On 1/16/2012 12:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:50:07 -0500, Happy
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, wrote:

I would say the whole bridge crew better have some good answers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...ip-sunday.html

If I was the owner, I would suspend everyone until I got solid answers.
Then fire everyone involved in the bad decisions.

But Italians look like they wasted no time in arrest.

===

Here's another report, translated from Italian, that seems to have a
ring of truth to it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best as I can tell, the ship was underway at full speed and had a loss
of all AC power, and then restored it. The reboot process took time..
and in the process, the bridge got distracted by the lights and shore
and failed to realize that the ship was coming closer to shore...
(The rudder does not lock upon a power failure, but the auto pilot
disengages, and rudder control is returned to the helm.
If the helm control was not on zero rudder, the ship's course would
change, my guess slowly....)

While the bridge tries to get unconfused, (the Captain is at dinner
and is kept updated by short reports, but fails to realize the
commotion and confusion on the bridge) the reboot continued and the
position on the eChart showed them where they were based, but NOT on
GPS, but on the last datapoint stored in the system, updated for last
known course and speed.... (read a DR update...) The reboot process
takes more than 15 minutes, and the GPS update
takes at least ANOTHER 15 minutes, longer if the delta between the
current and expected position is large.

While all this is going on, they hit their first rock and that
prompted the first report that said that they had hit uncharted
rocks...

Then, they realized that they were some miles off course, closer to
land, trying to pass between a gap/channel that no sane ship driver
would try......

Hit more rocks, flooding, turned to shore to ground her, hit more
rocks, and started to heel over...

Now, the abandon ship process became much more complicated............

And the pictures tell the rest......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are reports coming out now that they were close to shore to salute
a friend on shore, showing off as it were... This is gonna' be bad for
the cowardly captain and his crew...

On 16/01/2012 7:50 AM, Happy John wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, wrote:

I would say the whole bridge crew better have some good answers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...ip-sunday.html

If I was the owner, I would suspend everyone until I got solid answers.
Then fire everyone involved in the bad decisions.

But Italians look like they wasted no time in arrest.

My sister-in-law was on a 'Scrapping Cruise' on this ship last year. She said it was horrible - poor
service, dirty, generally run down. She was somewhat shocked to see the same ship in the news.

The ship is less than 6 years on the water. Guess it is poorly run.
--
No mater how liberally you try to ignore rationality and reality,
reality always wins in the end.

On 16/01/2012 11:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:50:07 -0500, Happy
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, wrote:

I would say the whole bridge crew better have some good answers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...ip-sunday.html

If I was the owner, I would suspend everyone until I got solid answers.
Then fire everyone involved in the bad decisions.

But Italians look like they wasted no time in arrest.

===

Good discussion, charts and AIS track:

http://www.seanews.com.tr/article/ACCIDENTS/74284/Costa-Concordia-accident-navigational-error/

Holy cow, they are saying that the draft is 8 meters, but as it's
underway at 15 knots there is a "squat" of 3 meters and that not many
captains factor this in!!

Just makes the captain more culpable. An on line chart I looked at
clearly shows 0 to 20 meters in that area, be the draft 8, 11 or 15m,
clearly not wise to cruise in there.

Being modern, would it not have depth, position alarms?

--
No mater how liberally you try to ignore rationality and reality,
reality always wins in the end.

On 16/01/2012 4:24 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 1/16/12 6:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:20:54 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

It's hard to believe a ship of that size didn't have a forward lookout
when heading towards a port, but I guess anything is possible.

===

If the translated story is to be believed, they experienced a power
failure while still in deep water. The power failure led to lack of
situational awareness on the bridge, and they inadvertantly altered
course to the right which took them on to a reef. With a 30+ foot
draft it is unlikely that a forward lookout would have seen a reef in
time unless it was marked with a navaid. Supposedly, or so the story
goes, where they ended up was some distance from the reef that holed
the ship.


