How can a modernday cruise ship sink?

[Pika...]

Sure technology was basic in Titanic's day, but today? It made my mind boggle to see that huge ship go down. In the modern day it just doesn't seem like a vessel like that should go down.

[Partof1]

I have no idea what you're talking about. A ship sank?

EDIT Ohh, I never thought of the Titanic as modern day. At all.

[Tragic_Comedian]

By running into a rock, apparently.

But seriously, there were probably a number of factors and these kind of things don't happen very often anymore. The ship was off course so that the captain could show her off, and like I said, the rock was in the way.

[Aedilred]

Regardless of how sophisticated the technology, if you run a ship aground, bad things will happen. Ships don't work on land. It'll probably be a while before we find out exactly what happened, assuming we ever get the full truth. The captain says the rocks weren't marked on his charts and navigational systems didn't pick them up; the company says the captain made an unauthorised diversion and came too close to shore.

[Dr.Epic]

Maybe it was a giga-ice-burg. It's kind of like a giga-drill, except less Gurren-Lagann-y.

:smallwink::smalltongue:

[Goosefeather]

However modern it is, it's still a huge lump of metal, kept afloat thanks to the fact that it is formed in a specific shape. Compromise that shape by putting a hole in the bottom, as pointy rocks will do, and it's going down.

[Giggling Ghast]

Sea monster attack, maybe?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Aye, pointy rocks. Could also ground and capsize. Strong enough winds and waves can do horrible things to ANY size of ship, as well. If enough water comes in, it will grow heavy in the water and could go straight down that way without tipping.

[Dr.Epic]

Sea monster attack, maybe?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Lochnessmonster.jpg/220px-Lochnessmonster.jpg

"Don't be ridiculous. Sea monsters don't exist."
:smallwink:

[Karoht]

Floating is a product of Buoyancy. Compromise that, and anything sinks.

The Titanic, even with modern technology to fix it's design flaws, could still be sunk, and likely by the same ice berg that sunk it before.

As for a modern battleship or aircraft carrier, that gets more into a question of firepower, and enough firepower will still upset that buoyancy. But that leads into another discussion altogether.

[H Birchgrove]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I re-call that the Titanic would have been far less disastrous, if it had collided with the iceberg with the front, rather than the crew trying to steer away and thus scrape of the side of the ship. The safety features were built for frontal crashes, AFAIK. Or the very least, they would have worked better that way.

[Douglas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I re-call that the Titanic would have been far less disastrous, if it had collided with the iceberg with the front, rather than the crew trying to steer away and thus scrape of the side of the ship. The safety features were built for frontal crashes, AFAIK. Or the very least, they would have worked better that way.
Correct. The Titanic had a number of sections that could be sealed off watertight from each other, and was designed to stay afloat with any 4 of them completely flooded. A direct frontal collision would have utterly destroyed the front sections, but I'm pretty sure no more than 4 of them, and with at most 4 sections breached the ship as a whole would have stayed afloat. It would have sucked royally for the people in those front sections, but the rest of the ship would have been fine.

The actual course the crew took, trying to avoid the iceberg entirely, resulted in it scraping along the side instead. This had the effect of producing superficially lighter damage, but more spread out, and the extra spreading proved fatal because it opened 5 sections to the ocean. With regard to the threat of the whole ship sinking, extent of damage on any one section was irrelevant once it reached the point of "this section will flood", so the reduced severity meant almost nothing while the critical 5th section exceeded the designed safety margin and doomed the whole ship.

[thubby]

the titanic wouldn't have been a disaster at all but for the crew's general incompetence.

had they simply gone to full power and turned, instead of trying to stop and turn, they'd have cleared the thing entirely.

[Karoht]

Design wise, I remember... hang on, wiki...

water started pouring from the sixth into the seventh compartment over the top of the bulkhead separating them
As opposed to the compartments being water tight, water filled in, then spilled over the top into the next one, kind of like an ice cube tray. I remember people remarking upon this design flaw every time the topic of the Titanic came up in school. We did an entire unit on it and this poor feature seemed rather important and definately contributed to the speed at which the boat sank.

Huh. Also from wiki, the White Star Line never actually made the claim that it was unsinkable.

Actually, the wiki entry is a surprisingly interesting read. Especially the 'legends and myths' section.

[snoopy13a]

CNN's website has a video of how the Italian cruise ship went down:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/collection/CRUISE_SHIP_DISASTER&hpt=hp_t1

[Raddish]

The ship didn't really have much hope of avoiding the iceberg after it was seen. It was moving much too fast to turn given how late the iceberg was spotted because of the low visibility from the moonless night. They had 37 seconds give or take and a rudder that was, perhaps by modern standards, undersized, the ship was just not going to turn quickly.

And I think I remember reading or hearing that it would have sunk even if it hit direct with the berg because the ships hull and bulkheads would likely have still been compromised.


Judging by the Wiki page they didn't actually do anything wrong by the standards of its day. More modern practises would likely have prevented either the colission or the large loss of life but I am not sure much more could have been expected of them...


I saw a picture of the one that capsized, 'tis a strange things to see a cruise ship run aground. From what I see browsing the news pages the captain was posibly doing something stupid, I guess nobody questions the captains orders on ships or something? I guess as they say the bank was unmarked nobody else would have known something bad would happen.

[OracleofWuffing]

Icebergs and sea monsters are just lies fabricated by the Yeti as a cover story.:smallannoyed:

[TheThan]

considering the HUGE advancements in navigation technology that has occurred in the past 100 years, the Costa Concordia shouldn't have gone down.

I can only find blame with the captain and possibly the crew. I suspect this is a result of a criminal level of incompetence. I doubt we'll ever truly know the truth of what went down.

[Haruki-kun]

The bottom line, I think, is "People still make mistakes." It doesn't matter how advanced it is or how many safety measures it has. All it takes is a couple mistakes.

[Pika...]

True, I guess it all boils down to how stupid the guy/girl placed at the wheel is. :smallconfused:

On that note, wasn't the captain arrested in land for fleeing the ship before anyne? How many years, if any, would he get for that?

[Mando Knight]

That isn't the main charge by a long shot. Since he was the captain, he gets pegged with multiple cases of manslaughter (Six dead is the count that popped up on a Google search). Probably some variation of criminal negligence due to the circumstances, but pinning it down to specific charges is probably way past the scope of this board.

[Coidzor]

This whole discussion reminds me of the song that you least want to hear in a strip club...

[factotum]

As opposed to the compartments being water tight, water filled in, then spilled over the top into the next one, kind of like an ice cube tray. I remember people remarking upon this design flaw every time the topic of the Titanic came up in school.

