PDA

View Full Version : Costa Concordia Trial



Paul Racine
25th September 2013, 04:47 AM
Even though it is early days in the trial of the captain of the Costa Concordia I would like to open a discussion and see where it leads us.
The first major piece coming out of the trial is the assertion by Captain Schettino that the helmsman is to blame for not reacting promptly to his command and that if he had, there would have been no collision with the underwater shelf.
I know that when I was steering every command given by a bridge officer or pilot had to be immediately repeated by the helmsman. This is one of the most basic rules of steering procedure and was drilled into me from the first moment I stood behind the wheel. I find it very odd that after the captain gave a command and when there was no immediate response from the helmsman the captain didn’t react at once. These are the basics. You give a command, it comes right back at you. Any captain or officer on a well-managed bridge should have been aware of this. So where does the fault lie? With the captain or the helmsman? The other thing worth mentioning was that the helmsman was Indonesian and perhaps he didn’t understand the command. One has to ask the question how any master of a major multimillion dollar cruise ship could allow critical bridge personnel be in such a position of responsibility and not have a very good command of the language. But what was the language spoken on the bridge? English, Italian? Interesting! Something is not right about all of this.
I think that as the trial goes on there will be many more items brought up that will keep us all enthralled.

Paul in Montreal

Des Taff Jenkins
25th September 2013, 06:36 AM
HI Paul.
It was good to see that they have hauled the Concordia off the rocks. I agree with you about the command situation
And possible language difficulties, but by all accounts of the Captains behavior after the collision seems to me that he is desperately trying to shed the blame.
Cheers Des

happy daze john in oz
25th September 2013, 06:39 AM
The problem here is one of getting to the truth of the matter, not an easy task given the circumstances. If I recall the dear captian was having dinner at the time of the incident, if this is so how could he have given the helmsman orders? there was a pilot on the bridge as well as the officer of the watch then the question is how did such an event happen? is more to this than we are currently aware

John Arton
25th September 2013, 07:03 AM
Regarding language on board, he has no real defence for saying the helmsman did not understand him.
ISM requires that their is a common language on board and throughout the company management.
This language has to be stated in the company's management policy and also in the bridge and engine room log books.
All Officers and ratings forming part of a navigational or engineering watch have to be capable of understanding orders in this language and undertake a test (MARLINS) to ensure that they are capable of doing so. It is the responsibility of the company's management to ensure that they only employ personnel in these positions who have passed this language test (spoken and written) and the person responsible for signing on the crew (the Master) has to check that all crew members in these positions hold such a certificate along with all the other STCW requirements.
I would suspect that once he realised the proximity to danger that the captain reverted to his native language or rushing his commands to make them unintelligible.
The voyage data recorder will either prove or disprove his defence when it is played back at the trial but the irrefutable fact is he took his extremely large vessel to close to a navigational hazard without having the correct scale chart for the area and also that despite having the latest navigational and manoeuvring aids he navigated carelessly and as such has to shoulder the blame for his errors.
Human error will never be eliminated and complacency is the biggest cause of human error. IVE DONE THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE AND IT ALWAYS HAS WORKED O.K. How many times have we heard that at sea.
Seamanship is all about using your knowledge to reduce the risk so that should an incident occur it can be fixed with a Band-Aid and does not require amputation or long spells in hospital, if you understand my meaning.
rgds
JA

robpage
25th September 2013, 08:27 AM
At the end of it all there was a needless loss of life that was so easily avoidable , someone , who I assume was Captain Schettino , ordered the ship closer to the island than was safe to do so , That alone in my mind is a guilt that I for one would not wish to carry . In the time I spent at sea , fourteen years was on cross channel ferries , " Rock Hoppers " to many deep sea men . Every Navigator I have ever met avoided getting close to anything that looked like land unless they had to . What I think sad is this man seems to show no grief , he shows a defensive " who ME ! " attitude . I just wish he would be remorseful and tell us all what went wrong , I doubt he ever will >

Chris Allman
25th September 2013, 09:31 AM
I cant remember but at one stage was it not said that the rock that the ship hit was uncharted also I seem to think (could be wrong) that the bridge voice recorder was not working at the time or was faulty.

The Captain is blaming the poor soul at the bottom of the heap who cannot really fight back having already been hung drawn and quartered as have the other bridge officers. I think that the case is seen to be proved against Schettino as the ship was not where it should have been, presumably with his permission, he was on the bridge at the time and giving orders, he abandoned ship when hundreds of crew and passengers were still aboard. Summary, he cocked up the manoeuvre, did a runner and is now trying to blame everyone and anyone else. Ah well, innocent until proved guilty, lets see what the courts think.

j.sabourn
25th September 2013, 09:38 AM
Language.. I have been on ships where at least 50 per cent of the crew could not converse with each other. Most Masters or the O.O.W. who found that the helmsman was not steering properly in such a close quarter situation as happened in the case of the Costa Concordia would have taken the wheel himself. I have been on ships also where myself as mate have had to take on the pilotage steering with a certain foreign crew, as they were never taught how to steer, so really was not their fault, however they were very cheap. In any disasterous situation if you do not have adequate correspondence re passing on of orders and requests the danger has magnified out of all proportion. However I believe someone has mentioned that the vessel under discussion had a pilot on board, I never knew this, if this is true then he himself as a neutral witness should be able to show more light on the case than the present witnesses. Especially if he was on the Bridge at the time. John Sabourn

alf corbyn
25th September 2013, 10:29 AM
i thought that he was to blame because he went the wrong side of the island.
no doubt he was taking his work home to show his mum

robpage
25th September 2013, 12:03 PM
There is a very good analysis here

http://www.enav-international.com/wosmedia/273/costaconcordiaanatomyofanorganisationalaccident.pd f


I think there is a confusion between Pilot error and a pilot on board , I have trawled all the reports and can find no reference to a pilot but a lot to pilot ( age ) error , so I think reports of a Pilot on board are misread . The rock allegedly struck is charted at a minimum depth of 7. 3 metres and the Ships draught was over 8.2 . Even basic maths for engineers makes that an interference fit of ship and rock . The report above is detailed and interesting , I think it is a good summary .

Lou Barron
26th September 2013, 02:22 AM
If there was a pilot on the bridge he woulld be the one to give orders to the helmsman ???

j.sabourn
26th September 2013, 03:03 AM
Normally yes. It was just someone mentioned about there being a pilot onboard, it was the first time I was aware of and still do as have not seen mentioned in the media. I find it hard to believe that there was, as he would have been fully aware of the local knowledge and would almost certainly not been in agreement of passing so close to any underwater dangers. I think that there was no pilot involved, maybe wrong but don't think so. I did read in some paper that the QM had already received a 14 month jail sentence, this I should imagine was suspended due to his refusal to appear in court. The master to my reckoning is also going to receive more of the same, his licence was suspended sometime ago and doubt whether he will ever go back to sea. At 53 years of age however he can always call it early retirement. Cheers John Sabourn

Roger Dyer
26th September 2013, 05:38 AM
Immediately following the occurrence of this tragic event, like so many others, I recognised the probability that Captain Schettino would have a case to answer, however, unlike most at that early stage, I was not prepared to judge him guilty of criminal negligence solely on the basis of media speculation at the time. Now, twenty months on, any hope Schettino may have had for a 'fair' trail has been severely jeopardised by prejudicial media comment which, it would seem, is perfectly acceptable practice under Italian law. Regrettably, the international media will be far less concerned with a just outcome than the guaranteed profits of sensational journalism (sad old world, ain't
it ?).

As Paul (Racine) and Happy Daze have both suggested, there is yet much more to come, evidential twists and turns, claims and counter-claims, unexpected revelations elicited by the wily machinations of skilled counsel who will seek to discredit the evidence of prosecution and defence alike. So sit back and enjoy the circus!... I don't imagine this whole sorry saga will reach a conclusion any time soon.:(


......Roger

robpage
26th September 2013, 05:53 AM
as Roger says , sad old World , I doubt anyone could sit on a jury and not be prejudiced after the Media assault on Captain Schettino . The biggest condemnation in my eyes was the Italian Coastguard ordering him to re board the vessel widely shown at the time . He was branded then , now all that remains is hanging drawing and quartering . The bridge officers and quartermaster all submitted guilty pleas and have received non. Custodial sentences , The way Italian law works they will not be jailed , the prosecution refused a plea bargain from Schettino's legal team . Those plea submissions speak volumes to me , and do not assist Schettino's case at all . There has been a lot of evidence for the prosecution , I so far have heard nothing in his defence ,except the helmsman did it . So in this sad old world , I believe that the buck will stop with the man himself . If one of my relatives had been on the list of lost souls , I would be looking to see justice , however dubious , to be seen to be done .

happy daze john in oz
26th September 2013, 06:00 AM
The question remains, where was the captain when the ship hit the rocks and who gave the order to sail so close to land?
According to the media, who know all and report on that assumption wheter the information is correct or not, the captain was dinning with an attractive guest at the time of impact. Did he give the order or was it the officer of the watch? Those who have pleaded guilty, including the helmsman from Indonesia, recieved a non custodial sentience of 18 months. But according to Italian Law cannot be made to now give evidence at the trial!!!!

j.sabourn
26th September 2013, 06:40 AM
The Law, Maritime and otherwise seems to alter with whatever country you are dealing with, this also includes the likes of Scottish and English Law. When I was involved in a disaster outside my scope of altering the cause of, I was subject to 2 police officers appearing on my doorstep and myself being issued with a summons to appear at a court of enquiry. I had to sign that I had received. What would of happened if I had refused I don't know maybe carried off in handcuffs. This apparently is Scottish law and one comes under the control of the Proculator Fiscal. Maybe some of the Scottish members could clarify this better. Shortly after my personal experiences a Rig in the North Sea had to be abandoned with the loss of the Radio Officer. The offshore Manager returned to the USA and refused to come back for the Enquiry if my memory serves me right. At the time I had other things to fill my days so did not follow what actually happened in this instance, as no doubt he would of been issued with a summons the same as myself. I was more worried about what the neighbours were talking about when seeing 2 uniformed police officers and a police car at the front of the house. Although Laws for different countries vary, I was always lead to think that maritime law was the same for all, especially now more so with the interweaving of certificate structure. Cheers John Sabourn

