Italian Cruise Line disaster


JLM
+1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Considering the way things ended up, only a few deaths is a pretty positive result.

I suppose, although the relatives might not agree!
 
#juan
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I suppose, although the relatives might not agree!

Yeah, and we have to remember that fourteen people are still missing.

Looking at the underwater photos, what I found incredulous was the amount of damage to the ship. It is torn to rat**** and I can't see any way of re-floating it any time soon.
 
JLM
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Yeah, and we have to remember that fourteen people are still missing.

Looking at the underwater photos, what I found incredulous was the amount of damage to the ship. It is torn to rat**** and I can't see any way of re-floating it any time soon.

Yeah, they'll probably have to nail a few sheets of plywood over the hole!
 
TenPenny
+1
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

I was wondering if anyone knew why he is being accused of manslaughter. The news reports I read didn't have any explanation. Was it his guidance of the ship into the rocks? Not having anyone in the bridge? Having an accident then trying to save your own life isn't manslaughter.

I would assume it's because he was the captain, he was in charge, and crashing the ship into rocks that he claims aren't on nautical charts resulted in deaths.

So he is responsible for the deaths.
 
bill barilko
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

I was wondering if anyone knew why he is being accused of manslaughter. The news reports I read didn't have any explanation. Was it his guidance of the ship into the rocks? Not having anyone in the bridge? Having an accident then trying to save your own life isn't manslaughter.

It's being translated as manslaughter who knows what the formal definition is under Italian law in the Italian language-that's the name of the language they speak in Italy.
 
#juan
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yeah, they'll probably have to nail a few sheets of plywood over the hole!

How about three hundred sheets of plywood....

Seriously, the ship is lying on the rocks that killed her. Maybe they can make it a very large reef
for scuba divers....
 
JLM
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I would assume it's because he was the captain, he was in charge, and crashing the ship into rocks that he claims aren't on nautical charts resulted in deaths.

So he is responsible for the deaths.

I suspect that is right, but perhaps there was a misprint in the tide tables!
 
TenPenny
#38
I understand that the ship was something like 10 km off its normal course.
 
talloola
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I understand that the ship was something like 10 km off its normal course.

of course the captain has the final responsibility, BUT he has many others around him, with eyes, so they
surely must have 'eye balled' the situation well before the accident and realized they were dangerously
close to shore, and definitely off course, and at some point it is impossible to get back on course
before disaster. How the hell could a group of people 'all' be that careless, someone had to start
asking questions long before the ship hit the rocks.

And, where was everyone who has responsibility in that area, will we ever know.

This thing about the captain leaving the ship before all passengers were in a safe area is rather
sketchy. The ship wasn't going to sink, it was on the bottom allready, so without just being emotional,
and using the old saying, that the captain goes down with the ship, well, he did, so maybe he was just
following orders from his bosses, or?
 
Dexter Sinister
+2
#40
The news I'm getting from European sources is that the Captain wanted to do a favour for the head waiter, who comes from that little island, by giving him a closer than usual view of his home on the way by. So they turned off the autopilot, which would normally have kept the vessel a kilometer from shore, sailed in too close, and hit reefs that are well known, to the locals at least, about 100 meters offshore. So, not following procedure (no autopilot), sailing outside the approved shipping channel, six dead, 60-some injured, loss of the vessel... I think our laws would call that criminal negligence causing death.
 
mentalfloss
#41
holy ****
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#42
Just learned (email from a European friend) it's even worse than that. Heavy seas and winds have shifted the vessel, it's now teetering on the edge of an abyss while the Dutch company Smit Salvage tries to pump out 4500 tons of heavy fuel oil before the ship either breaks up or goes down, or both. If it breaks up or goes down with the fuel oil still aboard we have the makings of a major ecological disaster.
 
Niflmir
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

I was wondering if anyone knew why he is being accused of manslaughter. The news reports I read didn't have any explanation. Was it his guidance of the ship into the rocks? Not having anyone in the bridge? Having an accident then trying to save your own life isn't manslaughter.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

The news I'm getting from European sources is that the Captain wanted to do a favour for the head waiter, who comes from that little island, by giving him a closer than usual view of his home on the way by. So they turned off the autopilot, which would normally have kept the vessel a kilometer from shore, sailed in too close, and hit reefs that are well known, to the locals at least, about 100 meters offshore. So, not following procedure (no autopilot), sailing outside the approved shipping channel, six dead, 60-some injured, loss of the vessel... I think our laws would call that criminal negligence causing death.