Problem is, any design is a compromise between practicality and safety. The watertight bulkheads only went up as high as they did to allow for more open spaces on the upper decks (where the higher class passengers travelled). It's worth noting that the Titanic could have taken the hit of the torpedo that sank the Lusitania a few years later and just kept on going--probably wouldn't even have slowed her down much! (It's notable that Titanic's sister ship, the Britannic, which sank after hitting a mine in 1916, had problems closing the watertight doors--without those she'd have stayed afloat).

[The Succubus]

I think the photo I saw on Yahoo best describes my take on it. There's a picture of the stricken ship in the back of the picture and *right in front of it* is a bright red lighthouse.

'Nuff said.

[Teddy]

I think the photo I saw on Yahoo best describes my take on it. There's a picture of the stricken ship in the back of the picture and *right in front of it* is a bright red lighthouse.

'Nuff said.

That's one of the lighthouses that stand around the enterance to the port in the village that the ship rests outside of, right? First of all, their only purpose is to guide ships safely into port. Secondly, where the ship stands right now is not where it hit the reef that started this whole thing, as the inertia of a ship that size makes it hard to slow down. In fact, the ship hit the reef on its port (left) side (which now lies exposed above surface and sports a 70-100 m long tear with a large, red rock stuck in it), while the rocks it's resting on right now are on the starboard (right) side of it.

I haven't seen any pictures of the reef itself, but it's supposed to be 150 m out from shore, IIRC, and according to the dictum of the captain, not marked on the charts. That's still way off course for the ship (which, IIRC, is supposed to go 600 m out from shore), however.

[kabbor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I re-call that the Titanic would have been far less disastrous, if it had collided with the iceberg with the front, rather than the crew trying to steer away and thus scrape of the side of the ship. The safety features were built for frontal crashes, AFAIK. Or the very least, they would have worked better that way.
Yes, very much the case. On seeing the iceberg, the officer in charge gave two commands: Full-speed reverse, and rudder hard left.(I think it was left, port). Either of these commands could have saved the ship. Both together was a disaster.
The ship had a small rudder, that required the wash of the centre screw to be effective. With the screw in reverse, there would have been very little flow across the rudder. So the ship blundered on, turning just enough to scrape a large hole in the side. With the wash across the prop, it may well have turned enough.
Full reverse would not have slowed the ship much, but a head-on impact would have limited major damage to one compartment. The ship would have stayed afloat for days at the least, allowing safe full evacuation.

With this case, the captain, after the ship was holed, sailed his vessel into shallow waters, so it would not completely sink. however, the vessel heeled over too much, and evacuation became too difficult.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think the photo I saw on Yahoo best describes my take on it. There's a picture of the stricken ship in the back of the picture and *right in front of it* is a bright red lighthouse.

'Nuff said.

My "favorite" picture is the one where you see the rock sticking out through the hole as the ship lies on it's side.

At least it seems they can prove it was the captain's fault.

[Yora]

Yes, very much the case. On seeing the iceberg, the officer in charge gave two commands: Full-speed reverse, and rudder hard left.(I think it was left, port). Either of these commands could have saved the ship. Both together was a disaster.
The ship had a small rudder, that required the wash of the centre screw to be effective. With the screw in reverse, there would have been very little flow across the rudder. So the ship blundered on, turning just enough to scrape a large hole in the side. With the wash across the prop, it may well have turned enough.
It might still have worked, but for practical reasons the center screw was designed to be unable to go in reverse and would instead lock. It made construction a lot easier. But being locked in position made the rudder completely ineffective.

But I think the big problem with the Titanic wasn't that the ship sank, but that evacuation was dealt with poorly and took way too long than it should have.

[Teddy]

But I think the big problem with the Titanic wasn't that the ship sank, but that evacuation was dealt with poorly and took way too long than it should have.

And the fact that the number of lifeboats didn't correspond with the number of passengers.

[Asta Kask]

I played a scenario once where the Titanic was a sacrifice to Ithaqua Windwalker (an Elder God).

[The Succubus]

Hmmm, dunno about that, Asta.

If I was kipping peacefully at the bottom of the ocean, I'd be really pissed if someone dropped a cruise liner on my head. :smallannoyed:

[Asta Kask]

Ithaqua is the wendigo by another name. He lives in the frozen north. The bad guys had been involved in gold and oil and made a fortune. And it was time to pay the piper...

[pendell]

Seafaring technology really hasn't changed that much since 1905, at least in terms of ship buoyancy and survivability in case of collision. A big enough rock in just the right place will sink an aircraft carrier or a supertanker.

This has to be put down to navigation error on the part of the captain and crew. IIRC, in the US navy the captain is relieved and his career is finished if his ship runs aground for ANY reason, regardless of whether s/he was on duty or not. It's still the captain's responsibility to ensure the watch is in capable hands even if the captain is not personally there to supervise.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[razark]

My question is:
If the hole is on the port side, why did she capsize to starboard?

Water entered the ship on the left. She's now lying on her right side. The only thing I can think of is that the crew, to correct listing to port, tried to flood down the starboard side to even her out, and took it too far. The ship is also pointed back in the direction she cam from. Perhaps poor handling caused the stricken ship to heel over during a turn, causing the starboard side to flood?

Of course, this is pure speculation, and knowing what actually happened will have to wait for investigators to do their jobs.

[FoeHammer]

Seafaring technology has improved massively over the past century. GPS alone could have prevented this from happening, as could sonar imaging systems present even on recreational fishing boats. Merely the fact that the ship was that close to shore (2 miles off course iirc) means that the ship and her captain were in violation of the law. To be honest, the are son many systems in play to prevent exactly this that it stinks of an insurance scam (or something similar) gone horribly wrong.

[factotum]

My question is:
If the hole is on the port side, why did she capsize to starboard?

Water entered the ship on the left. She's now lying on her right side.

Just because it entered there doesn't mean it stayed there--water has a tendency to flow around the place. In this case, the captain was trying to make a hard turn to take the ship into the nearby port, so I suspect the water found the lowest part of the ship as it was heeling into the turn and just sent it the rest of the way over.

There was an interesting map on the BBC news page showing just how far off course the ship was compared to its previous identical voyage--it's quite incredible when you look at it!

[Gnoman]

IIRC, in the US navy the captain is relieved and his career is finished if his ship runs aground for ANY reason, regardless of whether s/he was on duty or not. It's still the captain's responsibility to ensure the watch is in capable hands even if the captain is not personally there to supervise.


Having had several relatives in the Navy, this is not the case. The officer manning the helm has his career wrecked to the point that it's better to resign, and other officers come under something of a cloud, but the degree of on-the-job training means that holding the captain responsible in all cases simply doesn't work. A captain is always court-martialed after losing a ship, to ensure that all the facts are in the record.

[H Birchgrove]

Thanks for the replies guys and gals.

[KoboldRevenge]

Maybe the Capitan had two glass eyes?