John Arton
26th September 2013, 08:08 AM
This could be controversial but-
ISM came about after a certain ferry disaster where a large number of persons lost their lives. Those in charge at the time used in their defence the argument that they had been pressing the owners to fit alarms on the bow doors with a bridge indicator to show if they were closed or not, when really all it needed was a procedure whereby the fwd mooring gang looked over the bow to check the state of the bow doors.
Think back to the days of general cargo ships where before departure the chief officer and bosun would go round the decks checking all the lashings, hatch covers, booby hatch access to ensure they were all secured safely for sea aand reporting same to the Master. The reason for this being it illegal for a Master to take his vessel to sea in an unfit (unseaworthy) manner.
Jump forward to ISM days and all Company safety manuals will have in it procedures where the deck has be inspected prior to departure and a log book entry made to confirm such that it has been secured for sea.
Another section will have a procedure where the Master has to check and verify the passage plan and sign that he agrees to it. Any variation from the original plan HAS to be approved by the master and this includes ensuring that charts and publications covering such deviations from the original plan are available on board, if not no deviation from the original plan is allowed. In the Concordia case it is claimed (I believe) that pressure was put on the Master to do a close sail by the Island by a manager of the owners on board at the time. If this is so then it was the Masters duty to either refuse to do such a close sail by or to ensure that charts etc were available of the correct scale to allow such a close approach and that also the Master should have been present on the bridge BEFORE the vessel reached the area in order that he could correctly monitor the vessels progress and track.
It is my opinion and here I can hear some cries of despair and anger, that in both cases the Master of both vessels in these cases must bear sole responsibility for the events and bear the punishment meted out by the courts. It is after all apparent in his title MASTER of the vessel. As master you bear responsibility for all that goes on board your vessel whilst in certain areas i.e. engineering, you would accede to greater engineering knowledge of your Chief Engineer, you still have to sign off on major decision's and procedures.
Now lets listen for the missiles coming my way
rgds
JA

j.sabourn
26th September 2013, 09:08 AM
Quite true as know the Master is responsible by Law for the vessel, have known of one case where the owner was thrown off the Bridge by a certain Master who I sailed with. Have also seen cases where the Master has been held responsible for discharge of oil from vessel which in the case of the discharge to all and sundry he had no real control over. This comes with the job and most of us know that when we take on. As regards the vessel sailing in a sea going condition, most general cargo vessels were still dropping derricks as vessel was leaving the berth as time was money and delaying the pilot was also money. The thing here the general public want someone to blame and the obvious one is going to be the Master regardless. He will finally realize that bad times come with the good and have to accept that the buck stops with him. Cheers John Sabourn

Chris Allman
26th September 2013, 09:37 AM
John, (Arton) I agree with all that you have said. Complacency and laziness and commercial greed appears to have crept into all aspects of life today including maritime matters. Introduction of technology has compounded this by encouraging dependency on instruments which has thus removed common sense seamanship such as physical checks of important safety aspects. The introduction of multinational personnel and cultures, ( I am not blaming them ), has also contributed to the chances of misinterpretation and misunderstanding and to coin a phrase which I detest, but which I suppose sums up what I am saying, lessons are going to have to be learn't from this incident and learn't fast before there is a repeat in which much greater loss of life occurs. The increasing size of these floating holiday camps both in tonnage and passenger numbers leads us nearer and nearer to a gigantic loss of life unless someone somewhere, stops this headlong dash towards total reliance on instrumentation in which the failure of a penny fuse can result in the deaths of thousands and which also results in the total disappearance of common sense seamanship.

robpage
26th September 2013, 09:38 AM
John The Car Ferry that I believe you are referring to was the type fitted with a non watertight Bow Visor , which when closed would obscure the view of the Watertight Inner doors from Quay or Bridge , but every ferry I ever sailed on of that type had a telephone to the bridge , and never mind warning lights , it only would have taken a routine call saying Watertight Doors closed Forward Car Deck .

The report I listed in an earlier post seems to tell a lot of what happened and none of it looks good .

The rest , well you collect the money , that covers you for the responsibility when you take the job on . I knew an awful amount of "Professional " third engineers who were capable of passing a Second's Certificate of Competency , but most did not want the bother that came with the job , despite the money .

j.sabourn
26th September 2013, 11:25 AM
Rob, ref. post 20 most of us have sailed with the professional 3rd mates and engineers and also professional 2nd. Mates also. I was fortuanate enough to get my Masters cert. at 26/27 and sailed for the next 14 years as Mate. Apart from a couple of instances of happening to go Master through unforseen events, I refused to go master permanently on two occasions, so you could say I was a permanent Mate through choice. This at the time gave me sufficient job satisfaction as was used to the old methods of ship running in the 60"s and 70"s. It was only with the entrance of the younger breed of seafarers arriving that shipping started to change as these seemed to be brainwashed in a different direction. If shipping had stayed the same I was quite comfortable sailing with the job I liked doing and was physically capable of doing, however my attitude then changed. I can sympathize with the old steady and reliable 3rds 2nds and Mates, as we all saw the changes taking place and unfortuanetly a lot of good men left the sea. You will probably find that in general most of whom finished up with good jobs ashore as well as any seafarer who learnt their skills of adaptability at sea in those days, and I congratulate those who made a success of it. I sometimes wish I had had the guts and the ambition to do the same. Here in Australia I have noticed that a lot of the people in Industries tied up with shipping are ex forces personnel, as these also are better equipped through their sense of discipline and common sense and self reliability. Most of my friends that are still alive are of the old school of professional 3rds and 2nds. they were the backbone of the MN at times. Regards John Sabourn

robpage
26th September 2013, 11:41 AM
John , I actually found the "Professional " third engineers some of the most well equipped engineers that I sailed with , certainly in terms of experience as well as ability , and when it all went wrong they would quietly plod their way through a crisis like any other day ,

j.sabourn
27th September 2013, 12:08 AM
Rob one of many similar experiences was one which believe have put up before. On a converted trawler above 60 north in the North Sea. Engines collapsed. Loss of all power. All hands down E.R. This was during gale conditions which were forecast to go later to storm force. The 2 Engineers did a marvellous job to get her ticking over to enable us to make Aberdeen. This was one of the closest times I have had for putting out a mayday on my own behalf. Needless to say the 2 engineers were ex professional 3rds from deep sea. The ships name was Famita which was sold re-engine and may still be doing the same work today as far as I know. Cheers John Sabourn

happy daze john in oz
27th September 2013, 05:56 AM
Which ever way this trial goes there will be certain amount of preudice. Italian law being what it is I doubt if the trial will evre be seen to be fair, the fact thta those who have pleaded guilty will not be required to appear will only assist in obscuring the truth. For a fair and open trial I believe it should have been held in a nuetral country with an international jury.
The events leading up to this disaster must never be allowed to happen agin and an open and free trial allowing ALL informatuion to be shown is the only way.

Roger Dyer
27th September 2013, 12:04 PM
In case some members may think the trial of Captain Schettino is being heard before a judge and jury, I post the following information (much of which I gleaned from a Google search earlier today).

The procedure in Italian criminal courts varies quite markedly to that with which we in Britain, Oz, N.Z, Canada and the U.S. are familiar and even though the legal system in these countries might also differ, somewhat, the structure of each is rooted in English Law. Most significantly, perhaps, and contrary to what many of us may think, the Italian legal system makes no provision for a jury whereas in English Law, as we all know, the jury plays a most important role. The reason for any misunderstanding probably stems from the procedure in an Italian Corte d'Assise (Assizes ?) whereby a trial is heard by a panel of eight (8) judges, two of whom are professional and the other six being lay-judges or 'popular' judges, a term by which they are known in Italy. In essence, the lay-judges are ordinary, everyday citizens, much like those who comprise a jury in an English court...... but there the likeness ends. The eight 'judges sit in a line along a raised podium or bench from whence they can observe the 'indagata' (defendant) who, no doubt, stands quivering before them, hoping that when the verdict is given, the incontinence pad he/she put on that morning will prove an unnecessary precaution.......poor bu--ers! the Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. Dependent upon the seriousness of the charges against them and the type of Court in which the case is heard, the fate of an Italian defendant will be decided by one, two, three, four (two judges and two experts) or eight judges (as previously mentioned). In the case of ex-Captain Schettino, his fate will be decided by three judges only, unless, of course, in the event of conviction he decides to lodge an appeal against severity of sentence, in which case he, too, could end up facing Happy, Grumpy, Sleepy, Dopey, Sneezy, Doc, Bashful and Snow White.. ...and wearing an incontinence pad !!!!!


............Roger

Captain Kong
27th September 2013, 03:49 PM
Regarding the Courts of Inquiry, The one I was involved with was the loss of the POOL FISHER with 13 lives.
There was no Jury, only a Jury at the Inquest which was held at the Coroners Court in Gosport eight months earlier.

