you value your life, it's smart to have an easy escape route. Cruise ships are death traps for so many reasons.

At first blush, running aground sounds like an inexcusable error on the part of the crew.

According to Washington Post article, the crew did not give good evacuation instructions, didn't lower some of the lifeboats until the ship was listing too much for them to be lowered, and no evacuation drills were held. That is POSITIVELY inexcusable. I'll go with criminally irresponsible. According to CNN the captain is under arrest.

The cruise line had another fatal accident in 2010. I wouldn't cruise with them.

A lightweight thin camelback style pack or fanny pack would be ideal in a cruise ship situation. Keeping not only everyday items but important survival items and tools on your person at all times is best. All them lights are useless when your nowhere's near your room.

Seeing a large cruise lying on its side like that is incredibly frightening. I can't imagine the fear and chaos of trying to navigate dark, heavily listing passageways in that ship.

They're lucky that land was so close.

Anyone know how long it took for the order to abandon ship was issued?

[quote=GarlyDog Cruise ships are death traps for so many reasons. [/quote]

This incident certainly seems to validate that statement, alnd thee are many other problems that result form packing a lot of people into a relatively small space. This is why I prefer a nice relaxing wilderness backpack or climb for a truly relaxing vacation.

OMG! I just realized that was the Costa Concordia. I cruised on that ship a few years ago. Yikes!

Without massive amounts of training and practice, efficient evacuation of that many people is impossible.


I for one would have risked going back to the cabin to get my EDC bag. You could be stuck in a lifeboat for quite a while. Or what if the island were more remote and uninhabited?

Something about "being in jail but with a chance of drowning" comes to mind.

One thing I do know, I never enjoy meeting a crusie liner, and I do mean, ANY Cruise Liner out at sea.

I have made safe passing agreements with everyone I have ever met and they have NEVER kept to the meeting agreement. We would both promise to turn right 10 degrees and they will consistently give me a 2 degree turn at the most.

The major factors in the M/V STOCKHOLM and M/V ANDREA DORIA collision was: 1) going too fast in limited visibility (sea fog, Both vessels), 2) Lack of knowledge and experience in using their RADAR (Andrea Doria), and 3) Departing from the Rules of the Road (Andrea Doria kept turning to the left/Port).

It all came down to the M/V ANDREA DORIA was more concerned in "docking in New York per their schedule" than in practising common sense and good seamanship, in adverse weather conditions.

You wonder how a ship could run aground in the age of GPS, but it's happened before.
Excerpt from the book Taming Hal:
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Grounding%20of%20the%20Royal%20Majesty.pdf

The short version is that the GPS antenna cable failed, so the GPS switched to ded reconing mode and kept on displaying what appeared to be a valid position, as well as feeding it to the autopilot.

You can blame it on a very poor human interface design, but the humans were also complacent and ignored a number of warning signs that all was not well, "bending the map" as described in Deep Survival.

I don't mind the dangers of a cruise ship, and my guess is that the actual risks are probably statistically small. I like the sea. But I'm more worried about having no escape from the 3,999 other passengers in what amounts to a hotel. That seems like a potential hell without even a disaster.

Looks like they're trying to blame navigational error caused by an engineering casualty -- Power blackout could have caused Italian cruise disaster

Hmmm, when I turn my truck off the cheap (by cruise-ship standards) Garmin Nuvi asks me if I want it to keep running or shutdown, Yes or No -- then a 30 second countdown starts which ends with the Garmin shutting itself off -- otherwise it continues running on battery. My other GPS receivers run on internal batteries (AA/AAA) only and they can run most of a day without having to change those batteries. I don't want to second-guess the cruise ship industry, but just about any cheap handheld GPS loaded with nautical charts could have shown them to be way off course.

Back before GPS nav became the norm, a ship's Captain was held responsible for hitting things and running aground regardless of things malfunctioning. Things malfunctioning was the Captain's responsibility too. With a crew of 1000, I find it amusing that these ships have no apparent back-up to ship-powered GPS. Amusing and sad.

Shouldn't someone have been looking out the window and noticed the giant obstacle called land? Those who navigate by GPS alone are asking for trouble. Your eyes can be really useful for avoiding problems. Use them.

It seems like what the article suggests is not a GPS failure, but a complete engine and steering failure. From the article:



In other words, if this were your truck, it wouldn't be that the Garmin had shut off, but the engine that had shut off. Now, this article is hardly the final word, and I'm sure more details will emerge. There is supposed to be a black box on modern cruisers such as this, so we'll find out more.

Lightweight, thin, and SIMPLE would be important features on a ship. It essentially becomes a close-quarters situation where errant straps, buckles, or dangling doohickies become dangerous because they can snag. That's the last thing you need when navigating narrow confines that can be dark, flooded, and potentially upside down.

What a mess.

If they lost steering control, they are near enough a port it seems that a tender vessel might have been available to pull them to safety? I would think even another ship could have helped out? If you loose control so near to a hazard, might an option have been to drop an anchor while you are still in deep water?

It's seems like a slow motion disaster to me where options might have been available to prevent tragedy.

According to this morning's New York Times article, divers have saved at least two people who were trapped inside the ship, and recovered a couple of bodies.

One thing I have been looking for, but have not yet seen, is a timeline of the sinking. How long was it from the ship first hitting the "rock like object" (as one article put it) until it rolled on it's side? In the MS Estonia disaster in the Baltic Sea, the ship had rolled 90 degrees in no more than 1/2 hour from the initial problem.

Whenever I get on any kind of boat or airplane, the first thing I try to do is locate and fix in my mind where the emergency exits and emergency gear are. When TSHTF things may happen very quickly.

Well, I'm glad that I'm not being tried by you A previous accident is not prima facia proof of guilt.

At this point I would ask the membership to refrain from drawing over hasty conclusions. We just do not know at present.

Was it neligence? Perhaps.
Or equipment failure? Let me give you this possibility: The Solar Maxima has thrown the GPS positioning signal. Actual position was 100m to starboard of position shown on bridge. That is somewhat less than the length of the ship.

We do not know. Yet.