But really, I believe it must of been a freak accident, wrong place wrong time perhaps.

[Asta Kask]

There are speculations that the captain brought the ship close to the island to allow for photos of said island. Just a rumor, take it for what it's worth.

[Liffguard]

I've heard some reports that there was a power failure before the incident, possibly caused by a severe engine malfunction.

[tensai_oni]

The Titanic had more lifeboats than needed by safety standards of its time. These standards are ridiculously lax from a modern perspective, but that still means you cannot blame it on negligence of design.

When a ship sinks, it's usually the fault of random accidents or human error. Neither can be fully secured against no matter how advanced your technology gets. This is what happened recently. The captain definitely proved himself negligent enough already.

Also, I find joking and talking about sea monsters in this thread distasteful. Real people died here. Show some respect.

[Strawberries]

Yeah...considering the phone calls that went down beetween the ship captain and the port authority (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/17/port-authority-to-cruise-ship-captain-get-on-board-damn-it/), it certainly isn't looking good for the captain. The phone calling records are being broadcasted in all Italian news. We are, needless to say, speechless.



Also, I find joking and talking about sea monsters in this thread distasteful. Real people died here. Show some respect.

Using humor as a coping mechanism to deal with tragedy is pretty natural, I think. I don't see it as a matter of disrespect. Of course, that's just my humble opinion.

[pendell]

Having had several relatives in the Navy, this is not the case. The officer manning the helm has his career wrecked to the point that it's better to resign, and other officers come under something of a cloud, but the degree of on-the-job training means that holding the captain responsible in all cases simply doesn't work. A captain is always court-martialed after losing a ship, to ensure that all the facts are in the record.

Correction noted. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[TSGames]

Sure technology was basic in Titanic's day, but today? It made my mind boggle to see that huge ship go down. In the modern day it just doesn't seem like a vessel like that should go down.
User error.
No technology is idiot proof. If you build a better idiot proofing they will make a better idiot.

[factotum]

User error.
No technology is idiot proof. If you build a better idiot proofing they will make a better idiot.

The way I always heard that is: "There's no such thing as a foolproof system, because somewhere you'll always find a systemproof fool.".

As for the latest phone calls about the captain of the ship--words fail me. What was the guy thinking?

[Karoht]

User error.
No technology is idiot proof. If you build a better idiot proofing they will make a better idiot.

Quote I once heard from an engineer.
"You have to be 2% smarter than the thing you are trying to operate."
Make of that what you will.

[Traab]

The way I always heard that is: "There's no such thing as a foolproof system, because somewhere you'll always find a systemproof fool.".

As for the latest phone calls about the captain of the ship--words fail me. What was the guy thinking?

I heard it as, "Nothing is foolproof, because fools have too much ingenuity." But yeah, that captain... I dont even know what the hell is wrong with him. Did he develop a freaking phobia about ships after this crash? If he was still there, why wouldnt he get back on the &^%&^%$ boat? Was he calling from a hotel room two towns over or something?

Also, boats unfortunately sink all the time, remember the exon valdez catastrophe? I dunno if the boat sank, precisely, but it did get gutted rather nastily.

[Joran]

There are speculations that the captain brought the ship close to the island to allow for photos of said island. Just a rumor, take it for what it's worth.

The ship company is putting the entire thing on the Captain's shoulders. Basically, the Captain was trying to showboat by overriding the programmed course, bringing the cruise liner close in and got too close and struck a rock. We'll get a better answer soon, since they pulled the black box from the ship.

The evacuation then turned into an absolute catastrophe with the mayday only going out 2 hours after the boat hit the rock and the ship already listing enough to render half of the lifeboats inoperable. Passengers on the ship are saying that the crew members were of absolutely no help, that they had no idea what they were supposed to do, and the entire thing degenerating into panic. No one should have died.

The initial error was on the Captain, ordering the ship too close to land and striking the rock. That error led to complete chaos where passengers did not know what to do and the crew members did not establish control and aid the passengers. The Captain left the ship before the evacuation was finished, did not do a good job of communicating the situation, and is going to be held responsible for the deaths of the people on board. Basically, it was all human error, which is sobering when you think of how much money invested in safety technology.

A similar situation happened with Air France 447 in which human error overcame multiple safety devices to cause a tragedy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877

[Aedilred]

The more details that come out about the captain's actions, is anyone else reminded of Zapp Brannigan and his sojourn in charge of a space liner?

[Joran]

The more details that come out about the captain's actions, is anyone else reminded of Zapp Brannigan and his sojourn in charge of a space liner?

Now that you mention it, it's pretty similar. There are some pretty hilarious quotes from that episode.


Kif: This is a pleasure cruise. Our path is decided by the travel agency.
Zapp Brannigan: That's for schoolgirls. Now here's a course with some chest hair.
Kif: But that leads us straight through a comet field.
Zapp Brannigan: Ah, yes. Comets, the icebergs of the sky. By jackknifing off one after another at breakneck speed, we can create a gravity boost, or something.

Kif: Captain, may I have a word with you?
Zapp Brannigan: No.
Kif: It's an emergency, sir.
Zapp Brannigan: Come back when it's a catastrophe.
[a huge rumbling is heard]
Zapp Brannigan: Oh, very well.

Zapp Brannigan: Don't blame yourself, Kif. We were doomed from the start. I guess all that remains now is for the captain to go down with the ship.
Kif: That's surprisingly noble of you, sir.
Zapp Brannigan: No, it's noble of you, Kif. As of now, you're in command. Congratulations, Captain.


Sadly, it's real life and people died, so my sense of humor is dampened. I just want to grab the Captain by his lapels and just shake him, yelling, "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?"

[Illieas]

there are multiple thing that can happen a hurricane, a freak wave, iceburg, mine torpedo or rocks as the case maybe. something that large going that fast hittting anying will generally be pretty disasterous.

mainly while advances have happened. cost effectiveness is always a priority. this can mean less protection is more fringe cases, less training or experienced crew, or even shoddy maintenence. the cruise ship is not going to be as strong hull wise a an ice breaker. and really you don't need the best navy people on a luxury cruiseliner which runs along the same path every year.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

A similar situation happened with Air France 447 in which human error overcame multiple safety devices to cause a tragedy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877

Extra sobering thought? On my trip to france, it was a coin's toss whether we would take the flight we did, or this one.

[CoffeeIncluded]

So now the captain is saying that he tripped and fell into a lifeboat. Seriously. He's going to go with that?

[Asta Kask]

What are his alternatives?

[Pika...]

What are his alternatives?

Man up, and get a plea-deal?

[jellymanisme]

No offense to all the people who died, but it seems to me like the cause of the Titanic sinking is entirely Morgan Robertson's fault. The universe just couldn't stand playing a cosmic, and deadly joke on humanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan

[H Birchgrove]

I think the novella actually was the result of a time traveller who tried to warn humanity.