.Quote........................
The Formal Investigation was held at Norbreck Castle Hotel in Blackpool for five days. I was summoned to appear at the Court by the Treasurers Solictor who knocked on my door and gave me the notice that forced me to attend.
Then the Court was moved to . 47, Parliament Street, Westminster, SW1. for another two days to sum up.
The Judge was Mr, GRA Darling, RD,QC, assisted by Captain CW Leadbetter, RD,RNR [Retd.]
Captain PJ Pembridge and Sq.Ldr.CF Trigg, MSc. BSc, [Eng] MICE, FI MechE.
.
The Court having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above mentioned shipping casualty, finds for the reasons stated in the Annex hereto, that the said casualty was probably caused by the entry of water into the fore part of POOL FISHER`s hold following a failure of the aftermost section of the hatch boards on her No. 1 hatch, which failure was caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of her Master, John Maclaren Stewart and her Mate, Francis William Cooper.
Dated this twelth day of December 1980.
.Unquote.
.
A lot of people were not too happy at this decision to blame the Master and Mate, both had died, dead men tell no tales.
From what I heard from the two survivors the cleats around the hatch were damaged, and on two or three occasions sailing across the North Sea in heavy weather the Tarps came adrift and had to have the wedges hammered in again. She was supposed to have them fixed on return to UK. There was also insufficient locking bars on board and maybe these were on order.
A phone call was made to the Office of the owners in Barrow in Furness, when the vessel was still in the North Sea. The Company said they always made a recording of every telephone call they recieved from their ships. BUT in this case they could not find the recording. Odd.
.
.
So regarding the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the Concordia , there maybe no Jury, just a group of Assesors.
Again if the Court agrees an illegal act was performed then Criminal proceedings may start in another Court which may or may not have a Jury.
.
..
When I was in ESSO, after the sinking of the Penlee Lifeboat disaster involving the Irish cargo ship, We had to make all our courses to sail no closer than four miles from the nearest Grounding Line.
.
As a common language used on a ship. I noticed on Holland America ships the official language is English for everyone. The Master was Dutch and about half and half of the navigators and engineers were Dutch and English.
The crew were Indonesian and all spoke good English. Language No Problem. All announcements were always in English.
Cheers
Brian.

j.sabourn
28th September 2013, 03:23 AM
Brian funnily enough the only deep sea ship with any language difficulties was with Chinese Crews. The Eng. Room staff were from Foochow and the Deck from I think Shanghai, and both spoke different dialects. Many spoke no English. The bosun came under this category, fortuanetly his brother was 3rd. mate who did speak some English so did everything through him. We had no 2nd Mate as he was or had been Egyptian and decided he was not coming with us and jumped over the side in the Kiel Canal coming from Poland outward bound for Karachi. The 3rd. Mate was no navigator so I did all the sights and he used to give me early reliefs and was always 6 bottles of beer when I came off watch. This crew was changed 8 months later in Hong Kong for philipinos. However on reaching Japan after 11 months all I could see was a disaster happening and walked off and flew home. I had always thought that the ship had been lost in a typhoon shortly after, and it was only someone on this site telling me this was incorrect, which relieved my conscience quite a bit. Cheers John Sabourn

Tony Wilding
28th September 2013, 04:16 AM
There are so many different stories, Indonesian Helmsman did not understand good English, he had been employed a good few years in a satisfactory manner , trauma made him ill , must be at his wits end, the lowest rating with all the blame on him ? . possibly too scared to tell the truth, Schettino supposed to be down below dining, not on the Bridge ?, he seems well informed on where to lay the blame for someone not on the bridge, what were the other Bridge Officers doing as all this was unfolding ? , did they not have voices, ? personally i think Schettino was a bit of a tyrant towards lower ranks and they were afraid to question his actions, am of the opinion that the position of Captain on such a ship and the glory it gave him went to his head, thought he could do no wrong, the man was a joke, should never have been in command, later events proved that. am afraid it happened in the wrong country for the real truth to emerge.

John Arton
28th September 2013, 09:59 AM
LinkedIn has some good transcripts of the proceedings.
Captain Fantastic is now demanding a full examination of all the systems on board as he claims the ship had many faults that had a bearing on the resultant disaster. Apparently he has accepted his fault for the disaster but claims in his defence that system faults on board were as much to blame as he is. Believe he is claiming problems with water tight doors not closing in time etc. etc.
rgds
JA

robpage
28th September 2013, 10:06 AM
Oh not ! the old watertight doors did not close , so I went too close to the rock defence ,

After the steamship I was on rearranged the car ramp on an Island , we had had an 1/2 astern , to reverse on to the ramp , which was followed by a Treble full astern , so we reversed a little bit faster , apparently the telegraphs were the wrong way and the engineers knew that the ship should have gone ahead , so it was our fault . You gets the salary , you take the blame .

If his ship was so full of faults , all known , does that mean he proceeded to sea with his vessel in an unseaworthy condition ?>

Louis the Amigo
30th October 2013, 09:23 AM
Hi Shipmates, It seems the Captain had other things on his mind with his lover, a dancer!!! He was not doing the proper job? cant blame the helmsman !!!

robpage
30th October 2013, 09:29 AM
in court this wek

Captain Francesco Schettino, the man accused of causing the Costa Concordia disaster, was entertaining his young lover – against the rules – on the ship’s bridge when the giant vessel struck a reef off the Italian coast, it emerged.

His former lover, the Moldavian dancer Domnica Cemortan, 26, admitted to an Italian court she was having an affair with the married 53-year-old captain, who is accused of allowing his showboating behaviour to cost the lives of 32 people after the giant vessel partially capsized off the island of Giglio in January 2012.

Prosecutors have alleged that the large number of superfluous people on the bridge at the time of the collision, particularly the presence of Ms Cemortan, “generated confusion and distraction for the captain”.

Previously, Ms Cemortan has said she had only been called up to the ship’s bridge after the accident in order to translate vital information that officers wanted to relay to Russian passengers.

However, under sustained questioning by a lawyer representing victims of the disaster, and after being threatened with contempt of court by the judge, Ms Cemortan said: “Yes I had an affair with the captain.” She also admitted through her interpreter that she was not on the official passenger list and was not in possession of a ticket, noting that her relationship with the captain had allowed her on board.

Captain Schettino, who has blamed his helmsman for the collision, is on trial for multiple manslaughter and causing a shipwreck.

The court heard that Captain Schettino had made a similar sail-by, very close to the island off the Tuscan coast, a week before the accident.

Antonello Tievoli, a ship’s waiter, said he had asked the captain to sail close to Giglio to salute his family who lived there. “The night of 6 January, I asked the commander if he could move closer to the island than usual, since we were still in the Christmas holidays. And he agreed, but was not satisfied with the distance. He thought it wasn’t close enough. He asked his second in command Ciro Ambrosio to repeat it the following week.”

Costa Concordia Captain Francesco Schettino (AP) Costa Concordia Captain Francesco Schettino (AP)
Ms Cemortan has defended Captain Schettino’s actions after the crash, portraying him as an officer in control of the situation. This notion was undermined, however, by the emergence of a video suggesting the reaction of officers on the bridge after the collision veered from initial complacency to panic.

Another of the ship’s waiting staff, Ciro Onorato, who had been invited to the bridge on the night of the crash, told the court that he went back down to the restaurant to help the passengers, but was then recalled to the bridge by Captain Schettino, who was already wearing a life jacket over his uniform. The captain told him: “Don’t leave me.”

Captain Schettino is also charged with abandoning ship before his passengers. He claims he slipped and fell into a lifeboat from which he was unable to extract himself.

I wonder if any UCL wingers ever thought of asking men like Captain Lloyd if they could get closer to the Isle of Wight , so they could wave to their mum , Answers please on a postcard to Arthur and Martha Winger 101 Berth Southampton Docks

John Pruden
30th October 2013, 09:42 PM
ahh that's why the helmsman is doing time?the orders were ohh yes keep coming that's it faster?:pjp

happy daze john in oz
31st October 2013, 05:12 AM
#33, I wonder what evidence will come from passengers as to the life boat incident, the plot certainly thickens as they say. Me thinks our captain wuill be walking the plank before too long if evidence such as this keeps coming to light.

Now Rob which Lloyd would that have been, Logger or Swivel Eye??

robpage
31st October 2013, 06:07 AM
Which one would you have asked John , in fact any of the UCL passenger ship men , I sailed with three of them as a junior engineer and never saw a glimmer of humour

Ivan Cloherty
31st October 2013, 07:45 AM
Which one would you have asked John , in fact any of the UCL passenger ship men , I sailed with three of them as a junior engineer and never saw a glimmer of humour

I think being Master in those days was a lonely life, and their social sphere was limited to Ch Eng and Ch Off, as they had to appear godlike in all circumstances and invariably were held as a font of all knowledge, regardless of subject. Nowadays it appears they all eat in the same mess using the same microwave and all play table tennis together, think I prefer the old system, but really not qualified to speak on it as never sailed with the new system. At least with the old system there was no doubt about who was in charge, I suspect some disrespect may have been the downfall of the CC

robpage
31st October 2013, 08:06 AM
I wonder if modern communications , has eroded the aloofness and authority . Now if in doubt there is a 24 hour phone to the office , the ship seems to have devolved some of the Master's responsibilities to the Office . I am forming that opinion from the references to company policy , and Costa / Carnival office stated , Has the job changed that much ? If so it is a sorry state of affairs . Talking to an Ex Royal Navy friend he was telling me that in his time , the Skipper or the Squadron Commander had the authority to act , within certain criteria , now all action has to be Whitehall sanctioned . Maybe George Orwell was right , and Big Brother has taken over everywhere removing individual responsibility . Maybe the Ship's Master is now the office spokesperson on board .

j.sabourn
31st October 2013, 08:27 AM
Rob, not so much the Master as regards supply vessels in the North sea and other places, but one well known company I was with had about 8 vessels and an Engineering supt. for each couple of vessels. It was standing instructions for the Ch Eng. to phone in each morning and report in , and in some cases be told what work he had to do ref the machinery. I thought at the time this was very demeaning and did not show much regard for the chief, maybe they were trying to justify their own positions. I only reported in when I felt like it. On the other hand on a foreign tramp vessel not too long before this the master phoned the office to ask for advice, and was told that he was there to handle problems and if couldn't cope they would get someone who could. In general ships are run more so from the shore than what they ever used to be, myself the less I had to do with them the better. Cheers John Sabourn

j.sabourn
31st October 2013, 08:38 AM
Re same mess... I see nothing wrong with this, as a matter of fact it improved a lot of the bad habits of the past. People think in terms of the old type of mess, this is not correct to what I sailed with. It is a cafeteria system, worked on the basis like it is ashore, help yourself. If people want differentiation this is simply done by allotting certain seating areas to certain people. There is no stewards waiting on you, and if carried they are employed elsewhere. Behind the serving counters if necessary. Cheers John Sabourn