As Bingley correctly points out, what they refer to as "navigational devices" seems to be power to the diesel-electric drive and steerage. That said, the Captain is always at fault for running aground. In this case whomever was in charge of navigation and keeping power to the screws is also at fault. It's fine to say let the investigation run its course, but the fact is a ship that was perfectly fine Friday morning is now lying on its side with casualties.

One article indicates they passed closely by shore to show off to the natives. Cute, until you lose power or sunspots or solar maxima screw up your GPS navigation. The point is that it doesn't matter why they hit a rock that wasn't supposed to be there, they hit it. Whether the rock grew bigger since their last cruise through that area or the tide was too low, or their navigation was off by 30/100/300 feet -- it just doesn't matter. The dog-ate-my-homework excuse just doesn't work here.

There's a reason I actively avoid cruise lines. YMMV

I read that the two bodies found today were of two elderly gentlemen. They were wearing lifevests and reportedly found near an evacuation station. Sounds like these two did what they were supposed to.

It sure isn't, but the decisions I make regarding the safety of my family do not require proof of guilt. Correlation is enough to start with.



We don't know yet why they ran aground, agreed. And we certainly can't count on the news to have gotten the reported details right. However, the information we do have indicates that they did not send a timely Mayday signal, that they hadn't held evacuation drills, and that the evacuation was at least partially botched. I respectfully submit that this allows us to draw some preliminary conclusions.

I can't believe, or find it hard to, that they were not monitoring the bottom contour, heck any cheap fish finder will do that! Point one 45*
ahead & sides to know what you might run into! Yep I know a "big" ship does not turn or stop on a dime but if you know the contour you
also know if you are in the channel.
Check out the cruise Line Name, Costa should never have had a issue
like this regardless of where you board. Regardless of passenger boat drill's you should at least be able to count on the crew being able to keep their heads, not panic and properly respond to a real emergency.
I remember Murphy had a line that fit this situation, Something about plans and training never surviving first contact.
This disaster just proves the point:
If Something, Anything really happens you must be prepared to deal with it yourself.

The shoreline within spitting distance was a good indicator that it was getting shallow. Or is that a hasty conclusion?

I learn of this a day after we got off our cruise ship the Norwegian Sky, after a cuise of the Bahama's.....

A few random thoughts the muster and drill on the ship consisted of meeting at the area my room was to report to, where they showed us how to put on a life jacket. That was it ,nothing about the life boat, how its lowered down how to board ect , what to wear bring, nothing.



I had on me or in a bag next to my chair while swimming my Mission wallet with a few hundred bucks, my work ID ,DL,credit card, and health care card. In the outside slots I had a Fenix AAA led, Space Pen, Attwood Pry Baby. My spyderco H1 Dragon Fly was always clipped to me.

In our room was a pouch with Leatherman, extra light and Batts. and a first aid pouch .
You'll need to go to your room as thats where your life jackets are. I could be to my room in a few minutes from anywhere on board. If everyone acted at first hint something was a miss they all would have had more then enough time and then some.

something i've learned along the way and partly due to my job as a FF, is be one of the first to act.Don't wait and don't always follow what your told.

We all should have learned that from 911. they told those in building 2 to stay put nothing to fear.... same as the crew told the cruise ship guests.......

Oh as for the cruise it self,Ill say this i don;t like crowds or lines, some of my vacations have been canoeing the Yukon, hiking AZ canyons, hunting Montana and the like.

I LOVED the cruise !! tons of spots to be alone if you wish, and nice shows,food,pools and great ports to snorkle at. LOVED IT

On a tangent subject, it's been my observation that most people's initial reaction to an alarm is to ask each other "what's going on?" instead of taking action.

A couple of years ago I was staying in a hotel when the fire alarm tripped. It took me about a minute to grab my jacket, shoes, and briefcase. Even so while I was headed for the fire escape, people were still standing aroung gawking.

Keel haul that scurvy knave of a Captain! Oh wait a minute,it might not be his fault,What's that you say?Yeah,it might have been a mechanical error,therefore the Captain is not at fault,NOT!What scuttlebutt are we talking about here,A 7/11 or something?The Captain is Responsible for Every molecule of that ship,AND 1000 Linear& Cubic yds to Starboard,Port,Fore & Aft, 24/7-Period!The conclusions are valid as soon as She runs aground!He(the captain) will be Lucky,to man the bilge of an Andy Gump,should he be released from his irons!How many of the crew,were on watch?He will be very lucky if he's tried in a UN Maritime court of law,they may end up fining him 50 bucks or something like that,lol!

Mark the sad thing is thats the norm.... Its been my experiance that most folks don't exit for an alarm unless told to or other factors are present, smoke or the smell of and so forth .

Wow, now they're reporting that the captain deliberately veered off the approved course to bring the ship closer to the coastal town and impress the locals and that's when they ran aground and ripped open the hull. No wonder the captain couldn't wait to get off the ship!

I also read that only 696 of the 3,206 passengers had not yet participated in a safety drill at the time of the incident. The ship ran aground three and half hours after that last batch of passengers had boarded and a safety drill was scheduled within the required 24-hour window after that group had embarked.

We should all be following this advice.



Any time I hear someone saying, "don't worry, no need to evacuate" I should be hearing them from behind me as I head out the door.

For me this means only one thing (besides having a flashlight)

CHEAPER FARES ON CRUISES! Whoo Hoo!

The next 4 weeks will be the best time ever to save money on a cruise, and you'll have hyper-vigilant crews everywhere on the globe.

With 16,000,000 passengers last year on cruise ships with no accidental loss of life (and each cruise ship carries the equivalent of over 20 jetliners), this statistical outlier event is going to make it so much cheaper to buy tickets, you won't see prices like this again for YEARS if EVER.

So if you ever wanted to go on a cruise - by all means, make it this year.

Travel industry hasn't reported any downturn in Jan bookings yet, their busiest time of year.

Like an isolated plane crash doesn't deter people from flying for very long...

However, it's still worth looking for deals.

This incident certainly seems to validate that statement.... [/quote]

No, no it does not.

Look, I'm all for safety and all that, but I'm also realistic about risks, and cruise ships are NOT "death traps" by any rational definition of the term.