[RS14]

This isn't particularly shocking; cruise ships go down every few years. Notable incidents have included the MS Sea Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sea_Diamond) (grounding) and the MS Explorer (ice) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Explorer). Groundings are actually quite frequent.

http://www.cruisebruise.com/cruise_ship_groundings_and_sinkings.html

(Note that many of the ships listed aren't real cruise liners, but quite a few are).

[CoffeeIncluded]

What are his alternatives?

Use...ANYTHING ELSE as an excuse?

[H Birchgrove]

Man up, and get a plea-deal?

I don't think plea bargain is common in Europe.

[Raddish]

I have always wondered what would happen if something you would normally use as an excuse but is stupidly unlikely actually happened to someone...

The captain hasn't really done himself any good with his explanation of what happened, though I am a firm believer in not passing judgement until there is an investigation and evidence so yeah.

[Douglas]

I have always wondered what would happen if something you would normally use as an excuse but is stupidly unlikely actually happened to someone...
I've heard of someone who actually did have homework eaten by a dog. The student brought the remains of the dog-eaten homework to show the teacher.

[The Succubus]

The captain has had a wide range of colourful adjectives hurled at him, together with a metaphorical boatload of armchair critiques of his actions.

I would say be very careful what you say. It is easy for us, in our warm comfy chairs, on dry land many miles from the ocean, to say "He was a coward, he should have stayed with the ship, he should have done this, he should have done that." Fear, panic, confusion - these are powerful emotions that can and will overwhelm even the greatest of us.

I say again - be careful when passing criticism of those who make bad choices in the midst of chaos. Fate tends to have a way of granting you the opportunity to see if you are as good as your words.

[Killer Angel]

It is easy for us, in our warm comfy chairs, on dry land many miles from the ocean, to say "He was a coward, he should have stayed with the ship, he should have done this, he should have done that." Fear, panic, confusion - these are powerful emotions that can and will overwhelm even the greatest of us.


These are things I can understand, I can even sympathize with peoples that run away after a car accident. I still hate them, but I can see someone overcomed by emotions and no more reasoning coherently.
But not a commander.
He failed, taking a risk far too greater than the usual practice of "salutation" to the port. Then, with a flank half ripped apart, his mind went black, he didn't declare the emergency, he minimized the accident, he took bad decisions after bad decisions... about a full hour was losed between the crash and the beginning of the side-sinking, when the danger became clear to the authorities.

edit: yeah, history is full of commanders / officiers that weren't not able to sustain the pressure of the moment and broke. In the end, they're condemned by their failure, because other commanders / officiers, in similar (or worse) situations, did they duty. If you are not able to do your duty, and the only blame is on yourself, you fail: you can turn the thing around, but that's the point.

[snoopy13a]

The captain has had a wide range of colourful adjectives hurled at him, together with a metaphorical boatload of armchair critiques of his actions.

I would say be very careful what you say. It is easy for us, in our warm comfy chairs, on dry land many miles from the ocean, to say "He was a coward, he should have stayed with the ship, he should have done this, he should have done that." Fear, panic, confusion - these are powerful emotions that can and will overwhelm even the greatest of us.

I say again - be careful when passing criticism of those who make bad choices in the midst of chaos. Fate tends to have a way of granting you the opportunity to see if you are as good as your words.

We're not ship captains (or at least most of us aren't). A ship captain is a job that has great responsibility. Thus, we expect more from them. If a waiter or a first-year sailor panicked, we wouldn't be surprised. A captain, however, is expected to handle emergenices. That is why he or she is the captain and not a lowly crewer. It is almost akin to a firefighter being unwilling to enter a burning house. Yes, most of us would never enter a burning house to save someone out of fear, but it is the firefighter's job to do so.

[Avilan the Grey]

As I understand it the captain refused a direct order from the harbormaster to get back to the ship.

[ProtectorRoss]

Big ship plus big hole equals sinking ship.

Have you heard how the captain "fell off the ship onto a lifeboat" and refused to help the coast guard rescue effort?

[Eldest]

So now the captain is saying that he tripped and fell into a lifeboat. Seriously. He's going to go with that?

It has been mentioned, yes.

[dehro]

all manner of things have gone and are going wrong for the captain. I could sympathize for his situation. when you've managed to **** it up that royally and run the company's flagship aground on a reef, it's kind of understandable if you don't function properly for a while.
however, now that time has passed, I would expect him to man up and accept his responsibilities..instead he and his lawyers are already working on a strategy of lies aimed at minimizing his responsibilities and enhancing his merits in handling the situation. of course the media here have already condemned him and parodies of the infamous phonecalls interjected with Sgt. Hartman's speech to his recruit are surfacing everywhere (it's a good one..though I'm not sure anybody has bothered translating it yet)..
had the man not given an extensive interview in 2010 about how good he was at handling emergencies and how with enough training and a cool head he confided that everybody in his crew would manage just about anything you could throw at him, because he was so good at leading them... I would feel less inclined to spit the man in the eye.
those two phonecalls really do him no favour at all...but then..I don't think he deserves a favour.
what he did was moderately reckless..it's been done before by many captains, one of them being the one Schettino was trying to homage by repeating the gesture.. however he took it further than anyone else.. and went faster than anyone else too. under those conditions, it really was an accident waiting to happen. on top of that, I haven't listened to the phonecalls translated, but in the horiginal version it does look that every time he opens his mouth he can't think of anything but making excuses and getting out of there.
seriously..the commander tells you he's recording the conversation and you start whispering? how is that not going to look guilty?
also.. now people are speculating that he was shifty and vague because aside from having blundered badly, he also had a little something something on the side.. that he shouldn't have had.
not cool.

most people I've seen or talked to in the last few days have had a thing or two to say about this event..and without being prompted by me. I think there's a shock factor here that may be a little out of proportion..but is undeniable. I guess people are just a bit stunned and incredulous about the man's general behaviour and countenance.. his name is rapidly becoming a byword for incompetence and stupidity... even the ship has been dubbed by some the "Costa Codardia" instead of "Costa Concordia"
(costa is the company's name..codardia means cowardice..concordia means concordance, or harmony)

[OracleofWuffing]

I haven't listened to the phonecalls translated, but in the horiginal version it does look that every time he opens his mouth he can't think of anything but making excuses and getting out of there.
One thing that I've been a bit concerned about is that, listening just to the translated calls, it just sounds like he's only capable of speaking broken sentences and didn't even get far enough into making an actual excuse. I was hoping that was just an artifact of the calls being translated but not localized, but it appears that hope has been dashed.