John Arton
31st October 2013, 08:40 AM
Rob
The Master of any ship has a duty of care to protect his ship, crew, cargo and the environment. This is written into SOLAS conventions, STCW codes etc. etc. and has not changed since time began.
What has changed is the introduction of various other codes/regulations such as ISM, Work/Rest Hours and so forth but none of these can take away from the Master his ultimate responsibility for the ship. Modern communications and poor training, coupled with seafarers coming from non traditional seafaring nations and the crimilisation of Mariners for often minor infringements, has led to many of todays Masters forgetting that they are the guy in charge with the ultimate responsibility. There is no companies SMS System that will have a Master having to get permission from head office before he o.k.'s such items as Passage Plans and day to day Management of the safety of his vessel. There will be guidelines laid down and procedures to be followed but in all SMS there will be the clause "The Ultimate Responsibility of the Master".
Having a look see at a beach/house/waving to friends on the shore from a couple of hundred meters off,whilst zooming along at 20 knots on a huge passenger ship and at the same time having a bit on the side with an exotic dancer, clearly means that this guy has failed in his duty of care and no excuse regarding helmsman/equipment etc. can be used in his defence for the tragedy that occurred following his complete and utter disregard for his responsibilities as Master.
rgds
JA

j.sabourn
31st October 2013, 09:25 AM
Some of these posts seem to refer back to the old saying of familiarity breeds contempt. I do not agree with this. We have earlier posts where people were even at this stage in their lives were wondering why they had to clear the focsle head out before transitting the suez canal. It would have been a simple matter for the master instead of maybe hiding behind his door curtain to come out and at least tell the bosun the reason. As an apprentice we were never allowed in the saloon until all the officers were out and were second servings, one of the excuses given was that we may have divulged to the crew certain things, if that was so do they not think the stewards would not do the same thing. Most of the old problems on ships go back to this secrecy thing, I would say unfamiliarity breeds contempt. All though common messing may have been brought out for the wrong reasons (saving money) it has been one way of breaking down this self imposed so called class barrier. Regards John Sabourn

corrientes
31st October 2013, 09:32 AM
Quote:- " I suspect some disrespect may have been the downfall of the CC"

I totally concur. After reading all that has been written about this cretin over the past two years, I begin to suspect that he commanded zero respect, not only on the Concordia but within the Costa Line.

Above, John puts the whole situation in a nutshell. From the outset I have stressed that he and only he was responsible for this disaster and there have been members on this site and others, who have repeatedly bleated on about not finding people guilty until proven so. Anyone trained and time served to fulfil the duties of Master know full well where the buck stops. Some of those naysayers may not have had the advantage of that training. I fear that due to the system under which he is being tried, this clown may never get his just deserts. Not only do I hope his long suffering wife now kicks him where it hurts but that he finds himself in a situation where the truth will finally dawn on him as to the size of the catastrophe he created. Maybe then he will stop whingeing on about getting his job back and slink off into miserable obscurity. He brought disrespect to the entire profession. I would like to know how many of his fellow Costa Masters have tightened up on their conduct since that fateful day. Guilty from the minute he set foot on that bridge. End of!

Roger Dyer
31st October 2013, 02:35 PM
Hi Corrientes,

I think you've probably expressed the opinion and feelings held by most members regarding the wretched Schettino. Furthermore, you have clearly expressed the reasons why you feel as you do, with which few would argue (including me). As seamen we are well aware that the responsibilities of a ship's Master are manifold. In the event of a collision involving a British ship, the Master of such vessel will, at some later stage, find himself in a Court of Inquiry where he will try to satisfy his examiners that he is innocent of any guilt or wrongdoing. Subsequently,if charges were brought against the Master under English Law, the onus of proof would rest with the Prosecution. Schettino does not have that luxury. Following the tenets of Roman Law, Italian justice requires the accused to prove his/her innocence, which for Schettino is one helluva mountain to climb. A rampant and biased media circus has ensured that his task is even more difficult. The world (including most of the members on this site), decided that Schettino was guilty from the very beginning and with good reason, perhaps. However, as one who believes in the concept of a person's right to a fair trial, recent revelations concerning Schettino have done nothing to change my mind. Regardless of the overwhelming evidence against him, he was/is entitled to a hearing unsullied by the biased disclosures of an unrestrained media. Does the enormity of the charges against Schettino justify a belief he forfeits the right to a fair trial? If so, then surely we must condone the behaviour of those who conducted the 'Spanish Inquisition' or the evil b-----ds, like Judge Roland Freisler, who dispensed 'justice' for Adolf Hitler? Guilty or not, I don't suppose it's relevant any more, is it ? Schettino has already been tried by the media and they brought in their verdict a long time ago.


...............Roger

Red Lead Ted
31st October 2013, 03:22 PM
Have I missed something ? Paul , Who started this thread is absolutely right once you were given an order bye whoever was in command of the bridge , Captain/ Mate/ Pilot/ You repeated it and once you either had your wheel port 15 or on course you then reported what your head was steering. They are the basics. The good Captain is pulling every stroke in the book I even heard he had told his defence team he had fallen over the side and luckily enough for him there just happened to be a lifeboat for his feet to land on Amazing stroke of luck. Regardless to what comes out at his trial he is guilty of abandoning his post or giving the abandon ship order which his co, officers can be heard advising him its widely available caught on video tape. Lets not forget souls were lost in this tragedy. These are very serious allegations against a sea captain who has sworn the oath to be the last man once he has satisfied himself that every soul that can be abandoned from his ship has. He has broken every rule in the book and we all know it. As far as the helmsman not understanding Italian, What a brilliant bit of basics that would have been by Costa Line. That would make both the Skipper and the Company liable if that is true. So lets give the good Capt Schettino his day in court and lets hear his side of the story. As Roger Dyer has said we all know and more importantly because of the fact we are ex seaman aware of the outcome. He will have 24/7 to blow kisses at himself in the mirror for what could be many many years to come. And quite right to. As for Costa Lines start employing professional {SEAMAN} Not fisherman. Terry.:mad:

Red Lead Ted
31st October 2013, 03:40 PM
Regarding language on board, he has no real defence for saying the helmsman did not understand him.
ISM requires that their is a common language on board and throughout the company management.
This language has to be stated in the company's management policy and also in the bridge and engine room log books.
All Officers and ratings forming part of a navigational or engineering watch have to be capable of understanding orders in this language and undertake a test (MARLINS) to ensure that they are capable of doing so. It is the responsibility of the company's management to ensure that they only employ personnel in these positions who have passed this language test (spoken and written) and the person responsible for signing on the crew (the Master) has to check that all crew members in these positions hold such a certificate along with all the other STCW requirements.
I would suspect that once he realised the proximity to danger that the captain reverted to his native language or rushing his commands to make them unintelligible.
The voyage data recorder will either prove or disprove his defence when it is played back at the trial but the irrefutable fact is he took his extremely large vessel to close to a navigational hazard without having the correct scale chart for the area and also that despite having the latest navigational and manoeuvring aids he navigated carelessly and as such has to shoulder the blame for his errors.
Human error will never be eliminated and complacency is the biggest cause of human error. IVE DONE THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE AND IT ALWAYS HAS WORKED O.K. How many times have we heard that at sea.
Seamanship is all about using your knowledge to reduce the risk so that should an incident occur it can be fixed with a Band-Aid and does not require amputation or long spells in hospital, if you understand my meaning.
rgds
JA

John, I heard on the grapevine, That if he is lucky enough to outlive his sentence, The BBC Are very interested in hiring him as the new uncle Albert Fools and Horses. Terry.

Ivan Cloherty
31st October 2013, 03:49 PM
As for Costa Lines start employing professional {SEAMAN} Not fisherman. Terry.:mad:

Tut Tut Ted, whilst I agree with the majority of what you said, I'm afraid I must take issue with your last line, does that mean the skippers of the distant water trawlers I sailed with to Iceland, Bear Island, the White Sea were not professional seamen, because I can assure they were in every respect and frequently faced conditions every year that most deep water men may not face in a lifetime. To reach their command they had to progress up a very hard ladder and take multiple exams en-route. Now if you had said 'Italian Lothario' then I could agree with you.

I have every sympathy with the helmsman on the CC who apparently had faithfully served the company for over eleven years (From all accounts to date), so would be fully conversant with port and starboard in Italian, (and probably other languages) from the Master, OOW and pilots during that 11 year period. He was probably given many confusing instructions from what appears to be a mismanaged bridge from 'evidence' heard to date from the Master's subordinates.