Negligence would be more like not checking that flashing red light on the console. Purposefully breaking safety regulations in order to impress your friend makes you much more directly culpable. If an airline pilot did a barrel roll halfway over the atlantic just to impress the stewardess... that's not negligence--despite what Tex Johnson has to say:

707 roll - YouTube

 
#juan
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

The news I'm getting from European sources is that the Captain wanted to do a favour for the head waiter, who comes from that little island, by giving him a closer than usual view of his home on the way by. So they turned off the autopilot, which would normally have kept the vessel a kilometer from shore, sailed in too close, and hit reefs that are well known, to the locals at least, about 100 meters offshore. So, not following procedure (no autopilot), sailing outside the approved shipping channel, six dead, 60-some injured, loss of the vessel... I think our laws would call that criminal negligence causing death.

Taking the ship off autopilot means that somebody had to steer it. It is my understanding that most of these ships have
side-scan sonar that would have kept the captain, or whoever was driving appraised of the dangers, if the sonar was even on.
To tear a fifty meter gash in the hull suggests that the ship was moving at a pretty good speed. I can't think of a way to forgive
the captain's irresponsible blunder.
 
Niflmir
#45
Also, after looking into it, I don't think Italian law distinguishes negligence causing death and manslaughter.
 
JLM
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

The news I'm getting from European sources is that the Captain wanted to do a favour for the head waiter, who comes from that little island, by giving him a closer than usual view of his home on the way by. So they turned off the autopilot, which would normally have kept the vessel a kilometer from shore, sailed in too close, and hit reefs that are well known, to the locals at least, about 100 meters offshore. So, not following procedure (no autopilot), sailing outside the approved shipping channel, six dead, 60-some injured, loss of the vessel... I think our laws would call that criminal negligence causing death.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm- Not a candidate for Mensa! Or even I.A.!
 
