THE BRITISH THREAD II

Well there's always a first time for everything I suppose. I'll leave him on ignore if that's alright with you. Have you seen today's Guardian? There was quite a good article on cruise liners and safety standards/design.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/15/costa-concordia-not-impregnable-size

Actually you're pretty close to the truth here. I'm not clear on all the facts and it is likely that the ship is now resting, nearly on its side on the shallow bottom or the rocky ledge that did it in. The first step will be to dewater and seal a sufficient number of internal compartments to ensure the ship has sufficient bouyancy and to correct the asymmetric flooding that caused the fatal list. This will be a complicated by the current physical condition of the ship and the potential action of the sea on the currently unstable and possibly insufficiently bouyant vessel. It is possible that the ship could suffer (or has already suffered) additional critical structural damage that may make repair or even salvage of the whole vessel impossible (think of the bending moments on the ship's hull as it lies on its side on the rocks). Barring that, damaged compartments can be sealed by welding new plates just as you suggest - even underwater. In addition inflatable flexible containers have also been used for this purpose and even ping pong balls as farmerman suggested - it works in shallow depths where the pressure isn't too great.

The information I have seen about the events leading up to the grounding is both unclear and incomplete. It may be that the Captian took a more dangerous but also more senic approach to the island harbor successfully on the way in, but grounded on the way out. It's a safe bet the company will declare the route hazardous and against their procedures. However, one will be left to figure out just how, if that is so, their appointed Captain felt it appropriate to repeatedly (if that is indeed the case) take an unsafe, prohibited route. In my experience there's always an interesting, and for those involved in the profession, useful story behind such cases. That's what I was trying to relate in the story behing the grounding of the U.S. carrier.

If cruise ships were nuclear reactors they would be banned by now.

The event occurred in italian territorial waters and italy will have jurisdiction for any potential criminal matters and most liability issues as well. (Though the internationalization of the cruise business probably complicates the liability matter a great deal.)

I agree the captain is toast, and probably without regard to the degree to which he merits it. We'll have to wait for the sifted details of the story of his actions to emerge - lots of potential for misinformation now. It does seem clear that he made a grave error in choosing a route in and our of the harbor , and it is reported that he had used this route before. Some things appear to work up until the moment when they don't work. Managing the risk associated with small probabilities of truly grave outcomes is always difficult. The company appears to have cut its captain loose, very likely influenced by its interest in self-protection.

This morning they're talking about using explosives to open up some inaccessible areas of the wreck. A delicate situation. Especially for any survivors still undiscovered.

They've done it already some time ago (in the early morning, between 7:40 and 8:40 local time) - seemed to be the only possibility to get to places where possible survivors could be.

Did you hear the radio conversation between the Coastguard and the escaping captain?
Sky News ran a lengthy (translated) excerpt.

Truly shameful. It made me weep.

I've heard a phone conversation, obviously from a blackbox.
If it was radio, it would mean that the captain was on board.

Yes, it's the phone conversation on Sky as well.

There were reports of this conversation in the news here as well. Evidently it was a mobile radio conversation between an Italian Coastguard official (who sounds like a very responsible guy) and the captain who was at the time in a lifeboat (along with his first mate) near his grounded and listing ship. It is all very hard to understand and accept.

There's not much anyone could do onboard a large ship, grounded and listing at almost a 90 degree angle by way of operating the ships communications and equipment. However, the event confirms the captain and his deputy had evacuated the ship (and their responsibilities) long before the fatal list occurred suggesting a very dismal picture of the likely immediate response of the captain and crew to an emergency that may well have been salvagable as it was occurring and in the first minutes afterwards.

Information is still incomplete, but much of this sad event is still hard to comprehend.

A local/regional newspaper had published the mobile phone conversations exclusively (and first): Audio in esclusiva: Schettino al telefono con la Capitaneria

Well, aside from the horrendous situation that I've been following since I first read about it early yesterday, I enjoyed hearing Commander de Falco speaking italiano. Too bad it was a real conversation that was going on.

Opera sounds better in Italian too, Osso.

There are poetic/romantic aspects to this tragic event off the Tuscan coast.

One only need look at such a ship on full steam to see hubris. Now you see Nemesis. And a low key one compared to what it might easily have been.

Like Brad. Manning and like Dr Murray the captain is the patsy for failures higher up. As George said--there will be accidents. The captain was just the one in the hot seat for this one and for the expert talkers after the event.

And then there's the famous scene in Fellini's Amarcord to consider. Life imitating art.