Captain Kong
31st October 2013, 04:35 PM
A lot of Very Good Seamen and Navigators amonst British Fishermen.
I got to know quite a few in Fleetwood Nautical College . When the White Fish Authority made them to go to College and get qualifications, in the 70s, they could run rings around the Lecturers, Most checked in on a Monday morning and then went fishing all week, checking out on a Friday afternoon if they were back.
The same White Fish Authority has backed down to eu regulations banning them from fishing so they are all unemployed now with Certicates that are now totally worthless.
I used to get bags of fresh Cod off them every week.
Cheers
Brian.

corrientes
31st October 2013, 08:43 PM
I have absolutely no issue with the man having a trial. He certainly should. However, my lifelong training dictates my opinion, not the media for which I have little time.
What the courts in Italy produce will not in any way alter my views of the actions taken by Schettino that nigh.t

j.sabourn
31st October 2013, 11:52 PM
#47 Must agree with Ivan on this one. Some of the finest seamen are fishermen. Most of your Hebridean deep sea who came from that area, were brought up in small vessels from an early age. The expresssion every finger a marline spike would refer to these type of seafarers. As regards pure seamanship I would refer to them in most cases. John Sabourn

j.sabourn
1st November 2013, 12:09 AM
Further. As regards to those who held a Skippers (Full) certificate it was often the claim that put fishing gear on the Queen Mary and they would take her to sea. This must have come about at how the Licence was worded. However if there had been such in command on the bridge on the Costa Concordia I have no doubt such a disaster would more than likely not occurred. John Sabourn

j.sabourn
1st November 2013, 03:22 AM
As regards the outcome of what happens to the Master of the Concordia is up for the courts to decide. Whatever we as armchair warriors think is immaterial. I can certainly feel sorry for Schetto or whatever his name is, and is probably undergoing trauma rehabilitation etc. maybe he might finish up at a sleep clinic like me if he already hasn't done so. The media is an ass always has been and always will be, I have a strong suspicion that he may also be on suicide watch as is probably an expected outcome of this saga. I often wonder if I had lost my ship and lives of my crew how my own situation would have been received, as already there were those that questioned the advisability of my actions, as was brought up about the recent documentary of the 6 July 1988, and in a previous post of long ago of someone asking me about a book which was written by one of those picked up, on returning from the UK in August someone had kept me a page out of the West Australian Press. This author had changed his story and admitted to jumping over the side of the vessel, previous to this his claims were totally different and one would of thought by his self congratulory statements he was alone on the ship. Previous statements I have made were that I was told he shouted everyman for himself. It would have been a sorry state of affairs if people had followed his advice, however this man had the ears of the press and still does, so my advice to anyone heeding press reports is put them to the back of your mind. The loss of the Concordia is an example partly and probably by the employment of a person not capable of being fully competent in his job, however it is up to them who said he was to say different. As regards outsiders witnessing a tragedy, I remember in the National press one seaman who had to witness the catastrophe of the P.A. putting in a claim for trauma, he was 5 miles away, I have no doubt he would have been useless if 5 yards away as my crew were. Cheers John Sabourn

happy daze john in oz
1st November 2013, 04:49 AM
What ever the captain may or may not have done, whether he is guilty or not, what were the full circumstances? The fcat is this man will find it hard to get a fair trial as he has already been found guilty by trial by media. All evidence will be tainted to some degree and some involved are exempt from giving evidence as thye have aready pleaded guilty.
I have no love for anyone who breaks the rules knowingly, but i do believe all miscreants are entitled to a fair and unbridled trial, something I fear this man will not get.

happy daze john in oz
1st November 2013, 04:51 AM
Which one would you have asked John , in fact any of the UCL passenger ship men , I sailed with three of them as a junior engineer and never saw a glimmer of humour

Two that for me did have a reasonalbe sence of Humour, Abercrombie chief engineer, and unusual for a Scot, and Joe Murphy senior second.

robpage
1st November 2013, 08:46 AM
ALL Engineers have a sense of Humour John , it is just that the rest ofthe World does not always understand it . Some of the Scottish Chief Engineers with one exception , were great blokes to sail with , and having had one play his chanter down the engine room telephone for an hour one night , to see if I appreciated pipe music , I did not always understand the humour either , that one was Archie McLean known as the " White Haired Animal " . The exception , well he is best forgotten , but I have never sailed before or since with such a Bigot

j.sabourn
2nd November 2013, 04:03 AM
Ref. post 30. I have yet to sail on a ship that had no faults. There was always something wrong on a ship somewhere be it a blocked toilet, a compressor out, main faults with machinery or ballast or bilge pumps, blocked strainers. Always something there is no such thing as a ship with no faults, even straight from the builders yard. That's what crews were carried for to fix and keep the vessel running sometimes in a not too seaworthy condition, there will be faults on the Costa Concordia there is no doubt about that, but they will be known to the staff in that department who are able either to fix or work around. This comes back to the general gripe about demanning, in the past most repairs have been affected by ships staff and ship able to work until more permanent repairs available, also on most British ships a running survey was carried out on a continuous system for Lloyds or whoever and in a lot of cases the Chief was a reconised Lloyds surveyor and kept the vessel in Class. Nowadays I fail to see on the average ship (excluding passenger vessels) how this can be done with the crew manning as it is. personally I think the owners have cut off their nose to spite their face. Regards John Sabourn

John Arton
2nd November 2013, 11:09 AM
John S
All ships will be classed by one of the classification societies, be they LLOYDS, GERMANSCHIR LLOYD< DNV, etc. If you are not operating under class rules you wont get insurance and hence no cargo.
Apart from the annual Surveys required by SOLAS you also have the Annual Class Survey.
Ships will have a CSM (Continuous Survey Machinery) and CSH ( Continuous survey Hull) and at these annual surveys the Class and Flag surveyors will inspect/test/survey the vessel.
There will be on board a Master list that lists every item on board and from this the Planned Maintenance system will be drawn up that the ships officers (deck and engine) use to carry out the routine maintenance that is required to maintain the vessels class.
I would have thought that the reduced manning that is apparent on many merchant vessels does not affect the passenger ships too much as SOLAS and Class will require two man watches etc.
If this Captain is claiming that there were many faults on his ship I can only think that either the ships staff or the Class Societies were not doing their jobs correctly but at the end of the day it is always the Masters responsibility to ensure that his ship is seaworthy before proceeding to sea.
Lets take his claim that there was problems with the water tight doors not closing correctly. Would you have taken your ship to sea knowing that the hatch covers were faulty and did not give watertight protection? This guy knew that there was problems with the water tight doors so his engineers must have been on the ball and told him so, yet they were unable to fix the problem. So the question has to be asked, what did he do about this. Did he inform head office and demand that the problem be fixed as his vessel was now out of class, did he bow to pressure from head office to sail knowing that there was a problem but thinking he could get away with it until there was time/personnel to fix them, or did he just ignore the problem.
Whatever action he took (remember halting a passenger ship from sailing will have a massive financial consequence and its not as if there would have been a replacement ship on hand, unlike the airline industry where if a plane is unfit to fly then a replacement can usually be found within hours), he compounded that error by steering a course far too close to land and not having the correct scale charts on board (electronic or paper) to allow his ship to safely navigate the area. He then further compounds his error by entertaining his lady instead of attending to the navigation of his ship whilst it was in such close proximity to land. Finally we have to ask what sort of Master was this guy and how did he treat his watchkeeping officers. What were they doing whilst they were so close to danger? Was the bridge team management so poor that even if they saw that the ship was steaming into danger they were too afraid of the man to intervene and warn him? We all must have sailed with Masters and Chief Engineers who thought they knew everything and would not heed any advice given to them by their juniors but that tended to be in times past. These days all those Officers and the Captain would most likely have undergone Bridge Team Management and it would have been enshrined in the Companys Safety Management System.
So to me, with all of these systems in place and the backups required under International Regulations, this guy chose to ignore them all and put his ship in danger, either through ignorance (should never happen) or sheer bravado (lets show boat for the passengers). In the end it is he and he alone who must bear the full responsibility for the consequences of his actions and not try to shift the blame onto others. If he knew there were serious faults with the water tight integrity systems on board he should have not sailed until they were fixed...full stop. The only excuse for sailing in such a condition was if he had taken a different route that did not put his vessel in any danger, going a couple of hundred metres off a rocky shore just to be able to wave at some guy ashore, to me, is putting your ship in danger.
rgds
JA

j.sabourn
2nd November 2013, 11:40 AM
Yes John we know and understand this. My statement was there is no such thing as a trouble free ship. Re your point about a ship not being able to get a cargo if out of class however I take with a pinch of salt, some of the present day ships sailing under Flags of Convenience have never been in class to start with. I have sailed on ships out of class would you not say a vessel having condemned lifeboats was out of class. In a perfect world the world you are describing on paper, still has a long way to go. Someone should do a rough survey of all vessels trading in the Far East to start the ball rolling and maybe get a story about the real world of shipping as seen through some of these 3rd. world crews eyes. Shipping laws where they do exist are the same as all laws, there to be broken. However this is detracting from Schetto who can in no way clear his slate this way, however as said there will be faults on ship but I would not imagine severe enough to use as an excuse. Regards John Sabourn

Ivan Cloherty
2nd November 2013, 12:13 PM
When I left my UK supt's job, I took one with a Swiss Company expecting everything above board and run like clockwork. My first job was survey of a company ship in Karachi, there were too many faults to list here. Anyway I stopped the ship from sailing, I was as popular as a fox in a hen house, my above board employers outraged at such action, the supt prior me was Swiss, a naval architect by trade, never been to sea, he should have been made to sail on the ship. Another company ship which had sailed prior my arrival had to be towed back to Karachi, naturally I had to attend to her, I also stopped her from sailing again until all LSA requirments had been met. I could see my new job disappearing before my eyes, but after 9 years as a supt for a British Company crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i' I wanted everything correct and my conscience wouldn't let me let those vessels sail regardless of all the sh*t I got from Switzerland. I sacked the Master of the vessel towed back because he had had a total disregard for the safety of the crew (deflated liferafts, one lifeboat with a broken keel, short fire hoses). I guessed money had changed hands somewhere but couldn't prove it. Anyway I made very detailed reports and lodged them with a lawyer. Even in those days (70's) I thought that management and Supts' bore as much responsibility as the master to ensure that all was correct, and I still do. After my return to Switzerland I did get full support from the owner for my actions and various office employees were made to accompany me on further ship visits in Europe so that they could learn that going to sea was not like traversing Lake Lucerne, still as popular as a fox with some of them though. I have always been a great believer in 'look after your crews and they will do their best, but there are boundaries not to be crossed' there was always the exception, but on the whole it worked well for me. On the CC a lot of shore based staff need to be examining their consciences.