[dehro]

One thing that I've been a bit concerned about is that, listening just to the translated calls, it just sounds like he's only capable of speaking broken sentences and didn't even get far enough into making an actual excuse. I was hoping that was just an artifact of the calls being translated but not localized, but it appears that hope has been dashed.

Let's just say he doesn't make a good impression at all. I'm willing to partially ascribe it to shock..but that still doesn't explain what he was doing seeking refuge before everyone else got out and disobeying a direct order.

[Raddish]

On the news they had someone who said that the captain and crew on the bridge were doing everything they could in the apparant chaos that was oncuring.

Seems to me that there are conflicting things coming from different people, not just the captain but others seem to have different ideas about what happened.

[Isolder74]

How?

Easy.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8f48zUNd0tc/TxPRpv3Uk6I/AAAAAAAAA8A/o0lvxMImPxs/s1600/2012-01-16_0226.png

This is the passage the Captain sailed his ship through in order to show it off. The problem is that only on a high tide is this even remotely close to possible and not anyway safe even then.

This is akin to watching Maverick from Top Gun trying to fly his F-14 under a freeway overpass at rush hour.

[pendell]

While it's true that none of us are sea captains, that we have not gone through the investigation, and that we in armchairs should be hesitant to judge people who are having a ship sink under them, I'd still be surprised if the eventual findings were at all complimentary to Captain Schettino.

There are those who would speak in his defense (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iK5v3B6VZsCV0G5i5vEEztyfPVDg?docId=df32e5c96 ad64fb5bdbe437df79bbf27). But being slow to judge and slow to condemn doesn't mean we have to pretend to be blind.

Certainly few other seamen interviewed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57361980/cruise-captain-sparks-outrage-among-mariners/) speak well of his actions.

Fact: The preplotted course was deviated from for no pressing reason.
Fact: A navigation error resulted in the loss of the ship.
Fact: The Captain was off the ship in a lifeboat while a significant number of passengers were still aboard.

Put these three things together, and it's almost certain that his career on the sea is finished. Even if all of these things can be justified and he is officially exonerated, I can't see anyone giving him command of anything larger than a one-man rubber raft. The association with the past accident is simply too strong.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Traab]

While it's true that none of us are sea captains, that we have not gone through the investigation, and that we in armchairs should be hesitant to judge people who are having a ship sink under them, I'd still be surprised if the eventual findings were at all complimentary to Captain Schettino.

There are those who would speak in his defense (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iK5v3B6VZsCV0G5i5vEEztyfPVDg?docId=df32e5c96 ad64fb5bdbe437df79bbf27). But being slow to judge and slow to condemn doesn't mean we have to pretend to be blind.

Certainly few other seamen interviewed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57361980/cruise-captain-sparks-outrage-among-mariners/) speak well of his actions.

Fact: The preplotted course was deviated from for no pressing reason.
Fact: A navigation error resulted in the loss of the ship.
Fact: The Captain was off the ship in a lifeboat while a significant number of passengers were still aboard.

Put these three things together, and it's almost certain that his career on the sea is finished. Even if all of these things can be justified and he is officially exonerated, I can't see anyone giving him command of anything larger than a one-man rubber raft. The association with the past accident is simply too strong.

Respectfully,

Brian P.


I agree fully, and more, I wanted to say this. I could understand a moment of panic leading to him going rabbit on the ship. What I CANT forgive, is the fact that after he ran off, after he had time to calm down, after he saw his ship wasnt about to explode and the people still on it needed help, that he repeatedly refused direct orders to get his ass back on board and HELP. That more than anything else he did or did not do, makes me hope he enjoys a long prison term.

[Eldan]

Honestly, to me he sounds as if he was under major shock. Barely coherent. That said, he still made plenty of mistakes.

[jellymanisme]

While it's true that none of us are sea captains, that we have not gone through the investigation, and that we in armchairs should be hesitant to judge people who are having a ship sink under them, I'd still be surprised if the eventual findings were at all complimentary to Captain Schettino.

There are those who would speak in his defense (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iK5v3B6VZsCV0G5i5vEEztyfPVDg?docId=df32e5c96 ad64fb5bdbe437df79bbf27). But being slow to judge and slow to condemn doesn't mean we have to pretend to be blind.

Certainly few other seamen interviewed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57361980/cruise-captain-sparks-outrage-among-mariners/) speak well of his actions.

Fact: The preplotted course was deviated from for no pressing reason.
Fact: A navigation error resulted in the loss of the ship.
Fact: The Captain was off the ship in a lifeboat while a significant number of passengers were still aboard.

Put these three things together, and it's almost certain that his career on the sea is finished. Even if all of these things can be justified and he is officially exonerated, I can't see anyone giving him command of anything larger than a one-man rubber raft. The association with the past accident is simply too strong.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I completely agree with you, in every way.
Mistakes were made and accidents happen. The captain might not be to blame for any of it, but with a past like that, there is almost no way he will ever captain a ship for a company or Navy again.
His career is most definitely over. Until a complete investigation can be completed, that's all that matters for now.

[Pika...]

I just heard a good one on the radio.

Apparently, an hour after the hit as the ship was starting to tip he still ordered dinner. According to the cook as things were falling off the selves because of the ship being in trouble he still ordered his dinner. :smalleek:

[CoffeeIncluded]

I just heard a good one on the radio.

Apparently, an hour after the hit as the ship was starting to tip he still ordered dinner. According to the cook as things were falling off the selves because of the ship being in trouble he still ordered his dinner. :smalleek:

...Is there a link to this? Because...No. No way.

EDIT: Oh my god. (http://www.channel3000.com/news/30254177/detail.html)

[Traab]

...Is there a link to this? Because...No. No way.

EDIT: Oh my god. (http://www.channel3000.com/news/30254177/detail.html)

Ugh, so its up to 11 deaths so far, with a possible total of 32 if they stop finding survivors? Someone is going to be drawn and quartered for this, and unless some evidence pops up that unquestionably puts the full blame on someone else, its going to be the now ex captain who fries.

Now, if he had tried to order dinner made for the guests and such, in an effort to avoid a panic until they could confirm how bad the situation was, I would have applauded the decision. Lets face it, the boat didnt exactly sink like a stone. So if he had been using that time to assess damage and make a decision, trying to make things business as usual would make sense to keep guests calm. But doing it for himself and a ladyfriend? Ugh. Why not have him just break out a fiddle and he can do a full nero impersonation.

[H Birchgrove]

But doing it for himself and a ladyfriend? Ugh. Why not have him just break out a fiddle and he can do a full nero impersonation.

