Costa Concordia Trial

[j.sabourn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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