In terms of passenger miles, in terms of hours at sea, by basically any metric, cruise ships are generally safe. Yes, a ship lying on its side in some harbor somewhere is sad, scary, whatever. And the last time you saw the same things was....??? Go ahead. Think a while. I'll wait.
Yeah, I can't think of anything either without resorting to Google search.

And that's my point. Now think a moment about the last fatal car wreck you're aware of. Last week? Last month? Last year? There's at least one in your memory, probably more.

Don't let the drama of the media overwhelm your rational brain. It's on the news because it's rare, "impossible" and terrifying. Yet, today, over a dozen people will fall of a ladder and die. Today, several child will ingest poison and die. Today, someone will get killed on the job by electricity. Today, hundreds of people will die of a heart attack. Today, thousands of people will die of chronic illness. And today, there is one cruise ship, at one location, where 0.52% of the people on the ship didn't get out. 0.52%. That means 99.48% of the people on that ship got out in time. That's a pretty good number in any emergency at this scale. Certainly a better survival rate than a plane crash, which tend toward 0% survival.

I grew up on the coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico...while it is unlikely I'll be doing any cruising in the near future, but if so would like the ship's officers to be graduates of the US Naval Academy, with USS preceeding the ship's name, and the letters CVN followed by numbers between 68 and 77

Good point Martin. I have been on dozens of cruises without any hint of a problem.

For me, statistics don't make something a Death Trap. The ability to escape when trouble starts is what defines it for me. You can't even jump overboard on a cruise ship without risking serious injury. You are essentially trapped on board until they let you off.

High rises, airplanes, and even taxi-cabs all have this potential.

But the the facts - the evidence - that's all that matters in the end.

Look, I'm in emergency management. We have to think risk modeling all the time, and one of the instructors at a course I took reminded the class that the most dangerous thing we did so far on the day of the class was drive to the training center.

News today .. the cruise ship line has pointed blame directly at the captain. Not good for him.

Looking at it rationally, there were something like 3,000-4,000 people on this boat. Do I have this right? And only 5-6 died. Which means that 99.9% of the passengers survived the incident, even though the boat wound up on its side. That's actually a pretty positive outcome :-) Especially when you consider that some passengers are elderly, and some may have limited ability to move and be agile. How on Earth do handicapped people make it off the boat, when it is tipped over sideways? So apparently some passngers and crew must have done a great job of assisting those in need during this emergency.

cheers,
Pete2

I was just looking at the BBC news report and photo's of the sunken ship. I noticed a couple of things ...

1. If you flip through the pix of the incident at the following BBC site, they have a remarkable photo showing one of the rocks that sunk the ship. The rock is still embedded in the hull of the ship.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16582060

2. I was very impressed with the Coast Guard divers who are doing the rescue. For some reason I had assumed that they were just swimming around the outer parts of the ship that were underwater - looking for bodies. But these divers are actually swimming along the narrow submerged corridors, and checking every cabin room that is fully (or partially) submerged. That is hazardous ... and pretty gutsy!!!

A hat tip to the Coast Guard divers who are making this heroic effort. WELL DONE !!!

And by the way ... if you look at the 1'st photo shown by the BBC.
That large cruise ship is extremely close to the rocks jutting out into the ocean.
OK ... maybe there is some photo effect from the telescopic lens that shot the picture.
But just the same - it was really bad judgment to be that close to land.
What on Earth were the captain and navigator thinking???

Pete2

Reading this piece about an American couple on their honeymoon on the doomed cruise ship raised an excellent issue--so what do you do after you escape the sinking ship and are safe? If you're basically left with the clothes on your back in a foreign land, do you have any contingencies to get home?

It's been a while since I bought travel insurance. Would that arrange for and pay for medical care or transport if you didn't have any cash or credit cards? Or would you have to somehow scrounge up the money first and then get reimbursed later? (Better than nothing, but not really want you need the most when you really need that medical help or ticket home.)

1) Have an American Express Card. It's helpful to have the numbers on it memorized.

2) Once the immediate dangers are past, get access to a phone. Call them collect and ask for Global Assist.

3) Wait not very long at all while they bring you travelers' checks, a replacement American Express Card, a ride, and suggestions for a place to stay.

4) Get replacement passport or other travel documents from the US Consulate or Embassy.


While my experience with Global Assist overseas was far less harrowing than a cruise ship sinking, it was nice to see how quickly they had me taken care of.

Another option open to me is to call my mother, my sister, or my brother-in-law, and have my sister's lovely Italian in-laws come get me. I'd call them directly but I don't have their numbers.

Travel insurance is an excellent choice. Good travel insurance will indeed arrange for and pay for medical care or transport, in addition to providing emergency access to cash if things go badly awry.

I've no affiliation with American Express other than as a customer.

An article I read yesterday detailed the account of one of the entertainers aboard the ship. When told to continue as though everything was fine, she went to her cabin and got ready.

Apparently she and her group do summers in the UK and winters doing cruise ships in the Mediterranean. She'd been there, done that and knew things weren't right. While she and others in her group helped many of the passengers and were (according to her) the last off the ship, the Captain left way earlier, like before midnight.

From everything I've read, with the time available from initial collision until the ship fell over, no one should have perished. There was plenty of time to completely abandon ship except that the Captain delayed in order to move the ship away from where he was way off course and too close to the reef. This was a lame attempt to cover his A** and will only make the case against him in court that much more damning. They delayed making the call to the Coast Guard for an hour -- Unforgivable.

Think about having a small Go-Bag right next to your life vest containing paperwork (passports, tickets, cash, et al) and put on warm casual clothes to make yourself a bit more comfortable in a life raft.

I use travel insurance when I go to remote places around the world. The cost is affordable. I usually use TravMed. I've been lucky, and never had to rely on this option so far.

However, I don't recall any policy from them about providing cash in the event of an emergency. It's actually a really good question. Suppose you are safe - you manage to get away from a bad location - but you need cash now. I guess you can always go back to the time-tested routine of washing dishes at a local restaurant. Hahaha !
Most travel policies cover emergencies ... usually the costs of hospitalization and evacuation. I don't think they offer money.

