Costa Concordia Trial

[corrientes]

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]

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]

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.

[Red Lead Ted]

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]

As for Costa Lines start employing professional {SEAMAN} Not fisherman. Terry.

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]

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]

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]

#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]

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]

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