Captain Kong
2nd November 2013, 12:59 PM
When I was in ESSO we had at times various Office members, Non Seafarers, sailing with us from Loading in the Gulf and round the Cape to europe and the discharge before returning to the Office.
They enjoyed the trip as it gave then a good idea of what the job was all about. They stayed on the bridge with us to see what that was like Loveley in the tropics with no trafic but a shocker for them approaching europe, the Channel with bad viisibility and all kinds of lunatic ships . They spent time in the engine room and watching us load and discharge 250,00 tons of crude. When they went back into the Office they knew that seafaring.was not the exotic job they imagined, We had a lot more co-operation from the Office after that.
Cheers
Brian

j.sabourn
3rd November 2013, 01:35 AM
Ivan if every ship went by the book there would be very few ships at sea, also if one insisted on going by the book one would have a very short seagoing career. I doubt very much one could pick out any ship on the ocean including all your so called better class companies who were not infringing the law in some minor way. Unfortuanetly there are owners the same as there are business people ashore who have lower moral ethics than others, this is a fact of life. The eyetie master is grasping at straws as he probably has to for survival, he will however bring others into disrepute whether it be the office boy or whoever, as regards as to the severity of any faults found, be it a leaking tap washer, the press will blow up to all out of proportion. He has his peers to answer to and will undoubtably know that world opinion is unforgivingly against him, all he has to do is read some of the posts on here. As someone said his fate was sealed on the first press releases. Regards John Sabourn

John Arton
3rd November 2013, 08:05 AM
Posts ~59 and 60 have it in anutshell. Office staff who are not ex. seafarers should be made to do trips on the vessels they have charge of as happened with my last employers, especially staff in the Marketing Dept.
The CC Master appeared to be well thought of by his employers but more for his talents as an entertaining of the passengers rather than his seamanship qualities (my view).
When I was a very junior Officer on the empress of Canada the Master was renowned for his interaction with passengers to such an extent that regular crossing passengers (this before the days of cheap air travel) would only book crossing when they knew he was in command. Despite his talents regarding the handling of passengers he was first and foremost a seaman, never leaving the bridge for hours/days when the ship was undergoing any tricky navigational areas but boy was he a stickler for discipline, bollicking me once for being incorrectly dressed in a photo taken by the ships photographer of a passenger with me when I was doing the bridge tours (no hat) and also for having my jacket undone when going across the alleyway from my cabin to the bog for a piss (no passengers allowed in Officers accommodation (hah!) and no junior officers accommodation with own bathrooms).
I later sailed with the same Master, after the demise of the Empress ships, on a container ship and a VLCC and it was only then did I truly realise what a fine seaman and Master he was as within a very short period of time he had totally immersed himself in the requirements of the trade of these ship types and you would have thought that he had been on these types of ships all his life, such was his knowledge and the way he ran them. The only carry over from his passenger ship days was he never appeared without being dressed in full rig of the day, still consumed 1 bottle of Gordons a day and went through 100 Senior Service cigarettes per day which did cause the pilot berthing us in Ras Tanura on a VLCC a bit of consternation as the Captain kept leaving the pilot with me on the bridge wing whilst the Captain dived into the wheel house for a quick drag on his cigarette (I was 3rd mate). Despite his frequent trips inside this Master never lost his situational awareness or missed any order given by the pilot. A true seaman unlike a certain Italian now having to face the consequences of his reckless actions in the full glare of publicity. Regarding the publicity given to him and the events, despite what many claim that he has been judged before even standing trial, surely the legal system in Italy cannot be too different to that in the u.K. and here I draw parallels between his trial and that that is going on at present at the Old Bailey in the case of phone hacking where the actions of the defendant's have been well publicised yet they are still expected and have been told by the presiding judge that they will be given a fair trial and be judged guilty or innocent by a jury after they have listened to all the evidence presented to the court.
rgds
JA

Roger Dyer
3rd November 2013, 12:09 PM
[QUOTE=John Arton;.........Regarding the publicity given to him and the events, despite what many claim that he has been judged before even standing trial, surely the legal system in Italy cannot be too different to that in the u.K. and here I draw parallels between his trial and that that is going on at present at the Old Bailey in the case of phone hacking where the actions of the defendant's have been well publicised yet they are still expected and have been told by the presiding judge that they will be given a fair trial and be judged guilty or innocent by a jury after they have listened to all the evidence presented to the court.
rgdsJA[/QUOTE]

John, I beg to differ. Whilst there has certainly been a great deal of media attention surrounding the trial of Rebekah Brooks & Andy Coulson at the Old Bailey and the trial of Schettino in Italy, I would suggest the level of publicity generated by the Costa Concordia affair has attracted far greater interest world-wide.

As I have previously mentioned on this thread and elsewhere, there are major differences between the way in which these trials will be conducted. At the Old Bailey the onus of proof lies with the Prosecution and it is they who must satisfy a jury that Brooks and Coulson are guilty of the charge (s) against them. Regardless of what some may think, the complete evidence on which the Prosecution will rely to secure a conviction is not yet common knowledge to the world at large. Until such time as the jury finds them guilty, Miss Brooks and Mr.Coulson are innocent. Schettino, I'm sure, would welcome such luxury. Instead, since day one, he has been the subject of great scrutiny and opprobrium by media and public alike (and most would say deservedly so).

In Italy the situation for Mr.Schettino is very much different, for it is he who bears the onus of proof to satisfy three (3) judges that he is innocent of the charges against him. Unlike a British trial there is no jury. Schettino is well aware of the formidable body of evidence against him and, courtesy of modern media practice, so are most people throughout the civilised world. Unless a miracle should occur. it seems he is a dead duck and was, long before the commencement of his trial. Whereas, back in London, although serious, the prospects of Miss Brooks and Mr.Coulson are not yet cut and dried and they do have the benefit of a decision by jury.

In light of this, John, do you still believe a reasonable comparison can be drawn between the two trials ?.....if so, I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.


............Roger

Ivan Cloherty
3rd November 2013, 12:37 PM
Ivan if every ship went by the book there would be very few ships at sea, also if one insisted on going by the book one would have a very short seagoing career. Regards John Sabourn

John, I certainly didn't and don't expect every ship to go by the book or be perfect, but I did and do expect Masters, management and Superintendents (normally ex seafarers) to abide by the very basics of ship and crew safety. No ship is going to be perfect in every way, but we were duty bound to mitigate all possible dangers as far as we could. I remember one ship on a flag ship change from Norwegian to British flag where the emergency fire pump was situated within the engineroom on the bottom plates, the most vunerable place for the start of a fire, now lets say you had a fire in the engineroom which spread to the adjacent hold, what were you going to fight the fire with. I moved it from the engineroom to the foc'le head above the forepeak so that water was always available, that's what I mean about mitigating the circumstances. Also it showed a lack of proper thinking by the attending superintendent (and possibly Master) during the build and handover periods about overall safety. Rgds

j.sabourn
3rd November 2013, 12:38 PM
A good idea in principle. but to do one trip proves very little. If one could squash 3 or 4 years into that one trip some of the problems might be transferred to their limited knowledge. Unless of course you are Lucky/unlucky and every untoward thing that can happen does happen. In most cases they go back sporting a sun tan and boasting of their epic sea voyages after a couple of weeks at sea. Ref, to previous posts on such. Cheers John Sabourn

j.sabourn
3rd November 2013, 02:08 PM
#64 Ivan surprised she got by the DTI. Am sure have seen in the Regs. that the emergency fire pump had to be outside the E.R. Always saw it on ships built in the 60"s either under he focsle head or in the Steering Flat. Some people used to refer to the big ballast pump as the fire pump in the E.R. and in a lot of cases this was run at fire drills by mistake. The Emergency Fire pump used to be started by individual crew members after at each fire drill. In the case of a real fire outside the E.R. I am sure the more powerful E.R. pump would be used. Starting the emergency fire pump was usually done under the directions of an engineer so that everyone was able to start .In later models this was not necessary as they all had an electric start, but starting with the loss of electrics was also taught to everyone. Cheers John Sabourn

Ivan Cloherty
3rd November 2013, 06:03 PM
John it wouldn't have got by the DTI which is another reason I moved it (expensive with all piping involved, no electric start allowed only manual), Norwegian rules and regulations were very different to ours in the 70's, even had to alter the lifeboat davits as their runout was 10 degrees list whereas British flag was 15 degrees and that conversion was an expensive exercise, both items not picked up by the Supt on the purchase survey. When I was on the flag change the vessel had already been paid for. Only when you have done a flag change from other flag to British do you realise how much stricter our rules were and how much common sense they made. For instance on some foreign flag ships the portholes didn't have to big enough to allow a man through them, nor did they have to have easy access for the cabin occupant. As I said before too many instances to mention and my survey report is somewhere in storage. You soon learn what to look for, horseshoe lifebelts not allowed on British ships but common practice on Continental ships. Reason for the not allowed was that if you became weak and/or unconcious you could easily slip out of the horseshoe neck as you could in rough weather.

Could go on for yonks, but it may get boring.

Captain Kong
3rd November 2013, 07:09 PM
ATHENS CONVENTION.

FIVE years ago I had a case against a British Shipping Company, where I was overcome by fumes in my cabin.
Here is an Extract from the list of complaints ..



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No:
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMIRALTY COURT
BETWEEN:
(1) MR BRIAN ASPINALL
(2) MS ANNE
Claimants
-and-
****** LIMITED
Defendants
____________________________

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
____________________________

1. At the time of matters described below, the Defendant was the operator of the passenger cruise ship known as ‘************’ (“the ship”) and was a “carrier” within the meaning of the Athens Convention 1972 (as amended by the protocol of 2002 to the Convention).

2. The Claimants were at all material times “passengers” on the ship, within the meaning of the Athens Convention.
3. By way of contract (“the contract”) made by or for the benefit of the Claimants with the Defendant, the Defendant supplied to the Claimants a cruise-ship holiday on board ***** ********, between 10 March 2008 and 18 April 2008.

4. By virtue of Article 3 of the Athens Convention the Defendant shall be liable for the damage suffered as a result of the death of or personal injury to a passenger if the incident which caused the damage so suffered occurred in the course of the carriage and was due to the fault or neglect of the Defendant or of its servants or agents acting within the scope of their employment.

