http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-15/Italian-cruise-ship/52587626/1Perhaps a bit "off-topic" but then again perhaps not.As I begin to separate the wheat from the chaff concerning this Major Incident, I see many parallels concerning this mode of transport's crash and that of it's sister, the aeroplane. Early confusion and speculation concerning the crash. Finger-pointing and pundits who "know all the facts" before the facts have been gathered. A series of cascading events that individually contribute to the event, and perhaps a bit of hubris and the frailty of the human condition.There can really be no discussion at this time concerning the events of Friday night beyond what a tragedy it is, and what a greater tragedy it may become both on a human and a financial scale. My hope is that this thread will evolve as the facts become known and we can use it as a topic of analysis and learning.My thoughts as of today, Jan 16th, 2012,Braun

Edited January 16, 201214 yr by btacon

You can have good updates about this disaster in this forum:http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/last-voyage-costa-concordia-cruise-ship-41313.html

Not off topic as there are similar behaviour patterns in this compared to behaviours in Aviation, only difference is this accident happens in very slow motion compared to a 747 falling out of the sky.Captain of this ship seems to have taken this ship off its autopilot for some reason, maybe to show off, maybe to give the passengers a closer view of Isola Del Giglio. He was way off course and somewhere he wasn't supposed to be. Someone gots some explaining to do.I recon this accident will be very costly compared to Aviation seeing how much it costs to build a ship like that, This ship probably costs around the same as 2 747's. Also the pending lawsuits from the 3000+ passengers and 1000+ crew compared to around 500 passengers on a 747.Now Italy is left with a big mess to clean-up. Like here in New Zealand we have commited to cleaning up the Rena entirely, but that is how New Zealand Environment Laws work. You can't leave a shipwreck on a reef, it has to be 100% Removed. Italy will most likely have to do the same, cut it up and scrap it or drag it somewhere else. It is estimated it will take 2 years to clean up the Rena and the costs of that will be astronomical. Cheers

Edited January 17, 201214 yr by ytzpilot

After this accident,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuninter_Flight_1153I wonder what the Ships bridge crew and pilot will face,as far as jail time?

I wouldn't want to be caught up in Italian Justice. Look at the manslaughter charges against Italian geologists for not being able to predict the 2009 L'Aquila Earthquake??? That sort of earthquake predicting is never possible and yet they are up on Manslaughter charges.

That is not the first time that the Costa Concordia shaved close to Gilio Island. In fact in this video the ship is in almost the exact same place and distance from shore as the last time. When this was broadcast on Italian TV the company was quick to say that the event caught on the video had been authorized, whereas the most recent one was not. Seems like Costa may have promoted "showing the flag" with most of their ships at places which were filled with tourists for advertising and promotional purposes. Perhaps they are lucky to have gotten away with it up to now.http://video.corrier...52-5f77182bc574Compare the video with this photo: It was taken last week a minute or two after the ship struck the rocks on the port quarter, immediately before the water intake began to outrace the pumps which flooded the engine and generator rooms.They dropped their starboard (right) anchor which pulled the ship all the way around to face in the south direction and settled on the narrow ledge facing the small harbour. The power was generated by the emergency generators located on the top deck, just below the funnel.If the anchor had not caught and held the vessel would have glided out into deep water and would not have been able to power back into shallow water. In that case the loss of life would probably be in the thousands.Kind regards,

Edited January 18, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer

Notice the huge rock imbedded right into the ship's side, near the waterline. Damage was for about 160 feet. 100 years ago on April 15, 1912 the Titanic (45,000 tons) sank after scrapping its side for about 300 feet on an iceberg, lost almost entirely by bad luck. The Costa Concordia (114,000 tons) sank faster and is by far the largest passenger ship lost at any time. It is unlikely that it can be economically salvaged, but even if could, it is debatable if it would be wise to do so. It is now a death ship, lost entirely by utter fools.Kind regards,

Edited January 18, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer

Two words come to mind when I see this one: Exxon Valdez

[it is now a death ship, lost entirely by utter fools.Kind regards,

Agreed completely. The level of malfeasence here, from the decision to travel so close to the coastline to the Capt. Abandoning ship ahead of the pacs, to the delays in calling Mayday and worse the delay to deploy the lifeboats, all simply boggles the mind.When i began this thread I mentioned the possibility of Hubris. Now that the facts are coming out that was definately a factor, but we can now add both Malice And Animus just to name a few!Braun