The suggestion above to make an emergency phone call to AmEx is probably an excellent idea.

Pete2

Re the divers: I wonder if they have brought in anyone with experince diving wrecks or at least caves. In the images of divers I've seen so far they are only diving with one tank. I guess if it failed they could buddy-breath. While lost. In zero viz. In an unstable ship. As they try to untagle each other from debris.

Recreational cave and wreck divers are just plain nuts, but these guys are certainly heroic.

Never been called 'irrational' before this comment. Nice job.

thseng

I was thinking the same thing about these divers. I did quite a lot of scuba diving when I was younger. I only ventured short distances into underwater caves and grotto's, and never went deep enough that I couldn't make it back out pretty easily. I was never a cave diver.

I am a bit surprised that the divers are using normal equipment. Maybe they are working in pairs - I guess we would expect them to use the buddy system. It does seem like the underwater passageways of that ship pose some risks.

cheers,
Pete2

A wreck that has been submerged for a while has at least achieved relative stability. The mind reels at the situation divers could encounter in terms of debris and entanglement hazards in this quite recent and evidently unstable mess.

In a situation like this, I wouldn't put much faith in a buddy system.

Some of those photos are stunning -- especially the pics showing the massive hulk in relation to the boats in the dock.

Read that this cruise ship is well more than twice the tonnage of the Titanic.

Am interested to find out how the other dimensions compare.

Read the book Shadow Divers to get an idea how treacherous a wreck can be.

At least these guys don't have to worry about nitrogen narcosis, decompression, and coming up out of sight of the boat in the middle of the ocean if you lose the anchor cable... but they still have to deal with low vizibility, entanglement and disorientation.

Another one that gives me the chills is the story of the escape from the sunken sub S-5.

At least some policies from some insurers will do this.

More info and several remarkable and large high-res photos at this link below. Also a couple videos:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...passengers.html


"...was sailing just 300 yards from the island’s rocky coast when it should have been at least four miles out to sea."

Oh, I just LOVE the caption to this picture:

caption: Capsizing: Panicked passengers wearing life-jackets assemble to escape from the ship after it ran on to rocks

Looks like a calm and composed bunch to me. Very un-panickly, if you ask me... but that's typical. People panick FAR LESS than the media will have us believe.

The accusations made in that article are stunning.

Thanks for the link. One of the pictures is especially poignant. Someone really should rearrange and straighten out those deck chairs.....

So far in life I just haven't been that interested in vacationing on a cruise ship. Did look into some Windjammer cruises once upon a time but that's a whole different experience.

http://www.windjammercruises.com/

This Italian disaster wouldn't make me less likely to go on a cruise but I'd surely do more research into a cruise line's safety record and practices. As important, I'd do what we do on ETS after disasters happen and consider what items and strategies I could reasonably deploy in certain situations (power outage, capsizing).

This disaster will make me more more cognizant of safety, at least for awhile, on any size boat. Most of my big boat experience has been Greek ferries in the Aegean (one of which was especially creepy because it listed the entire time -- as if the vehicles were not evenly loaded -- and for hours we watched the railing in relation to the horizon with considerable trepidation) and a boat that took me and some others on a work-related excursion in the Panama Canal (a decade ago and I had given zero thought before or during to safety and EDC).

My most recent commercial vessel experience was a ferry from Ocracoke Island, NC to Hatteras Island. That was just a few months ago. If we'd had to abandon ship on that excursion I'd have had two big dogs to get into the lifeboat with.

But if it had simply been a mechanical malfunction that left us drifting we'd have been in pretty good shape because I had my Honda Element there and it is extremely well outfitted with gear and food for a couple days.

What's going to be most interesting to me as the Italian disaster investigation unfolds is the Captain's actions and the crew's reactions which may have led to the wreck and which affected the evacuation. I'm wondering if this is all due to the recklessness and hubris of this one captain or if there is a culture in that cruise line that had failed to put passenger safety #1.

We'll see. Meanwhile and possibly for the rest of his life, that captain is going to experience the hell of infamy.

Any time you are on a boat, there should be a safety orientation and something equivalent to a life boat drill. If one is going on a vacation cruise, there is something fundamentally dissonant about drilling with life boats and preparing for disasters; after all, as Martin points out, they are rather rare. So I am not surprised that such procedures would not have been emphasized on this cruise ship. But consider, when was the last time you took a commercial flight and the crew skipped the bit about the seat belts and the oxygen tube and exit procedures....

Most of my work on the water has been on National Park Service vessels, working boats which are definitely not cruise liners. There has always been a safety orientation, pointing out where the PFDs are available and where the life rafts are located. After all, the boat is small and the ocean is big.

Video of the ship showing off before the crash. It was in impressive sight all lit up at night:

http://gcaptain.com/back-soon/load.html?37739

It is looking worse and worse for the captain. I've read elsewhere that the 1st officer is also under arrest.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/17/us-italy-ship-idUSTRE80D08220120117

"Listen Schettino, perhaps you have saved yourself from the sea, but I will make you look very bad. I will make you pay for this. Dammit, go back on board!" one coastguard says.

Speaking by radio from a lifeboat, Schettino pleads: "Do you realize that it is dark and we can't see anything?"

The coastguard shouts back: "So, what do you want to do, to go home, Schettino?! It's dark and you want to go home? Go to the bow of the ship where the ladder is and tell me what needs to be done, how many people there are, and what they need! Now!"


The alarm was raised not by an SOS from the ship but mobile phone calls from passengers on board to Italian police on the mainland.

Wow ... that's amazing stuff.

I guess that captain wasn't the "last man to go down with the ship". That behavior is really going to hurt him in court.

The statements from the Coast Guard are seriously harsh.
Lucky they didn't have a gun in their hands.
Hahahaha !!!

Pete2

The captain certainly doesn't sound like someone who takes his responsibility seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if the 1st officer strongly disagreed with the captain's actions, starting with steering the ship closer to the coast, but the command culture may not really allow him to do anything but accompany the captain as he left the ship. That's the same kind of culture that resulted in the horrible collision of two 747's on the runway at Tenerife that killed almost 600 passengers. The co-pilot had reservations before the crash but had to follow the pilot's orders to take off in the fog.