5. By virtue of clause 37 of its terms and conditions of booking within the contract, the Defendant agreed to: “…accept responsibility for death, injury, or illness caused by the negligent acts and/or omissions of it and its suppliers.”

6. Further, the following were express and/or implied terms or warranties of the agreements by virtue of the Defendant’s Brochures and Booking Conditions, Section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Defendant’s duty to ensure that:

a. there was a safe and proper system for the regular safety checks on board the ship.

b. the Claimants would be warned in advance of any malfunctions and/or defects and/or changes to their room and thereby be given an opportunity to cancel or defer their holidays;

c. the cabins provided by the Claimants would be satisfactory for reasonable use, fee from any defects, and suitable for all purposes.
It is a very long document and I won the case and was paid out.
.
. So the passengers of the Concordia would have a sound case agaist Costa,.
after all a Cabin full of sea water is not fit for purpose. and they should have been informed of any failure of water tight doors etc.
Cheers
Brian,

j.sabourn
3rd November 2013, 11:32 PM
#67 Realize there was differences in Marine regulations re. countries. Would be interesting to know how many (if any) of the British regulations were changed to suit everyone as per new convention re regulations and certificate structures. Maybe John Arton would have a better idea than most of us now have. I really went through life adhering to the British Regs. The 15 degree one got caught out once as vessel was in minimum ballast condition and surveyor reckoned the boat ladders were 2 rungs short of reaching boat with 15 degree list. Cheers John Sabourn

j.sabourn
3rd November 2013, 11:43 PM
Ivan when working out east did you ever have contact with an Indian company called Chowgule. They had a c ouple of ships under the Bahamas flag and the rest of fleet under the Indian flag. Ships names started with Maratha. Cheers John Sabourn

Malcolm S
4th November 2013, 01:19 AM
Quote :" Even though it is early days in the trial of the captain of the Costa Concordia I would like to open a discussion and see where it leads us.
The first major piece coming out of the trial is the assertion by Captain Schettino that the helmsman is to blame for not reacting promptly to his command and that if he had, there would have been no collision with the underwater shelf.
I know that when I was steering every command given by a bridge officer or pilot had to be immediately repeated by the helmsman. This is one of the most basic rules of steering procedure and was drilled into me from the first moment I stood behind the wheel. I find it very odd that after the captain gave a command and when there was no immediate response from the helmsman the captain didn’t react at once. These are the basics. You give a command, it comes right back at you. Any captain or officer on a well-managed bridge should have been aware of this. So where does the fault lie? With the captain or the helmsman? The other thing worth mentioning was that the helmsman was Indonesian and perhaps he didn’t understand the command. One has to ask the question how any master of a major multimillion dollar cruise ship could allow critical bridge personnel be in such a position of responsibility and not have a very good command of the language. But what was the language spoken on the bridge? English, Italian? Interesting! Something is not right about all of this.
I think that as the trial goes on there will be many more items brought up that will keep us all enthralled."



I have many friends who are pilots and some in SE Alaska. The reports I am getting from their perspective are scary, -- Pilot gives a helm order and every officer repeats that order, the last one to get a word in let alone repeat the order is the helmsman. Far too much BS has come out of this unfortunate incident. Including people sitting in some office tracking and reporting any deviation or any "non compliant" conversation even if is necessary for the vessels safety.
Glad I am retired! In my last company I was expected, as Master, to deviate for interesting or unusual sightings, to take the ship in as close as possible even stop to give all passengers an opportunity to get pictures etc. Having said that I guess I was lucky never to have any accidents.

Malcolm

j.sabourn
4th November 2013, 04:39 AM
Malcom, " There for the grace of God go I", I am even surprised by todays standards there was even a man on the wheel. Automatic steering is much more accurate than anyone can steer, only the thought of a power failure is a deterrent I suppose. I am quite used to be expected to maintain a course of half a degee on each side when shooting lines on a seismic survey, this can only be done on a very sophisticated automatic system, sitting in a big padded chair and applying corrections by means of buttons. At the very least I suppose he did conform to the publically expected man at the wheel theme. The worst thing that could have happened to this man personally was the advent of the press and the so ca lled statements of falling into a boat. As someone has already said the court system is different to ours, and what appears to us as him trying to pass the buck, will not appear to him to be the same. There is no doubt in my mind he has very little chance of not taking the brunt of the disaster, one of the priviliges of the position he held. Regards John Sabourn

Ivan Cloherty
4th November 2013, 07:34 AM
Ivan when working out east did you ever have contact with an Indian company called Chowgule. They had a c ouple of ships under the Bahamas flag and the rest of fleet under the Indian flag. Ships names started with Maratha. Cheers John Sabourn

John, rings a bell from my time living in Pakistan and doing surveys in India, but don't recall any special incidents or meetings. I'm trying to recall the funnel markings, think they were black with red markings and a symbol, possibly a star, similar to Scindia. Rgds

j.sabourn
4th November 2013, 08:01 AM
Only reason I asked was because the owner Chowgule himself lived in Switzerland. Buff funnel, black top , outline of a pennant in white, with a big C in white. Those were Nassau reg ships the Indian flag ones may have been different. Quite a good company to work for actually. Cheers John Sabourn

John Arton
4th November 2013, 08:22 AM
John S. and Ivan
SOLAS Conventions on the harmonisation of certificates should I say, eliminated any difference in different flag states interpretation of the regulations such as the 10 or 15 deg list against which lifeboats can be launched etc.
Having said that there is most likely still the odd ship sailing around that is in class and is well maintained etc. that could have been built under a different flag states regulations. The only flags I have sailed under or taking ships over from were U.K., Cayman, Gibraltar, Norway, Bermuda, Hong Kong and Liberia.
rgds
JA

Ivan Cloherty
4th November 2013, 09:21 AM
John S. and Ivan
SOLAS Conventions on the harmonisation of certificates should I say, eliminated any difference in different flag states interpretation of the regulations such as the 10 or 15 deg list against which lifeboats can be launched etc.
Having said that there is most likely still the odd ship sailing around that is in class and is well maintained etc. that could have been built under a different flag states regulations. The only flags I have sailed under or taking ships over from were U.K., Cayman, Gibraltar, Norway, Bermuda, Hong Kong and Liberia.
rgds
JA
John my surveys were in 60's and 70's on the flag changes so can't recall if SOLAS was effective in all matters then, my other experiences were in the 80's with Greek, Panamanian, Singapore flags with S'pore flag being nearest to British regulations which in my experience had always surpassed any international regulations, whether or not they do today I couldn't comment on. Last trip on a British flag ship was a few weeks in 1986 as a supernummery, master seemed to have his authority limited by having one hand tied behind his back at all times and constantly on the telex to head office, must say it didn't appeal to me, but it was nice to get the deck under your feet and wander up to the foc'le for a bit of solitude and occasionally get stuck-in on a washdown, old habits die hard. Last time I stepped aboard a commercial vessel was around 2010 when outfitting her with electro hydraulic grabs..........................memories. We seem to have drifted off the CC trial course, but don't we always?

j.sabourn
4th November 2013, 09:34 AM
By what I am surmising here is that for better or worse the British Regulations including SOLAS ( Safety of Life at Sea) have been modified/ changed or whatever one wants to call it to bring everyone under the umbrella so to speak. This of course refers to such Nations who want to be involved. Similar to the UN where no one ever hears of those not party to the agreements. I suppose everyone to their own agreements with these changes which were brought about for whatever reason be it for supposedly better financial or safety reasons. Most of us would say the usual why change it when it works ok. Maybe we don't have the intelligence of our supreme ministers in the appropriate ministries. Cheers John Sabourn

Red Lead Ted
4th November 2013, 12:33 PM
Tut Tut Ted, whilst I agree with the majority of what you said, I'm afraid I must take issue with your last line, does that mean the skippers of the distant water trawlers I sailed with to Iceland, Bear Island, the White Sea were not professional seamen, because I can assure they were in every respect and frequently faced conditions every year that most deep water men may not face in a lifetime. To reach their command they had to progress up a very hard ladder and take multiple exams en-route. Now if you had said 'Italian Lothario' then I could agree with you.

I have every sympathy with the helmsman on the CC who apparently had faithfully served the company for over eleven years (From all accounts to date), so would be fully conversant with port and starboard in Italian, (and probably other languages) from the Master, OOW and pilots during that 11 year period. He was probably given many confusing instructions from what appears to be a mismanaged bridge from 'evidence' heard to date from the Master's subordinates.

No Ivan my mate I was not alluding to the fisherman you sailed with. I take issue with the Peruvian fisherman who made up most of her deck crew. They never got out to sea far enough to open the bond, Because they wouldn't know what a ships bond was. But lets not forget I was at Gravesend with fisherman who had put to sea from Lowestoft and had a few trips under there belt. B.O.T. Regulation to obtain a seaman's discharge book we all had to have the formal training. Apart from D.H.U.s of course when there was a shortage of M. Seaman, From what I have seen that went on aboard the Costa Concordia was an abortion. Woman with radio contact to the bridge telling passengers to stop panicking and go back to their cabin. I have no doubt that the fisherman you and I both sailed with would have read the situation very differently and got the passengers the hell of that ship Regards Terry.