gopher
+1
#47
~~~ manslaughter ~~~


Sea going ships have sonar equipment which gives profiles of the surfaces beneath them. If the captain and his crew bothered to view signal detections they could have easily seen the sandbar underneath and not run aground. Ships don't get pushed by strong winds and suddenly veer into land masses. It would take a massive wave of almost astronomical proportions to do that. Clearly, the captain and his crew were criminally negligent and jeopardized the vessel and the passengers. Therefore based on these facts (if proven in court), and the resulting deaths, warrant convictions due to manslaughter.
 
Kreskin
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

The news I'm getting from European sources is that the Captain wanted to do a favour for the head waiter, who comes from that little island, by giving him a closer than usual view of his home on the way by. So they turned off the autopilot, which would normally have kept the vessel a kilometer from shore, sailed in too close, and hit reefs that are well known, to the locals at least, about 100 meters offshore. So, not following procedure (no autopilot), sailing outside the approved shipping channel, six dead, 60-some injured, loss of the vessel... I think our laws would call that criminal negligence causing death.

Fair enough. The news reports were just saying he was accused of manslaughter, without expanding on under what grounds.
 
gopher
+1
#49
Criminally negligent manslaughter. I'm surprised that wasn't explained by your news media.
 
TenPenny
#50
I like this bit from the Globe and Mail:

Quote:

"Mr. Schettino has insisted he stayed aboard until the ship was evacuated, but the recording of his conversation with Italian Coast Guard Capt. Gregorio De Falco indicates he fled before all passengers were off — and then resisted Mr. De Falco's repeated orders to return.
“You go on board and then you will tell me how many people there are. Is that clear?” Mr. De Falco shouted in the audio tape.
Mr. Schettino resisted, saying the ship was tipping and that it was dark. At the time, he was in a lifeboat and said he was coordinating the rescue from there.
Mr. De Falco shouted back: “And so what? You want go home, Schettino? It is dark and you want to go home? Get on that prow of the boat using the pilot ladder and tell me what can be done, how many people there are and what their needs are. Now!”
“You go aboard. It is an order. Don't make any more excuses. You have declared the abandoning of the ship, now I am in charge,” Mr. De Falco shouted."

 
wulfie68
#51
Yahoo has an article from Reuters with a longer transcript. Captain Schettino sounds like he is in deep trouble and from the facts in evidence thus far, its hard to feel sorry for him.

Coastguard raged at liner captain, tape shows - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)
 
JLM
+1
#52
He could lose his boat license!
 
#juan
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I like this bit from the Globe and Mail:

I'm not defending Captain Schettino but I can see why he might have wanted to get the hell off that ship. It was dark, and the
ship was listing at an impossible angle. I don't think anyone could have said the ship wouldn't completely capsize at any
moment. The whole mess was the responsibility of the captain because he ordered the course change that led to the ship
going aground but the reasons for the ensuing panic are also understandable.
 
JLM
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I'm not defending Captain Schettino but I can see why he might have wanted to get the hell off that ship. It was dark, and the
ship was listing at an impossible angle. I don't think anyone could have said the ship wouldn't completely capsize at any
moment. The whole mess was the responsibility of the captain because he ordered the course change that led to the ship
going aground but the reasons for the ensuing panic are also understandable.

Yep, he was probably in over his head and should probably be restricted to 12' vessels powered by a pair of oars!
 
TenPenny
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I'm not defending Captain Schettino but I can see why he might have wanted to get the hell off that ship.

But the point is, his job was to stay there and take charge of the evacuation.

I doubt that he'll ever work as a Captain again, with this track record.
 
#juan
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

But the point is, his job was to stay there and take charge of the evacuation.

I doubt that he'll ever work as a Captain again, with this track record.

I think that point has already been made. Looking at the photos, the decks are pretty much vertical, making rescue work
of any kind very difficult. At this point, the captain is all but irrelevant until the trial.
 
spaminator
#57
News Weird
Czech supermodel doomed luxury liner?

0 Comments
WENN.com
First posted: Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:31 AM EST | Updated: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:18 PM EST


Former top model Eva Herzigova (REUTERS/Eric Gaillard)

Supermodel Eva Herzigova predicted disaster when she launched the doomed Italian cruise ship which ran aground Jan. 14 after the traditional Champagne bottle ceremony went horribly wrong.
It has now emerged Czech beauty Herzigova launched the ship back in 2006, but the ceremony went awry when the Champagne bottle, which is traditionally smashed against the hull, failed to break.
According to maritime folklore, an 'unsmashed' bottle spells bad luck for the ship.
The Costa Concordia capsized off the coast of Italy after hitting rocks just yards from a dock on the island of Giglio.
Three people have been confirmed dead and more than 70 remain missing as emergency workers continue to hunt for survivors of the disaster, which has left the massive vessel semi-submerged on its side.

Czech supermodel doomed luxury liner? | Weird | News | Toronto Sun
 
bill barilko
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminatorView Post

Supermodel Eva Herzigova predicted disaster when she launched the doomed Italian cruise ship which ran aground Jan. 14 after the traditional Champagne bottle ceremony went horribly wrong.
It has now emerged Czech beauty Herzigova launched the ship back in 2006, but the ceremony went awry when the Champagne bottle, which is traditionally smashed against the hull, failed to break.
According to maritime folklore, an 'unsmashed' bottle spells bad luck for the ship.

Typical Italian 'champagne'-horribly oversweetened crud in a bottle as thick as a brick.
 
JLM
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilkoView Post

Typical Italian 'champagne'-horribly oversweetened crud in a bottle as thick as a brick.

Kind of ties in nicely with the line from George Carlin about when you consider how stupid the average person is and then realize half are worse than THAT!
 
Locutus
#60
Transcript/recording of the chat between Captain Courageous and the Coast Guard Commander:

BBC News - Concordia disaster: Coastguard calls captain (external - login to view)


BBC News - Recording reveals coastguard told captain to 'get back on board' (external - login to view)
 

Similar Threads

6
Our Cruise Ship Tourists
by missile | Nov 21st, 2008
28
tom Cruise we are going to be attacked by aliens
by Dreadful Nonsense | Oct 2nd, 2007
43
CRUISE ''I HAVE LIVED BEFORE''
by mrmom2 | Sep 20th, 2005
10
Sick of Tom Cruise?
by Cosmo | Aug 7th, 2005
no new posts