An American couple who just returned to the US was interviewed. They had disembarked the ship before the disaster, however, they dined at a table near the captain's table and the husband remarked at the time to his wife that the captain looked like someone who only cares about himself. Guess that guy is a pretty decent judge of character.

I am amazed by "it's dark." Of course it was dark, but it was also dark for the hundreds, if not thousands of people stranded on the ship. The captain sounded like a weak man, almost a child, pleading to be let out of a chore because he was scared. Did he lack the mental fortitude to execute his duties in a ship wreck? Was he so shocked that he was basically useless? Did he lack a sense of responsibility towards his passengers?

Apparently he did not return to the ship even after being so harshly scolded by the coast guard.

Very sad. The whole disaster sounds avoidable.

Interesting. International maritime standards only require lifeboats for 75% of passengers. Puts a new twist on the saying, "You buy your ticket, you take your chances".

Cite? I was under the impression that this was fixed after the Titanic. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat_%28shipboard%29, merchant vessels must have lifeboats sufficient for all the people on board.

I wonder if it has anything to do with how computerized and sanitized, for lack of a better term, those positions have become. Those ships are modern engineering marvels where everything is geared for absolute comfort. I imagine it would be easy to forget you were even at sea. Those running the ship probably never entertained the idea that such a catastrophic failure could occur, which could partially explain their reactions. That combined with lack of training is a recipe for failure. Not excusing their behavior in any way, just trying to understand why they would react that way.

It is my understanding that once a ship lists past a certain degree there is a good chance the lowering mechanisms won't work properly if you can even get into the lifeboat.

But why would you need lifeboats? Didn't you know that cruise ships are nearly 100% safe.

Also, as someone astutely pointed out, when things start going wrong it can be all over quickly. Lowering enough lifeboats to save everyone on board quickly is probably pipe dream. The logistics of mass exodus would be hard to manage under the best circumstances.

I wonder if anyone has conducted a test to determine how long it would take to disembark a super-cruiser full of passengers into life rafts under ideal conditions. I suspect it takes much longer than would be acceptable in a crisis.

I'm pretty sure the US Coast Guard has.



They had time, in this case, and squandered much of it.

Are you speculating or do you know for sure? Not trying to be argumentative just curious where you would get 4,200 volunteers with a population that matches the demographic of an average passenger list for that test. And as a regular cruiser, I would like to know those results.

I was reading this news article. It states:

However, maybe that's sloppy research being reported? I found one informative slide at International Maritime Organization website that compares the safety standards when the Titanic sank to current standards.

That slide indicates that a passenger ship must have enough lifeboats for 100% of passengers plus enough liferafts for 25%.

Furthermore, the IMO explains the safety philosophy of regulations for ever larger cruise ships going forward here. The ship itself should be the primary lifeboat in case of disaster.


It reminds me of the fire safety philosophy of one of the newer mega-skyscrapers. I forget if it was the Taipei 101 building in Taiwan (an impressive view from the top!) or one of the buildings in Shanghai. Anyway, that building has fire-resistant floors interspersed throughout the building where occupants will shelter inside in the event of fire, instead of trying to evacuate the building. Instead of walking down dozens or even a hundred floors to reach safety from fire, they just need to move a few floors to reach shelter. I'm not sure if that is a fire code or just applied to that one building. Makes a whole lot of sense to me, though.

It seems there is in fact a difference between requirements specified in maritime law and those specified in SOLAS, with SOLAS being a higher standard.

It's possible, since it is up to each country to enact laws that hopefully fulfill any international standards like SOLAS.

The Costa Concordia is an interesting case for maritime law. You have an Italian captain for an Italian flagged vessel that has an incident in Italian territorial waters. That's seems very clear cut compared to your more typical disaster out in international waters with a captain from one country and the vessel being registered in some third country and lot's of grey areas involved.

Unless it is sinking with a 150 ft gash in its hull. The first thing we need to do to make "a ship is its own best lifeboat" is to build them such that they cannot under any circumstance sink -- not going to happen.

Italy is going to make this former Captain's life a living H***

Fire has always been my #1 concern on a cruise ships. That's why I won't go unless I can book a cabin with a balcony.

People who 'cruise on the cheap' say that they really don't spend much time in their cabin. That's because they are usually very small. If you are over 6' prepare to be uncomfortable if you cruise steerage class. Not to mention water sloshing on the port hole can be unsettling if you are lucky enough to have one.

Also, older cruise ships can get a little ripe with mold operating in the tropics. Fresh air is always a nice upgrade.

That didn't seem argumentative to me.

I was speculating, based on the USCG requirement for cruise ships in US waters to go through periodic safety inspections, including abandon ship drills. SOLAS supposedly requires that everybody be able to get off within half an hour after mustering (I can't find a copy of SOLAS that doesn't cost money). Half an hour seems like a really long time after mustering; you should be able to load the lifeboats and put them in the water in 15 minutes or less if the ship isn't listing or otherwise making movement of the passengers or the lifeboats difficult.

Interview with a British couple who got off the boat.
They were amongst the last 100 to be evacuated off-ship.
They explain when the passengers got panicky during the process.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17..._n_1210147.html

Looks like the ship captain did ONE thing right.
After the ship was holed, it continued out to deeper water.
Apparently he turned the boat and brought it back into the shallows.
That stopped the cruise liner from completely capsizing when it took on water -
the ship listed but did not turn over. Probably saved countless lives.
But does not excuse his early departure from the boat.

Pete2

Does anyone know how long it actually took from the time the "abandon ship" order was given until all the living passengers were off the ship? The warm weather, and water temps no doubt saved lives. Can you imagine this scenario playing out on an Alaskan glacier cruise.

Apparently a number of life boats were the water 10 mins after the abandon ship order was given. Authorities apparently believe the evac started before the order was given, so this is not a good example.

I read that some of the crew mutinied over delay in the abandon ship order and started anyway.