I dunno, Wayne. It seems to be that a "lack of situational awareness on
the bridge" is exactly the sort of circumstance that would cause a
competent crew to "double up on the watch" as the first order of business.

We don't agree often, but we agree on this.

And if such awareness was there, where was the call for a tow?

And doesn't jive with the physical evidence. The hole in the hull to me
indicates the ship was under forward power and possibly in a turn.

Confirmed or not, one report has the captain seen by coast guard rescue
while people sere still left on board.

The ship has a black box and t has been retrieved. Many truths it
hopefully has.

--
No mater how liberally you try to ignore rationality and reality,
reality always wins in the end.

On 16/01/2012 4:34 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 1/16/12 6:32 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:24:58 -0500, X `
wrote:

On 1/16/12 6:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:20:54 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

It's hard to believe a ship of that size didn't have a forward lookout
when heading towards a port, but I guess anything is possible.

===

If the translated story is to be believed, they experienced a power
failure while still in deep water. The power failure led to lack of
situational awareness on the bridge, and they inadvertantly altered
course to the right which took them on to a reef. With a 30+ foot
draft it is unlikely that a forward lookout would have seen a reef in
time unless it was marked with a navaid. Supposedly, or so the story
goes, where they ended up was some distance from the reef that holed
the ship.


I dunno, Wayne. It seems to be that a "lack of situational awareness on
the bridge" is exactly the sort of circumstance that would cause a
competent crew to "double up on the watch" as the first order of
business.

Although far from being an expert, I would say the competency of the
crew was the problem in the
first place.


Undertrained and undermotivated, I think.

Or goofing off, pumping the poodle as it was Friday at 9:30pm local
time. Probably dark.

http://blog.geogarage.com/2012/01/co...p-captain.html

Claims the rock wasn't on the the charts....is he in deep.
--
No mater how liberally you try to ignore rationality and reality,
reality always wins in the end.

On 16/01/2012 4:49 PM, Oscar wrote:
On 1/16/2012 6:34 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In articlen_GdnfbyRtBXLInSnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 1/16/12 6:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:20:54 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

It's hard to believe a ship of that size didn't have a forward lookout
when heading towards a port, but I guess anything is possible.

===

If the translated story is to be believed, they experienced a power
failure while still in deep water. The power failure led to lack of
situational awareness on the bridge, and they inadvertantly altered
course to the right which took them on to a reef. With a 30+ foot
draft it is unlikely that a forward lookout would have seen a reef in
time unless it was marked with a navaid. Supposedly, or so the story
goes, where they ended up was some distance from the reef that holed
the ship.


I dunno, Wayne. It seems to be that a "lack of situational awareness on
the bridge" is exactly the sort of circumstance that would cause a
competent crew to "double up on the watch" as the first order of
business.

Lack of situational awareness means unaware of the situation.
If you're unaware, you do nothing out of the ordinary.
And of course if you are aware of the situation, you take the actions to
address it properly.

The captain's decision to lead the march to the lifeboats was nothing
short of brilliant. That act of bravery will not soon be forgotten.

First officer has been arrested too.

This story has a facebook entry mentioned that indicates people knew he
was traveling close. So it wasn't unintentional.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16149739

This story is good at it has details and time.

http://www.canada.com/news/world/Shi...932/story.html

Captain did leave the ship before women and children....

And didn't call mayday for an hour. In fact, coast guard found out from
passengers calling ashore.

I would hate to be him. 15 still missing, 3 days later, 5 dead, shaping
up to be 20 dead.

Wonder what 20 manslaughter and leaving the ship as Capitan before
duties are complete catches him?

--
No mater how liberally you try to ignore rationality and reality,
reality always wins in the end.

On 16/01/2012 5:04 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:46 am, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:50:07 -0500, Happy
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, wrote:

I would say the whole bridge crew better have some good answers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...ip-sunday.html

If I was the owner, I would suspend everyone until I got solid answers.
Then fire everyone involved in the bad decisions.