In this mornings Times it was quite clear that the captain is safely under the bus. The report was that, and I now understand the issue, under Italian maritime rules, the captain can recieve up to 12 years for "leaving his post ". Thats is compounded by a bunch of counts that are calculated by some arcane formula involving reckless endangerment and lives lost.

The Times has been its usual snidely self on this (I only get the Tuesday Times for the science section)

Patsy for the higher ups? I guess I don't understand the situation at all, because he surely sounds like the direct cause of the whole thing to me.

Our government is considering commissioning the building of a new royal yacht for Her Madge, to replace Britannia which is now a museum exhibit moored at Leith, Edinburgh.

Apparently the new vessel will be a sailing vessel, three or four masts and sails everywhere. So I'm thinking, how will an octogenarian cope with sloping decks? Poorly, I imagine.

Still, an interesting prospect. Apparently the ship will have multi-uses. (Yeah, like Britannia was supposed to convert into a hospital ship, but never did.)

As should be well known by now to attentive readers my basic inclination is to come to the defence of a fellow man who is being **** on from all directions as a result of him just being the one it happened to when we all know, George pointed it out, that it will happen sooner or later.

Often it is not easy when shitting on him is so popular and guaranteed to attract gold stars and glowing commendations from other shitters. And particularly so when reports are coming in which show him in a poor, or even very bad, light.

I feel sure he wasn't aiming to hit the rocks.

I think they should go easy on the guy until all the facts are in. Being in command of a ship like that for a few years must have an odd effect on one's attitudes. And maritime experts are coming on saying that they have been warning about such ships for years.

I gather America has one for 8,000 passengers.

He may well have felt that overseeing the rescue was better done from a boat close to the wreck. What does he do on board. It's a giant maze with all the doors having to be clambered up to or slid down to and all the loose fittings and broken glass are piled up everywhere. Walking around with one foot on the floor and one on the wall, in the dark mainly, and thousands of cabins and assorted other sections to be looked into doesn't seem to me to be the best use of his time, authority and expertise. The major elements of the last named not being cancelled out because he steered, if he did, onto the rocks

Good points, Spendy, he couldn't do a lot from the ship at that time as there was no power for any electrical instruments or communications or lighting (why not? Surely emergency lighting is standard?) and the decks were at a crazy angle.

Still.

He didn't order Abandon Ship in time, and one of his underlings eventually had to do that.
He seemed completely out of touch.
Apparently the police missed a trick by not testing him for drink or drugs.
Apparently he was in a lifeboat because he tripped and fell into it.
I think this man's testimony will require some interpretation.

I'm imagining being him Mac. I'm not going off any **** that excites Anna Botting's dramatic incident G-spot.

I don't agree,

Thouigh the information available is incomplete and unclear in several areas , it is fairly clear that the Captain faied to meet his core responsibility to protect the ship, its passengers and crew - and did so in several particulars.
1. He ordered the unusual and very close pass by the rocky shore in circumstances that offered no meaningful benefit comparable to the risks involved.
2. Having given this foolish order, he failed to take any precautions to ensure that it was executed safely and correctly. He even failed to appear on the bridge himself to oversee the execution of this inherently (and knowably) dangerous maneuver, and was instead having dinner. This and #1 above are completely inexcusable.
3. It appears that at least 30 minutes (possibly more) elapsed between the initial grounding and the starboard list that finally did the ship in and prevented further lowering of lifeboats. This is ample time to control the starboard side flooding and carry out counter flooding of port side compartments to control the ship's list. It appears this was not done.
4. During this fairly long interval no order to abandon ship was given and no reports to the Italian Coast Guard and emergency rescue authorities were made. This and #3 above strongly suggest the captain and his bridge team were not controlling essentail aspects of the situation they created.
5. The presence of the captain and first mate in an operating lifeboat suggests both left the ship earlier and in more favorable circumstances than many of the unfortunate passengers and crew who followed them. To have done so without an abandon ship order (if that is actually the case) is beyond comprehension.

If is is actually true that, after reaching the shore, the captain fled the scene, as was reported, this casts a darker light on everything above.

The captain was well-paid and enjoyed substantial prominence in his work environment as compensation for and aids to the execution of his critical responsibility to protect the ship and those aboard. This event was not a result of external circumstances beyond the captain's control. Indeed it was a situation that arose directly from foolish order he had himself given. He failed to take obvious precautions in carrying out his own orders, and he failed to exercise adequate control over a situation that emerged directly from his own flawed actions.

It doesn't get much worse than that.