Don't know if its been posted but this is the best recording I've found of the conversation between the coast guard and capt. Schettino. Holy crap.

Coast Guard talking to Costa Concordia

Has the official number of Survivors been reported?

Mutiny is a strong word. It may not be mutinous to abandon ship in the absence of orders. Perhaps the crew exercised initiative instead?

The article I read said there was 'discussion' with the captain and then some crew acted anyway. That sounds like mutiny to me. I will see if I can find the article...

From the BBC news today ...

-----------------------------
The captain of the Costa Concordia, which crashed into rocks off the Italian coast and capsized, has been criticised for allegedly leaving the ship while passengers were still on board. Is a ship's captain legally required to be the last one off?

In the popular tradition of the sea, a ship's captain is expected to stay until all the passengers have been safely evacuated.

Fixed in the public imagination is Captain Edward Smith of the Titanic, who was last seen on or near the bridge of the ship as it went down.

In contrast, Captain Francesco Schettino is said to have left the Costa Concordia while many passengers were still struggling to reach safety. He was later said to have taken a taxi to a hotel, asking the driver where he could buy socks.
-------------------------------

There was a great comment from reader feedback on one of the Internet news sites.
A guy observed ... "Italians and panic never go well together!".

Hahahahaha !
Well at least this captain knew enough to keep his toes warm after the crisis.

Does anyone know where the nautical tradition that "the captain must always be the last person to leave the ship" actually came from?
It seems to be a well-respected custom, but who exactly came up with it??

Pete2

If the Captain is being charged for not acting, is it mutany if they acted withou this consent?

Until the captain is relieved of command...

Boy, this captain should be a comedian!

According to this article, the captain is claiming that he left the ship early by accident.

There is another version: the captain must go down with the ship. I seem to recall this was practiced in certain navies way back when. Does anyone know the details?

I hope the more draconian version doesn't apply to us recreational boaters. Man, I'd hate to go down with my Sunfish.

On another note, I am sure there are many Italian men and women who will rise up to equanimity and courage in the face of panic and catastrophe. Just not Schettino.

Apparently you are if you shipwreck in Italian waters on an Italian-flagged ship. The captain is screwed.

From this article:

Arney got it. The Captain being the last one off when abandoning ship has long been tradition, but it is apparently codified in Italian maritime law. Former Captain Schettino has already been hammered in Italy's public opinion and will soon see it carried out in court.

I'm guessing that he'll also face counts of manslaughter equal to the number of passengers that perished.

This is an impressive picture of the wreck. Almost looks like a Photoshop job.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16615145?ref=nf

Schettino's lawyer, Bruno Leporatti, told a news conference in Grosetto that "house arrest made sense given there was no evidence the captain intended to flee."

LOL! Only a lawyer could say this with a straight face.

Looks like a scene from "Wall-E"!

I seem to recall from somewhere that one reason the captain goes down with the ship is in case the ship doesn't actually go down - with no one on board the ship and its cargo would be fair game for salvage.

I have heard that, too, although I briefly heard something about the Concordia situation being different in terms of salvage rights. Perhaps something about the rules being different with an Italian-flagged vessel in Italian waters.

Actually, would the whole ship be considered a crime scene or evidence now?

Interesting interactive timeline

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/interact...r-unfolded.html



-

I still haven't been able to find any information about how long it took for all the passengers to get off the ship. Has anyone found that information in their reading?

There was an article out fairly early about the entertainers on the Costa Concordia. That article was where I read for the first time about the Captain exiting early and the crew (including the entertainers) assisting the passengers. The dancer interviewed was one of the last off at ~0300 IIRC. It was a DailyMail article -- 'Forget women and children first, it was every man for himself' -- lots of good tidbits in that article. So if they started abandoning at 1030 or thereabouts, looks like it took 4-5 hours. But as we know some of the peeps were still aboard and it was dark

This morning I read an article about the deputy mayor of Giglio, the island near which the ship ran aground. The mayor sent him to coordinate the rescue onboard. He got to the ship around 11, and stayed until 3 in the morning to help evacuate the ship. It seems that he and the entertainers left around the same time, so this agreement suggests that was the time when almost everyone was rescued. The deputy mayor was very unimpressed, to say the least, that the captain didn't get on board, because he got on board.

The captain's young blonde female companion (for those following the news) said that he stayed until 11:30 -- that is, until he accidentally fell off the ship and directly into a boat. If she is his girlfriend, I guess she'll have to start thinking about what she'll do during his 12-year prison term.

You'd think the captain couldn't be more absurd and then this article comes out and the ship's chef says the captain ordered dinner for himself and his "girlfriend" one hour after the shipwreck.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/world/europe/italy-cruise-cook/index.html

If this and the other strange anecdotal accounts we have heard are true, it makes me wonder if the Captain was intoxicated.

When you get into a car accident with injuries in my home state, you are giving a drug and alcohol tests. I wonder if any such measures are taken in these circumstances.

While driving tonight, I heard a guest on a radio segment mention that it took 14 hours until the final passengers were evacuated. I assume he was referring to the Korean couple on their honeymoon who were rescued along with a crew member with a broken leg.

I understood that ships only need rigid hulled lifeBOATS for a proportion of those on board, but must have inflatable lifeRAFTS for the rest.
The total spaces in boats and rafts has to be at least twice the capacity of the ship, in order that all on board may be saved if fire or capsize prevents the use of the rafts or boats on one side of the ship.

I believe the reason for this is twofold.

Firstly a rigid hulled boat is preferable for the sick, injured, very old, or very young, but the able bodied should be fine in rafts.
Secondly, an inflatable life raft is effectively a single use item. But a lifeboat can be launched, recovered and replaced in its davits for re-use. This can be very useful in an emergency that does not require abondoning ship. For example a sick or injured person can be taken ashore in a ships lifeboat, or a doctor fetched in the lifeboat, if the ship is too large to dock.

Lifeboats are almost allways mechanicly propelled and may therefore move against the current to land, liferafts drift and normally rely on the occupants being rescued by other craft.

I have always been curious how inflatable life rafts are used in an emergency on a cruise ship. Assuming the ship is still upright, you have to lower it and yourself almost five stories from the deck to the water. Does anyone know how that works?