But Italians look like they wasted no time in arrest.

===

Here's another report, translated from Italian, that seems to have a
ring of truth to it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best as I can tell, the ship was underway at full speed and had a loss
of all AC power, and then restored it. The reboot process took time..
and in the process, the bridge got distracted by the lights and shore
and failed to realize that the ship was coming closer to shore...
(The rudder does not lock upon a power failure, but the auto pilot
disengages, and rudder control is returned to the helm.
If the helm control was not on zero rudder, the ship's course would
change, my guess slowly....)

While the bridge tries to get unconfused, (the Captain is at dinner
and is kept updated by short reports, but fails to realize the
commotion and confusion on the bridge) the reboot continued and the
position on the eChart showed them where they were based, but NOT on
GPS, but on the last datapoint stored in the system, updated for last
known course and speed.... (read a DR update...) The reboot process
takes more than 15 minutes, and the GPS update
takes at least ANOTHER 15 minutes, longer if the delta between the
current and expected position is large.

While all this is going on, they hit their first rock and that
prompted the first report that said that they had hit uncharted
rocks...

Then, they realized that they were some miles off course, closer to
land, trying to pass between a gap/channel that no sane ship driver
would try......

Hit more rocks, flooding, turned to shore to ground her, hit more
rocks, and started to heel over...

Now, the abandon ship process became much more complicated............

And the pictures tell the rest......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like the 100 yr. anniversary replay of the Titanic disaster cam
a few months early.

Fortunately a lot closer to local fellow boaters and rescue boats, and
the water isn't as cold.
--
No mater how liberally you try to ignore rationality and reality,
reality always wins in the end.

On 1/16/2012 10:12 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/16/2012 12:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:50:07 -0500, Happy
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, wrote:

I would say the whole bridge crew better have some good answers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...ip-sunday.html

If I was the owner, I would suspend everyone until I got solid answers.
Then fire everyone involved in the bad decisions.

But Italians look like they wasted no time in arrest.

===

Here's another report, translated from Italian, that seems to have a
ring of truth to it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Best as I can tell, the ship was underway at full speed and had a loss
of all AC power, and then restored it. The reboot process took time..
and in the process, the bridge got distracted by the lights and shore
and failed to realize that the ship was coming closer to shore...
(The rudder does not lock upon a power failure, but the auto pilot
disengages, and rudder control is returned to the helm.
If the helm control was not on zero rudder, the ship's course would
change, my guess slowly....)

While the bridge tries to get unconfused, (the Captain is at dinner
and is kept updated by short reports, but fails to realize the
commotion and confusion on the bridge) the reboot continued and the
position on the eChart showed them where they were based, but NOT on
GPS, but on the last datapoint stored in the system, updated for last
known course and speed.... (read a DR update...) The reboot process
takes more than 15 minutes, and the GPS update
takes at least ANOTHER 15 minutes, longer if the delta between the
current and expected position is large.

While all this is going on, they hit their first rock and that
prompted the first report that said that they had hit uncharted
rocks...

Then, they realized that they were some miles off course, closer to
land, trying to pass between a gap/channel that no sane ship driver
would try......

Hit more rocks, flooding, turned to shore to ground her, hit more
rocks, and started to heel over...

Now, the abandon ship process became much more complicated............

And the pictures tell the rest......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are reports coming out now that they were close to shore to salute
a friend on shore, showing off as it were... This is gonna' be bad for
the cowardly captain and his crew...

Has Sea Tow claimed salvage rights to the ship yet?

On Jan 17, 9:48*am, Oscar
wrote:
On 1/16/2012 10:12 PM, JustWait wrote:









On 1/16/2012 12:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:50:07 -0500, Happy
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, wrote:

I would say the whole bridge crew better have some good answers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...ip-sunday.html

If I was the owner, I would suspend everyone until I got solid answers.
Then fire everyone involved in the bad decisions.