Red Lead Ted
4th November 2013, 12:46 PM
Quote :" Even though it is early days in the trial of the captain of the Costa Concordia I would like to open a discussion and see where it leads us.
The first major piece coming out of the trial is the assertion by Captain Schettino that the helmsman is to blame for not reacting promptly to his command and that if he had, there would have been no collision with the underwater shelf.
I know that when I was steering every command given by a bridge officer or pilot had to be immediately repeated by the helmsman. This is one of the most basic rules of steering procedure and was drilled into me from the first moment I stood behind the wheel. I find it very odd that after the captain gave a command and when there was no immediate response from the helmsman the captain didn’t react at once. These are the basics. You give a command, it comes right back at you. Any captain or officer on a well-managed bridge should have been aware of this. So where does the fault lie? With the captain or the helmsman? The other thing worth mentioning was that the helmsman was Indonesian and perhaps he didn’t understand the command. One has to ask the question how any master of a major multimillion dollar cruise ship could allow critical bridge personnel be in such a position of responsibility and not have a very good command of the language. But what was the language spoken on the bridge? English, Italian? Interesting! Something is not right about all of this.
I think that as the trial goes on there will be many more items brought up that will keep us all enthra"



I have many friends who are pilots and some in SE Alaska. The reports I am getting from their perspective are scary, -- Pilot gives a helm order and every officer repeats that order, the last one to get a word in let alone repeat the order is the helmsman. Far too much BS has come out of this unfortunate incident. Including people sitting in some office tracking and reporting any deviation or any "non compliant" conversation even if is necessary for the vessels safety.
Glad I am retired! In my last company I was expected, as Master, to deviate for interesting or unusual sightings, to take the ship in as close as possible even stop to give all passengers an opportunity to get pictures etc. Having said that I guess I was lucky never to have any accidents.

Malcolm

Malcolm, Regardless as to whether the rock was chartered or not, Would you as a skipper for one moment have put he wheel to port. He was renown for show boating. And apparently liked to please the Female,s amongst his company. :mymy: Terry.

Captain Kong
4th November 2013, 12:56 PM
I think the Court will also consider the ATHENS AGREEMENT.............
.ARTICLE 3.
The Carrier, [ ship owner], shall be liable for the damage suffered as a result of the Death or Personal injury to a passenger and the loss of luggage, [ both things happened,] which was due to the fault or neglect of the Carrier or his Servants or his agents within the scope of his employment...................
.
So within that article Costa as well as Schettino will be on trial.
.
Cheers
Brian

Red Lead Ted
4th November 2013, 02:04 PM
Yes, Brian there are a lot of acquisitions to be taken into consideration here its not just Schettino on trial, A lot of things have to be taken into account as I said in my post. I to looked at the Athens Agreement, One thing for sure it is going to cost this shipping company quite a few bob, Not just in bedroom tax, To many empty rooms {PUN} But the whole integrity of the company Terry.:th_thth5952deef:

happy daze john in oz
5th November 2013, 06:36 AM
Malcom, " There for the grace of God go I", I am even surprised by todays standards there was even a man on the wheel. Automatic steering is much more accurate than anyone can steer, only the thought of a power failure is a deterrent I suppose. I am quite used to be expected to maintain a course of half a degee on each side when shooting lines on a seismic survey, this can only be done on a very sophisticated automatic system, sitting in a big padded chair and applying corrections by means of buttons. At the very least I suppose he did conform to the publically expected man at the wheel theme. The worst thing that could have happened to this man personally was the advent of the press and the so ca lled statements of falling into a boat. As someone has already said the court system is different to ours, and what appears to us as him trying to pass the buck, will not appear to him to be the same. There is no doubt in my mind he has very little chance of not taking the brunt of the disaster, one of the priviliges of the position he held. Regards John Sabourn

Yes John automatic sterring should be seen as far more acurate. But from what I have observed many of the cruise ships only use that once th epilot has been dropped off so using manual at this point may have been in order. However the repeating of a comand on the bridge is normal practice but with so many nationalities on ships these days it is hard to know if English is fully understood. My understanding is that English is the international language used by pilots on ships just as with all aircraft where English is the language of communication.
But the fact the helmsman has already pleaded guilty and as such will not be required to testify leaves a big gap in the story.

j.sabourn
5th November 2013, 08:35 AM
Myself I would prefer a man on the wheel in any close quarter situation, and is the expected thing to do as has always been so. However on long river transits where ship is on the same heading for a long time it is quite common to put the ship into automatic. I said in a previous post if the master was questioning the competency of the helmsman, he should have taken over the steering himself. This business about every man and his dog repeating the helm orders before the wheelman reacts is a stupid way to go. Whoever is conning the ship should be the only person corresponding with the helmsman. It must only be on a passenger ship where this happens, as on a normal cargo vessel you would not have that many people on the Bridge. Probably the master and the helmsman. I can just imagine 2 or 3 watchkeepers on the bridge repeating the orders of whoever has the con, Steady as she goes, Steady as she goes, Steady as she goes, and then the Helmsman gets his bit in Steady as she goes. Tripe and rubbish. Cheers John Sabourn

j.sabourn
5th November 2013, 09:43 AM
Ref. to above , in all the years I did offshore I think I could count on one hand the number of times I have seen a helmsman apart from the officer of the watch on the wheel. Even on the smaller vessels with no automatic, there was just not the manpower to have a man at the wheel and the OOW did it. When you see pictures of Structures and vessels under tow nowadays, on long seagoing passages, there is nobody on the wheel, that would be a luxury to have that sort of manpower on todays working vessels. Steering is on automatic. The efficiency and general usage of such is far advanced of what it was in the 70s. When people here discuss fires and other disasters on ships and how they were trained to react, this is of the old school where you had the men to do it and also probably the intelligence as seamen. Today or when I left in 2002 it was a different world I certainly don't think it was for the better. It has been a well thought out procedure by possibly hired accountants to keep costings down., We have been left with a practically non existant MN just to appease those who probably have the ears of government. As a maritime nation we may well live to regret it. John Sabourn

Malcolm S
6th November 2013, 07:00 AM
Terry, "Would I have turned to port?" Hard to say but easy to answer in hind sight. However, and I think my bridge team would back me up on this, whenever the opportunity arose I followed company directives and got as close as I could but always had in mind the state of the tide, wind and water depth. Engines were always on bridge control and pitch reduced accordingly, Echo sounder was on and the forward seeking sonar was on (Seldom reliable though!), that was my job. If I could not or would not go closer and time was on our side we put down the Zodiacs and sent the passengers out in those. The ship was a delight to handle. The job was challenging but enjoyable and seeing the delight on guest faces and pictures taken was reward enough.
I even got all guests out of their beds at 0200 one morning to see a polar bear swimming alongside (it was still daylight).

In spite of this, all large vessels (cargo pax or tanker) are a different proposition, they have tracks to follow and a schedule to maintain and now the Master is more than a seaman he is a CEO with huge management and budgets to satisfy, the fun has gone out of the job and he should stick to the plan and not play at being a cruise director. PR is one thing but safety is paramount. Its a hard enough job without paranoia in the office. I hope the Italian courts do justice and even better discourage the 'cowboys' still at sea.
Malcolm

Captain Kong
6th November 2013, 08:39 AM
In ESSO after the Penlee/Union Star Disaster all our courses had to keep No Less than Four miles from the nearest Grounding line.
Obviously different in confined waters.
Brian.

John Arton
6th November 2013, 08:42 AM
In all the arguments about the helmsman etc. we are losing sight of one major point that led to the tragedy.
For whatever reason the captain decided to take his ship dangerously close to a rocky shoreline. In doing this he failed to check that he had the largest scale chart available for the area. In this day of modern electronic charts it is just a matter of a quick email to your chart supplier and hey presto you have the largest scale chart available on your ECDIS. By studying this largest scale chart he would have seen the rock that they eventually struck and have been able to steer a course to avoid it.
Ask yourself this, you are bound for, lets say Southampton, coming up from the South. Do you get the Isle of Wight and Southampton approach's chart prior to arrival, or do you just use the English channel and approach's chart to get from deep sea to the pilot boarding position and thence your berth. I think not.
Not having the largest scale chart on board for the area you are navigating in goes against all rules and regulations as well as the ordinary practise of good seamanship. It is not as if the area was strange to this Captain as he had previously done the route many times before so there is no excuse, in my mind, in not having the largest scale chart (paper or electronic) on board. Having this on board would have alerted him to the dangers of the outlying rocks and enabled him to sail a safe course to avoid them. So to me it comes down to the plain simple fact that he took his ship into an area without having the full knowledge of that area that he was intending to navigate in.
rgds
JA

cappy
6th November 2013, 08:52 AM
In all the arguments about the helmsman etc. we are losing sight of one major point that led to the tragedy.
For whatever reason the captain decided to take his ship dangerously close to a rocky shoreline. In doing this he failed to check that he had the largest scale chart available for the area. In this day of modern electronic charts it is just a matter of a quick email to your chart supplier and hey presto you have the largest scale chart available on your ECDIS. By studying this largest scale chart he would have seen the rock that they eventually struck and have been able to steer a course to avoid it.
Ask yourself this, you are bound for, lets say Southampton, coming up from the South. Do you get the Isle of Wight and Southampton approach's chart prior to arrival, or do you just use the English channel and approach's chart to get from deep sea to the pilot boarding position and thence your berth. I think not.
Not having the largest scale chart on board for the area you are navigating in goes against all rules and regulations as well as the ordinary practise of good seamanship. It is not as if the area was strange to this Captain as he had previously done the route many times before so there is no excuse, in my mind, in not having the largest scale chart (paper or electronic) on board. Having this on board would have alerted him to the dangers of the outlying rocks and enabled him to sail a safe course to avoid them. So to me it comes down to the plain simple fact that he took his ship into an area without having the full knowledge of that area that he was intending to navigate in.
rgds
JA
john I think his mind was on navigating elsewhere and it shows what sort of man he was ie falling into a lifeboat and blaming the man at the wheel but this aura seems to be in so many things now ie mps child protectors newspaper moguls and many more of this ilk .....where have all our good men gone.......there are some .yes but they are very very hard to find regards cappy ps 5 or 6 bulkers lying offthe tyne on mon nice to see

John Arton
6th November 2013, 09:24 AM
Cappy
Off thread but are they full of the pellets for the bio-fuel terminal, on fire again recently. Saw the fire engines charging in there again the other day, seems that they are having minor fires there on a regular basis either in the storage shed or the conveyor system. Either that or foreign coal imports...how sad.
rgds
JA

robpage
6th November 2013, 10:30 AM
is that Coals to Newcastle then ?