I dunno, but here are some people training for it...

What I've most recently read is that each side of the ship must have enough fully-enclosed lifeboats to accommodate 50% of the passengers or more, plus enough rigid or inflatable liferafts to accommodate 25%, for a total capacity of 125%.

I got that from a few places, including http://www.captainsvoyage-forum.com/show...ssenger-vessels .



True. Long-term survival at sea is significantly impacted by the availability of overhead cover. Also, a fully-enclosed lifeboat may be survivable (if tremendously uncomfortable) in sea states that would throw anybody out of a liferaft.

On the smaller vessels with which I am familiar, the inflatable life rafts are placed so that they will float free as the vessel sinks. Keep a knife handy because you will want to sever the line that attaches them to the vessel. I understand one is provided on the raft, but the one on your person is the one to count on....

On something the size of a cruise ship, I would think the suction generated by the sinking vessel would be a serious impediment.

So, what happened to the thousands of passengers evacuated off the ship? I've seen stories about particular individuals, but I don't know if those stories are representative. Did Carnival put them up? Did the little town have to house them? Or was everyone left to fend for themselves? Even catching a flight involves being transported elsewhere.

From the news post by Russ above - pertaining to the british dancers on the boat.

"...his daughter was told by superiors to put on her cocktail dress and tell passengers the problem was only an electrical fault."

The lawyers are going to have a field day with the handling of this evacuation. An absolute field day.
Hahahaha !!!

On the other hand .. this quote below does not make me happy.
What is the matter with people these days???

"DailyMail article -- 'Forget women and children first, it was every man for himself'"

Pete2

Ah, maybe that's what the article I quoted before was referring to--the capacity only along one side of the ship? That would make more sense.

I'm not sure at what point the ship listed too far to make the lifeboats/rafts on the "top" side of the side inoperable. I don't know if any passengers escaped in lifeboats from the "top" side of the ship.

This is one of the worst things about how the incident was handled -- if the captain had ordered abandon ship in a timely fashion, they would have had hours to use all the lifeboats before the ship was listing too much for one side to not work.

This whole story just gets more weird every day. A new article in the Christian Science Monitor has a few more tidbits:

"Between 9 p.m. and 10:50 p.m., Schettino and Ms. Cemortan, who works for the cruise line but was not employed for the cruise, were seen eating and drinking together. The two were caught on an amateur camera at 9 p.m. in a ship restaurant. Cemortan, who gave an interview to a Romanian paper Thursday, said she was dining with Schettino at 9:30 p.m., around the time the boat hit the rocks. Rogelio Barista, a ship cook, told Manila TV he was befuddled by orders from the captain at 10:15 to serve food, including dessert, to Cemortan."

Even if the close approach to the island was authorized by management, I can't imagine any captain who would not be on the bridge during such a risky manuever, watching the helm like a hawk?

Also:

"What Schettino himself told investigators is that he tripped and fell into a lifeboat accidentally while trying to help others. What remains unexplained is how he landed in the same lifeboat as the No. 1 and No. 2 next ranking Concordia officers."

Just a coincidence, no doubt.

Think about this a bit. You are the captain of the ship and you have freedom of choice. You could be on the bridge, watching the helm like a hawk, or you could be with the nice lady, utilizing your hawk-like observational skills ..uh...otherwise....

It's easy to be smug about the choice we would make, but we are all too often very human.....

I presume you are being somewhat tongue in cheek???

As someone once said, the ocean is usually pretty safe. It is the hard stuff around the edges that causes problems. While I wouldn't begrudge a captain the company of a nice lady, there are certain times when I would expect him to be paying attention to his day job. When sailing close inshore is one of those times.

Simularly, I would expect an aircraft pilot to be in control (of the plane), at least during takeoffs and landings.

If you did get pulled under by 'suction' alone and had life-jacket on, I am pretty sure you would bob right back up to the surface. You might need a fresh pair of undies, but I think you would be OK, assuming you didn't drown in the process.

Who, me, tongue in cheek? To be perfectly serious, the conduct of this "captain" certainly looks like an absolutely astonishing dereliction of duty - that should play out in court in due course.

Isn't it interesting that this wreck occurs one hundred years after the [/i]Titanic[i]disaster. You will recall that the captain of that vessel, Edward Smith, perished along with many of the crew while assisting the passengers. And, indeed, it was women and children first.

And that, my friends, is the takehome nugget for maritime survival!

Apparently the rules say there has to be a drill within the first 24 hours. In this cruise, it was scheduled for the next day; the ship had left port earlier on Friday, so for many passengers this wreck happened on their first night on board. So, a bit of unlucky timing there.

There's an article about the tradition on The Guardian.

Accident happened at 9:40pm. Abandon ship given at 10:50. At 2:30am, there were 300 people left. So around 4 hours.

It sounds like a long time to me, especially compared with the 90 seconds allowed to evacuate a jumbo jet, but apparently its normal to take many hours. It took a couple of hours to evacuate the World Trade Centres, and I've read of other cruise ships also taking hours. Obviously conditions here were not ideal; the ship listing meant that half the lifeboats couldn't be used. On the other hand, the ship being in shallow water meant it didn't disappear under.

Early reports implied that the power cut caused the crash rather than vice versa. I am not yet clear who knew what when. The passengers were suspicious very early, and happened to be right, but that doesn't mean much. The crew who reassured them may not have known any better. Did the captain know immediately that the ship was holed?

Although it looks bad for him, the way the company hung him out to dry so quickly, was disconcerting. There's a lot of PR, manoeuvring over possible law-suits, and trial-by-media going on.

The captain, from what I have read so far, has done at least one thing right. He hasn't tried to shift the blame to his crew.

While we're talking about maritime traditions, some say the Costa Concordia was doomed from the start of her service. When the ship was launched, the ceremonial bottle of champagne swung over on a rope to smash into the bow of the ship simply bounced off the hull instead. A very bad omen to seafarers.

Patience, my friend, patience. I expect that option will be explored by his lawyers at some point...!