But Italians look like they wasted no time in arrest.

===

Here's another report, translated from Italian, that seems to have a
ring of truth to it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best as I can tell, the ship was underway at full speed and had a loss
of all AC power, and then restored it. The reboot process took time..
and in the process, the bridge got distracted by the lights and shore
and failed to realize that the ship was coming closer to shore...
(The rudder does not lock upon a power failure, but the auto pilot
disengages, and rudder control is returned to the helm.
If the helm control was not on zero rudder, the ship's course would
change, my guess slowly....)

While the bridge tries to get unconfused, (the Captain is at dinner
and is kept updated by short reports, but fails to realize the
commotion and confusion on the bridge) the reboot continued and the
position on the eChart showed them where they were based, but NOT on
GPS, but on the last datapoint stored in the system, updated for last
known course and speed.... (read a DR update...) The reboot process
takes more than 15 minutes, and the GPS update
takes at least ANOTHER 15 minutes, longer if the delta between the
current and expected position is large.

While all this is going on, they hit their first rock and that
prompted the first report that said that they had hit uncharted
rocks...

Then, they realized that they were some miles off course, closer to
land, trying to pass between a gap/channel that no sane ship driver
would try......

Hit more rocks, flooding, turned to shore to ground her, hit more
rocks, and started to heel over...

Now, the abandon ship process became much more complicated............

And the pictures tell the rest......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are reports coming out now that they were close to shore to salute
a friend on shore, showing off as it were... This is gonna' be bad for
the cowardly captain and his crew...

Has Sea Tow claimed salvage rights to the ship yet?

I wonder how theyre gonna break it loose and get it upright...

Or if they''ll scrap it on the spot?

On 1/17/2012 6:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jan 17, 9:48 am, Oscar
wrote:
On 1/16/2012 10:12 PM, JustWait wrote:









On 1/16/2012 12:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:50:07 -0500, Happy
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, wrote:

I would say the whole bridge crew better have some good answers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...ip-sunday.html

If I was the owner, I would suspend everyone until I got solid answers.
Then fire everyone involved in the bad decisions.

But Italians look like they wasted no time in arrest.

===

Here's another report, translated from Italian, that seems to have a
ring of truth to it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best as I can tell, the ship was underway at full speed and had a loss
of all AC power, and then restored it. The reboot process took time..
and in the process, the bridge got distracted by the lights and shore
and failed to realize that the ship was coming closer to shore...
(The rudder does not lock upon a power failure, but the auto pilot
disengages, and rudder control is returned to the helm.
If the helm control was not on zero rudder, the ship's course would
change, my guess slowly....)

While the bridge tries to get unconfused, (the Captain is at dinner
and is kept updated by short reports, but fails to realize the
commotion and confusion on the bridge) the reboot continued and the
position on the eChart showed them where they were based, but NOT on
GPS, but on the last datapoint stored in the system, updated for last
known course and speed.... (read a DR update...) The reboot process
takes more than 15 minutes, and the GPS update
takes at least ANOTHER 15 minutes, longer if the delta between the
current and expected position is large.

While all this is going on, they hit their first rock and that
prompted the first report that said that they had hit uncharted
rocks...

Then, they realized that they were some miles off course, closer to
land, trying to pass between a gap/channel that no sane ship driver
would try......

Hit more rocks, flooding, turned to shore to ground her, hit more
rocks, and started to heel over...

Now, the abandon ship process became much more complicated............

And the pictures tell the rest......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are reports coming out now that they were close to shore to salute
a friend on shore, showing off as it were... This is gonna' be bad for
the cowardly captain and his crew...

Has Sea Tow claimed salvage rights to the ship yet?

I wonder how theyre gonna break it loose and get it upright...

Or if they''ll scrap it on the spot?

I don't think they can move it without cutting it up...