But there were no fiddles in the Roman Empire...* :smalleek:

... I know what you mean. I hope the ex-captain gets a several years long prison sentence. :smallsigh: :smallfrown: :smallmad:

* Some modern day historians claim that Nero actually tried his best to save Roman citizens from the fire, and that as long as he remained sane and under the advise of Seneca and his commander of the Praetorian Guard, pretty enlightened. Of course, he was extremely brutal and ordered the deaths of Christians. (As for the latter, so did the stoic "philosopher-emperor" Marcus Aurelius). I hardly know any Roman emperor who was "nice". He also seems to have been very popular among the common people.

[pendell]

Hmm .. measuring the Captain's judgement should be done side by side with those of the deputy mayor (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16638399) of the island they ran into.



"I met the mayor and immediately we devised a plan to co-ordinate the evacuation of the people, so I decided to go on a tender and to go on board. My first duty was to look for an officer on the boat in order to co-ordinate the evacuation.

I took the first tender that arrived at the port with the first evacuated passengers. I took this tender all by myself and went on board. I went up and I started looking for an officer.

After 20 minutes I couldn't find anybody. I even went on the higher bridges of the ship and even then I couldn't see anybody.

So I decided to go down again to co-ordinate people and put them in dinghies in order to go on land. At the time the ship was not listing so it wasn't difficult.

...

It was a purser of the ship who was helping me and we rescued about nine people. Some of them were quite old; some of them were children.

People were fighting with each other in order to get on the rope to climb up. I can't condemn them because the situation was really bad. It was really dramatic.

The doctor also helped me; he was very good and courageous. Then, on the bridge, I came across the only officer I could find. He was young, a second-class officer.

He found a little stepladder to put on the side of the boat which people could climb down.

We were together shoulder to shoulder until 05:30 in the morning. I have to say this young officer was wonderful.

He hadn't been given any orders; he was just following his own orders.


So it seems we have a couple of officers worth their salt on the liner. The Captain's choices -- I suspect he should have been doing what the deputy mayor of the island was doing -- are harder to defend.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[dehro]

so far it looks that he may be charged with all sorts of things..and he's looking at 14 years in jail "just" for abandoning ship before everybody was safe... and that is aside any charges of manslaughter that may be added to this.. but it's all very sketchy..

so far there are several newspapers that run several different stories..and it's kind of hard to tell how much of the allegations towards the captain are true and how much of it are just people milking it to get their 15 minutes worth of spotlights.

the practice of showing off getting real close to the shore is not as uncommon apparently, although it's usually done in better overal circumstances..namely, much slower and never quite that close to the coast..also, in summer and with high tide..
some say the captain saved lifes by doing damage control and getting the vessel as close as possible to the shore once it'd hit the cliff.. thereby allowing easier rescue operations.
others say it's a load of bull and that the boat landed there on it's own..being unsteerable after the accident
some say afterwards he toured the island in a taxi looking for socks, other say he didn't.
some say he helped out like anyone else, some say he didn't
some say that the entire staff is trained and has a specific duty to fulfill during these situations, irrespective of their normal role on board.. cleaning staff, sailors, waiters etc.. others say the "civilians" are just as clueless as anyone else and that the "rescue duties" lie solely on the shoulders of the sailors' side of staff..
the whole captain is having dinner/captain was drunk/captain had a girl stowed in his cabin/no she was a passenger/no she wasn't even there/yes she was but only to translate his instructions for the russian passengers/captain was showing off to someone/etc etc..there are just too many conflicting stories so far. did his staff mutiny to get people to safety or were they just following procedure? was he having dinner or was he at the wheel? the black boxes will tell us more..
in other words.. the usual media circus is happening here, and

[OracleofWuffing]

Part of me really wants to see it come up that the Captain did not have access to the charts that show the rocks there, so that these character witnesses saying that he saved lives via supporting the evacuation temporarily would make sense. 'Cause, I mean, if we could be heroes by endangering lives and then saving them...

'Course that would mean that everything's worse for the entire Cruise Line what plotted the course, which means even less faith in humanity there. :smallfrown: Lose-lose.

[Gnoman]

No, it wouldn't be the cruise line's fault. He went deliberately off the plotted course, if the information I've been reading is accurate. Even if he were exonerated due to faulty charts (which is possible, as the seafloor does change, though I doubt that that would get him off the hook) the people who originally plotted the course would bear no fault.

[dehro]

the rules he broke were mostly those of common sense and had to do with what he did after deviating from the course, rather than in the deviation itself.
seafaring isn't like flying an aircraft. the captain of a ship has full authority to change the course as he sees fit, as long as he keeps to the scheduled timetable.
it was his choice to stay wide or get close to the coast/cliffs.
of course it was a really bad one.
that said, he didn't break any rules by not sticking 100% to the "plotted course".

[OracleofWuffing]

Even if he were exonerated due to faulty charts (which is possible, as the seafloor does change, though I doubt that that would get him off the hook) the people who originally plotted the course would bear no fault.
The way that I see it- and yeah, I'm only a sailor on Puzzle Pirates so I could be wrong*- is that it would likely be the cruise line's responsibility to ensure a boat's crew has accurate information on board to alter their course in emergency circumstances (granted, the presented circumstances here are hardly emergencies if true). Sure, it wouldn't be a complete exoneration for the Captain, but I'd imagine there'd be a significant negligence concern for the folks responsible if the charts weren't up to date.

Or am I completely wrong on this, and the crew provides their own charts?

* This is more of a D-Nav's expertise, too, which I totally suck at. Not as much as B-Nav, though.

[factotum]

that said, he didn't break any rules by not sticking 100% to the "plotted course".

He kind of broke a few by running his ship aground at high speed, though. To be honest, I've seen a map of the location he ran the ship aground--it looks to be a quite narrow channel between Giglio and a small island offshore, barely wider than the ship! If that map is accurate and he really *did* take his ship down there at high speed, frankly they need to lock him up and throw away the key...

[Gnoman]

seafaring isn't like flying an aircraft. the captain of a ship has full authority to change the course as he sees fit, as long as he keeps to the scheduled timetable.

Authority includes responsibility. Even if the charts are slightly off (which would not be the cruise line's fault as long as the maps were within the normal date range), the fact that a course change ordered by the captain resulted in a crash places the blame directly on his shoulders.

[dehro]

Authority includes responsibility. Even if the charts are slightly off (which would not be the cruise line's fault as long as the maps were within the normal date range), the fact that a course change ordered by the captain resulted in a crash places the blame directly on his shoulders.

absolutely. I'm not making excuses. I wouldn't trust the man with a playmobile boat if he wanted to take it with him in the bathtub. I'm just pointing out that the act of altering a course isn't a violation of any rules per se. (in fact it's bound to happen almost always, with the weather conditions directly affecting the capability of any vessel to stay on course. I'm thinking wind-force and current strenghts and so on.)
if he wanted, the captain could decide to circumnavigate the world, on his way from Naples to Palermo, if he knew how to do it and still be in Palermo at the expected arrival time.
the act of navigating between those two rocks isn't a violation of codes either. it's been done before..with ships just as big..and with the same ship too, by the previous captain. he just went about it in an entirely stupid way and doing so caused a massive accident..or as he put it when he called the owners of the ship... "I've caused a bit of trouble".
and yeah...he should be locked up for that, not put under house arrest.