"Accident happened at 9:40pm. Abandon ship given at 10:50. At 2:30am, there were 300 people left. So around 4 hours. It sounds like a long time to me."

It's important to make sure that the wine bottle is emptied.
Especially in the company of an attractive lady.
You don't want to waste a fine red wine.
That would be so un-Italian.

HAHAHAHAHA !!!

Pete2

There is a new article "Costa Concordia: the inside story of the night of Friday, January 13" which has some interesting information.

While I have yet to see a complete, concise timeline, it would appear that things went bad very fast. The initial damage seems to have occured at about 9:40 pm. According to the Telegraph article above, people felt a strong impact, and the lights went out quickly.

The Third Officer was in his cabin, and when he opened his door there was already water in the passageway. He went immediately to the engine room, which was already beginning to flood. “Within 15 minutes, the engine room told the bridge that there was nothing to be done,” he said. “The situation was beyond repair.” By 9:45 pm the ship had a 7 degree list.

Assuming this is a reasonably accurate timeline, the delays by the captain in calling for assistance, telling people all was well, and giving the abandon ship order is unfathomable.

One also wonders why the ships watertight bulkheads didn't seem to slow the flooding, or control it entirely. The hull damage visible in the phots that have been published, while severe, does not seem to have gone the length of the ship. I would speculate that either there is more hull damage than has been visible, or some or all of the bulkhead hatches were never closed.

"Assuming this is a reasonably accurate timeline, the delays by the captain in calling for assistance, telling people all was well, and giving the abandon ship order is unfathomable."

Indeed ... it is complete incompetence.
It reflects deep denial about what was going on.
Surely if there was major water intrusion in the engine room and the lower decks - the correct thing to do was to tell passengers to put on life jackets and to go to emergency stations immediately. And the crew should have prepared the lifeboats immediately.

Numerous accounts showing that passengers were first told that there was no serious problem - show unforgiveable actions by the captain and crew.

Pete2

Interesting article about the paralyzing effects of panic as a possible explanation for the the captain's behavior.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...tain-panic.html

Thanks for the refeence, but i can't say I was impressed - typical pop psychology blather....

Here are some possible explanations for the captain's behavior:

1. Incompetence - Bad decision from information available
2. Negligence - Hoped everything was OK rather than acting on information
3. Bad information from crew
4. Paralyzed by fear
5. Flawed character for leadership (see above)
6. Judgement clouded by alcohol
7. Distracted by a pretty woman
8. Arrogance - Thought he had situation under control
9. He didn't do anything wrong. We are misinterpreting available information/speculation/etc
10. Costa management/ownership was aware of this behavior (show boating with close runs to islands) from other captains and allowed it to continue.

Any others? Any votes?

My speculation is combination of the above except 3 & 9.

Really? Do you think he forgot his ship had a black box?

On gcaptain.com is a video showing the final movements of the Costa Concordia, together with a commentary by a different captain (Konrad).

Briefly: the engine room was flooded quickly after the first impact and they lost power to the main propeller, so the captain is controlling the ship with rudder only. He aims for the port but can't make it. He turns the ship sideways with the rudder which slows it more quickly until it is virtually stopped. Then he is able to use the bow thrusters (on emergency power - and they only work at low speed) to turn it right around. At that point the commentary speculates that the ship was taken by wind and current until it ran aground.

It seems to me that without power, there wasn't a lot of opportunity to do anything, never mind attempt to cover his A**. I gather also it is not easy to launch lifeboats from a ship under way, so it makes sense to delay abandon ship until it was stopped. I gather also that the final running aground at an angle, and subsequent listing, was a bad thing, but if the current or wind took it and he had no power, he might not have had much choice about that. It seems to me that being aground at least meant the ship didn't sink below the surface, so they had as long as they needed to evacuate.

Even if you can't launch lifeboats until the ship slows down, you don't tell the passengers that "it's just a problem with the generator and to remain calm." You get them into PFD's & to lifeboat stations PDQ.

Thank God for the wind. Had the captain been able to get to deeper water, it seems likely it would have capsized, killing a lot more people. Here I thought it was some purposeful strategy to run aground and really it was divine intervention or if you want, luck.

Maybe it was, just wasn't by the captain? Seems strange given he ran away at first opportunity that he would had the mind to facilitate such an plan.

Indeed, it seems fortuitous that the Concordia hit bottom where it did because it could have easily sunk completely or capsized.

I saw a computer graphic on the evening news showing the rather steep sea shelf that the Concordia is resting on now. Waves and the current could easily knock it loose, causing it to slide down this shelf into much deeper water, not to mention roll over repeatedly on its way down. That would likely be lethal to any rescue/recovery personnel onboard.

No doubt the divers involved in this effort are brave individuals. I have done some wreck diving on small vessels and it was unsettling to me in near ideal conditions. This work seems terrifying to me. Thankfully, there are people willing to risk it all, just in case there are survivors hold up somewhere on this death trap.

In another thread we are talking about cave rescue - tight spaces, darkness, a network of confusing passages. Now add water, the necessity to carry your own air supply (bulky, awkward, and finite), lots of opportunity for entanglement, and you have the situation on this ship.

Diving in restricted overhead situations, wrecks and caves, is far more hazardous than open water scuba, even with trained people.

A family from Girdwood, Alaska was on the Costa Concordia and has told their story in a local publication. (Girdwood is a small town about 35 miles south of Anchorage, and is the site of the Alyeska Ski Resort.) After boarding, they had gone to their cabin and slept through the initial collision with the rocks. Later, awakened by a ship's alarm, they were told it was just "a power outage". However, when the ship started listing, they made a very sensible choice:

“I just said, ‘let’s just go up on deck and be safe, and we’ll watch the stars. It’s probably nothing, but I don’t feel comfortable staying in the room down in this maze of hallways.’ And we really weren’t familiar with the boat yet, having been on there for only a few hours. We basically got on dead tired, had dinner and went to bed. And we did not know the way out.”

I think the take away message is, if things don't feel right, they probably aren't right. Then it's definatly time to at least start thinking about "what if". Note that they also had the good sense to grab a headlamp from their stuff, and have the kids get fully dressed.