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.

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, Canuck57 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.

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, Canuck57 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.

===

What is a "scrapping" cruise?

I thought the boat was relatively new.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:44:30 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, Canuck57 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.

===

What is a "scrapping" cruise?

I thought the boat was relatively new.

A scrapping cruise is when a bunch of women who are 'scrappers', i.e. makers of scrapbooks, get
together and work on scrapbooks while on a ship. My wife goes to Bethany Beach every spring for a
scrapping get-together.

The ship entered service in July, 2006, so she was pretty new.

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, Canuck57 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/

In article ,
says...

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, Canuck57 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!!

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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:51:44 -0700, Canuck57 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......

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

On 1/16/12 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......

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



They didn't know they were close to shore? Really? There was no
"lookout"? And why wasn't there a battery run GPS on the bridge, to back
up the one that takes a half hour to restart?

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...