...also, maps? not really an issue or a viable excuse.
the sea changes constantly, new rocky formations cropping up or old ones wasting away.. new relics joining old ones on the bottom of the sea and becoming a danger to navigation for ships with a larger draft. that's the reason why ships as big as this one have radars and sonars and all the latest equipment necessary to identify those potential uncharted perils. other than that, the Giglio is bang in the middle of the area that has historically been probably the most well charted and well known in navigation history...so..try another one, captain schettino...

[OracleofWuffing]

Dang... So it's pretty reasonable to say that the people saying he's a heroic guy for helping out when he did are also praising the person who put them in danger in the first place? Wow. :smallfrown:

[Teddy]

I've heard some reports that there was a power failure before the incident, possibly caused by a severe engine malfunction.

I heard that the power failed after the collision, probably due to severed cables or the generators being flooded. I must say that I'm a bit surprised at how easily it failed, however, given that a power cut in an emergency situation is rather undesirable, as dark corridors are ill-suited for evacuation.


The Titanic had more lifeboats than needed by safety standards of its time. These standards are ridiculously lax from a modern perspective, but that still means you cannot blame it on negligence of design.

Just because the laws are neglient doesn't mean that the design (or in the case of Titanic, equipment, as Titanic actually was designed to be able to carry more life-boats, as the laws were expected to change in a forseeable future) isn't. It's an understandable and to some extent excusable neglience, but neglience nevertheless. Now, the lifeboats on Titanic and her contemporaries were primarily intended for ship-to-ship evacuation, where each boat would make several runs ferrying over passengers to nearby ships, which in itself wasn't an all too unsound thought, as the European-American sea-lane was pretty heavily trafficated back then, but none of the ships that responded to Titanic's distress signals were close enough to arrive in time before she sunk.

[Raddish]

Dang... So it's pretty reasonable to say that the people saying he's a heroic guy for helping out when he did are also praising the person who put them in danger in the first place? Wow. :smallfrown:

I am still not sure it's clear how much the original danger is his fault. I mean yeah he is the reason teh ship wsa there but he wasn't breaking any rules or laws by moving the ship off it's cause as has been said.

And if the most modern charts available were unable to show the bank they hit then there isn't too much to blame him for there. If however it is clear that he was putting the ship through an area that the charts showed would be dangerous and stupid then he deserves any punishment he gets from this. I don't think this has been entirely cleared up yet either whether the charts issued were suitable for use.

Other points have been about how he acted after the crisis started which is still not entirely clear with people condeming him for his actions and other people praising him. I expect there is a bit more investigating to do before this gets cleared up satisfactorily.

[Starwulf]

And if the most modern charts available were unable to show the bank they hit then there isn't too much to blame him for there. If however it is clear that he was putting the ship through an area that the charts showed would be dangerous and stupid then he deserves any punishment he gets from this. I don't think this has been entirely cleared up yet either whether the charts issued were suitable for use.



As has also been said, he had Radar, and Sonar. It doesn't matter if the charts were 100% up to date or not. If he hadn't been going entirely to fast, he would have had plenty of time to react to the knowledge that he was about to smack some rocks, and could have corrected course. So, nah, still his fault.

[pendell]

Part of me really wants to see it come up that the Captain did not have access to the charts that show the rocks there,


I'm sorry, but I can't see how that makes sense. If the Captain did not have accurate charts of the coastline he should not be bringing his umpteen-bazillion dollar cruise ship in close.

I'm no sailor, but that seems like common sense. If you don't have accurate maps of the coastline, STAY AWAY FROM IT.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[OracleofWuffing]

I'm sorry, but I can't see how that makes sense. If the Captain did not have accurate charts of the coastline he should not be bringing his umpteen-bazillion dollar cruise ship in close.
For some reason, I doubt the chart has a "THIS CHART IS INACCURATE" stamp on it. I'm saying, that hypothetically, the Captain could be right, and the map of the area he had did not have the rocks displayed. Meaning, he hypothetically wouldn't have a way of knowing that the rocks were there, and was actually presented with evidence claiming that rocks weren't there.

Which really falls through, anyways, because of the aforementioned sonar equipment. I suppose he's going to tell us that the rocks were soundproof.:smallannoyed:

[Asta Kask]

I blame aliens.

[Teddy]

Can someone provide any source to the statement that Costa Concordia, or even any noteworthy number of cruise ships for that matter, is actually fitted with a sonar. On Wikipedia, neither the page on sonar nor the page on Costa Concordia make any allusions to this application of sonar technology, and while it's not my speciality, it's nothing I've heard of before you mentioned it.

[Gnoman]

A basic google search shows job openings for sonar operators on cruise ships globally, several cruise lines with sonar marked on their ship diagrams, and arguments from sonar companies that cruise ship sonar is out of date. Not conclusive, but suggestive.

[Teddy]

I see, but from what I can see at a quick glance, there were only 4 cruise ships fitted with sonars in 2008, and those were all ships that sailed on Arctic/Antarctic lines where ice is a possible problem. Even other results suggest this is the only application, and to be honest, you need pretty advanced sonars if you are to accurately scan the depth of the water sufficiently far ahead of you.

[Gnoman]

For one example, every Cardinal Cruise line ship (which generally operate in the Caribbian area, has sonar. Keep in mind that there really aren't that many cruise ships in operation at any given time compared to other kinds of ships.

[Teddy]

For one example, every Cardinal Cruise line ship (which generally operate in the Caribbian area, has sonar. Keep in mind that there really aren't that many cruise ships in operation at any given time compared to other kinds of ships.

I'm having a hard time finding a reliable source to that on Google. Could you please cite yours?

[Gnoman]

Cardinal cruise says so on their website.

[Raddish]

This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21360-how-stable-are-cruise-ships-like-the-costa-concordia.html) says they had something like a sonar system but gives a reason why it might have been ignored.

[Teddy]

Cardinal cruise says so on their website.

Okay, I think I found it, if by Cardinal Cruise you mean Carneval Cruise. However, all mentions relate to the construction of a not yet finished cruise ship, so it isn't exactly conclusive for cruising ships as a whole...

EDIT:

This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21360-how-stable-are-cruise-ships-like-the-costa-concordia.html) says they had something like a sonar system but gives a reason why it might have been ignored.

Hmm, well, that seems a bit more conclusive for this particular case, but it kind of confirm my doubts on the efficiency of the instruments. Given, the expert they interviewed doesn't seem to have full insight into the matter of Costa Concordia, but he seems trustworthy.