Edited January 18, 201214 yr by btacon

It is being reported this morning that according to satelite data the sail by last year of the Costa Concordia was a dangerous close call, and actually closer to the island than it was last week, with the ship being only 230 meters from the island instead of the reported 500 meters. That was about the ship's width difference between last year's stunt and the final one. It just barely escaped hitting the rocks to the south because it entered the shallows just a few meters farther north. Lloyds is calling the earlier one a near miss. This demonstrates a culture of recklessness that is impossible to reconcile with any kind of forethought, let alone prudence. The actions of the Captain is a dark smear on the heritage of valour in the face of danger, as recorded in the annals of marine history and in the hearts of seafarers of all nations, cultures and creeds; women and children first.http://video.corrier...52-5f77182bc574The ship has shifted again which has prompted another urgent evacuation of the emergency personel searching the vessel. The wreck is increasingly showing that it is dangerously unstable and seemingly on the very edge of sliding off the ledge into deep water. According to depth charts only the aft part of the vessel is perched on the ledge with the front half of the hull hanging over a precipice. The challenge will be to pump the oil out of the tanks that are in the slightly heavier aft section in such a way as not to thereby induce a slide. It could plunge off it's precarious perch and roll completely under with the slightest weight or sea shift. Here is a direct cut and paste from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) published today:"Meanwhile, the BBC is reporting that satellite tracking information shows the Costa Concordia sailed closer to Giglio island on a cruise last August than it did on its disastrous voyage on Friday.The BBC quotes the shipping journal Lloyd's List Intelligence as saying the vessel passed within 230 metres of the island last Aug. 14 to mark La Notte di San Lorenzo — the night of the shooting stars festival on the island.The route deviation on that occasion had apparently been authorized by Costa Cruises, BBC says. The company said on Monday that the ship was never closer than 500 meters to the coast when it passed by on Aug. 14.Lloyd's List describes that occasion as a "near miss" and says the ship's route would have been less than 200 metres away from the point of collision on Friday's voyage, BBC says."

Edited January 18, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer

The Voyage Data Recorders (VDR's - equivalent to an A/C's black box) are going to be the evidence that crucifies this guy (I refuse to label him a "Captain") and probably his entire bridge crew at the time. Until the end of this month, I am in the maritime business - I then retire. Fortunately for us, none of our equipment was aboard this ship. This guy's idiocy is going to cost the industry considerably before it is all over. You are hearing snippets of that already.Someone mentioned EXXON Valdez... We had navigation equipment aboard that ship. EXXON tried to implicate our equipment as a cause of the grounding. They sent out a team of lawyers and clerks in the "discovery phase", where they go through every document, procedure, quality control instruction, personal interviews, etc. etc. that might relate to, or justify / prove their claim. They occupied offices in our facility for weeks and tied up dozens of our people, lawyers and contracts personnel for a lot longer. In the end, EXXON dropped all intent to pursue the faulty equipment strategy when it became obvious that the cause was the captain, not us. (Not to mention that our equipment worked flawlessly, even after the event)...Bottom line: it cost us approximately $10 million to work through the "discovery phase" that they had instigated.

From front page of yahoo.....Ship captain says he 'fell into lifeboat'

The Japanese say: "Duty is heavy as a mountain; death is as light as a feather."I think the captain should have watched a little more John Wayne as a child - but - hey - he was popular with the ladies...I can't even comprehend his actions...Regards,Scott

Seldom have normally circumspect organizations released information on a major disaster like is happening now at every level of corporate, governmental, regulatory and underwriting marine entities. Lloyds of London has just released a chart showing the exact routes taken by the Costa Concordia on August 14th (in the above video link) and the fatal one on January 13th. As is clearly shown the vessel nearly hit land twice in the earlier stunt and was significantly closer to the rocks she now sits on.As can be seen from this picture, the distances are not great, and the shoreline dangerous to approach without extreme caution day or night.Kind regards,

Edited January 18, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer

This chart shows the precarious perch upon which the Costa Concordia now lies on it's starboard side. The majority of the hull is suspended over deeper water and in imminent danger of sliding forward or to the east and plunging entirely beneath the surface. The strain on the vessel by the uneven distribution of support also puts it at significant risk of breaking in half just at the forward part of the larger engine room and dining room spaces. The aft part of the hull and side that is in contact with the ledge is barely heavier than the unsupported amidships and bow areas. Therefore any shifting of weight, like the removal of oil from the main fuel tanks that are located in the aft section, or heavy sea swell action from westerly inclement weather could upset the delicate balancing act, causing the Concordia to either slide or roll off and sink into the 175 to 300 foot deep trench that surrounds it on 3 sides, or break at the weakest point with the forward part of the vessel sinking alone.Anyway, here is solid proof, if any were needed that evil avoided is evil defeated, or in secular terms, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.Kind regards,

Edited January 18, 201214 yr by SpiritFlyer