[dehro]

this here article in italian (http://www.focus.it/tecnologia/hi-tech/costa-concordia-la-tecnologia-che-non-ha-evitato-la-tragedia_C12.aspx)
is written on the magazine Focus, which is rather popular in Italy and focuses on scientific divulgation in an ignorant-friendly manner. Whether they're always accurate or a reputable scientific paper according to the scientific comunity, frankly I don't know.
the article doesn't quote any "expert" in particular but it does outline which are the rulebooks that apply to the definition of what equipment the ship should have aboard.

it states that the Costa Concordia carried the following equipment, as per SOLAS (Safety of life at sea) international regulations:
Gyrocompass
GPS System
Echosounder
Sonar

each of them were present and functional. following the redundancy principle of safety, there were at the very least two of each of them aboard, set up so that if one fails, the other kicks in.
all of the equipment sends out visual and audio allarms on the comand deck, when they identify an obstacle.
the article however also states that all of the above systems can practically set the ship on autopilot, but can also be switched off at the flick of a button by the crew. this happens routinely when the ship is in busy waters, harbours, heavy traffic or simply at the discretion of the pilot.
it stands to reason that such a risky maneuvre, passing so close to islands, rocks, cliffs and what have you, would set off all sorts of bells and lights..and that the captain or whoever was at the helm would switch off those distractions, and proceed on sight.

maps are by law updated to the very latest edition, and a passage plan is always provided, outlining an accurate route the ship will mostly stick to. the captain however has the authority to change said route plan. to plot such a course, meteo data, map revisions and further info about the seabed and it's variations along the course are all taken into account prior to departure. informations provided during said planning are never older than 30 days.

any variation to the estabilished course is automatically recorded on the black box and on an independent system based on a network of transponders located both aboard all manner of vessels and along the coasts.

the simple act of abandoning ship before everybody else is safely off board, in the event of an abandon ship, carries an automatic 2 years sentence for the captain, according to the relevant italian maritime law.

[Starwulf]

and that the captain or whoever was at the helm would switch off those distractions, and proceed on sight.

Which just makes him even more of an idiot, and even more deserving of punishment if that is in fact what he did(and likely what he did do, given the fact that all sorts of warning sounds and lights would probably be going off if he hadn't).

[Traab]

Which just makes him even more of an idiot, and even more deserving of punishment if that is in fact what he did(and likely what he did do, given the fact that all sorts of warning sounds and lights would probably be going off if he hadn't).

"Bah, these damn warnings that my ship is in danger are driving me nuts!" /turns off all alarms. "There, thats better, now lets see if this baby can slalom!" /hits rocks "What the hell? How did this happen? Well its not MY fault, how was I supposed to know there were rocks here? I mean, none of the alarms were on!"

[Avilan the Grey]

Even if he were exonerated due to faulty charts (which is possible, as the seafloor does change, though I doubt that that would get him off the hook) the people who originally plotted the course would bear no fault.

The local fishermen's comment when he claimed that these were "new" rocks was "yeah, they are only about 20 million years old" meaning they had been on the charts since ancient Greece.


"Bah, these damn warnings that my ship is in danger are driving me nuts!" /turns off all alarms. "There, thats better, now lets see if this baby can slalom!" /hits rocks "What the hell? How did this happen? Well its not MY fault, how was I supposed to know there were rocks here? I mean, none of the alarms were on!"

*Proceeds to get thrown off the deck by the force of the ship leaning and lands in a lifeboat going to shore*

...What? That's what he said happened!

[Killer Angel]

*Proceeds to get thrown off the deck by the force of the ship leaning and lands in a lifeboat going to shore*

...What? That's what he said happened!

It's so credible, isn't it?:smallsigh:
He could always try with this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE&feature=related)... :smalltongue:

[_Zoot_]

My first thought when I saw this was:

"Just like any other boat. It fills up with water."

Then I remembered what we were talking about. :smalltongue:

[Themrys]

Sure technology was basic in Titanic's day, but today? It made my mind boggle to see that huge ship go down. In the modern day it just doesn't seem like a vessel like that should go down.

There will never be an unsinkable ship. People who think they can build one are just too arrogant, that's all.

And of course, the main reason why advanced technology fails to work properly: Stupid, greedy, lazy, risk-loving people.

There are theories that the Titanic sank because of poor-quality steel, not because the plans for the ship where faulty themselves. Which would mean that the risk of a modern ship sinking are the same. People haven't become less greedy.

[factotum]

There are theories that the Titanic sank because of poor-quality steel, not because the plans for the ship where faulty themselves.

There are also theories that the ship which sank in the middle of the Atlantic that night was actually the Olympic, and the whole thing was an elaborate scam of some sort! I think the fundamental truth has already been mentioned: poke enough holes in the hull and any ship is going to sink, no matter how she's constructed or what she's built from.

[Avilan the Grey]

There are theories that the Titanic sank because of poor-quality steel, not because the plans for the ship where faulty themselves. Which would mean that the risk of a modern ship sinking are the same. People haven't become less greedy.

The thing with Titanic is that many many things were wrong or went wrong at the same time. If only ONE of these things had NOT happened, it would not have sunk.

As for your comment, I saw a TV show that said no, the steel in the hull was fine. It was the steel in the RIVETS that were weak. Basically yes, the hull buckled a bit, but the seams were ripped open because of the rivets snapped (too much carbon; cheaper steel than specified).

Anyway, other faults that has been commented on:

The bulkheads not going all the way up to the ceiling (which wouldn't have been a problem if not too many of them were exposed at the same time)

The weak steel in the rivets

The failed attempt to avoid hitting the iceberg that caused the whole side to be damaged instead of just ramming the damn thing (it's hard to do that though, it is against instinct and nobody thought about it)

The weakened bulkheads where the lifeboats were attached.

The construction of the middle propeller drive that made it impossible to effectively use the rudder when trying to stop the ship

The too high speed for the environment they were in.

Etc.

[golentan]

There will never be an unsinkable ship. People who think they can build one are just too arrogant, that's all.

And of course, the main reason why advanced technology fails to work properly: Stupid, greedy, lazy, risk-loving people.

There are theories that the Titanic sank because of poor-quality steel, not because the plans for the ship where faulty themselves. Which would mean that the risk of a modern ship sinking are the same. People haven't become less greedy.

There is an unsinkable ship! I carry it around in my mind. As long as I don't imagine it sinking, it won't sink, and I... oh, no! By saying it I've started to visualize it! Come back here, don't go under the imaginary water! :smalleek:

Maybe there isn't an unsinkable ship... :smallfrown:

More seriously, I think that, as has been said, this disaster was the result of massive incompetence and blatant disregard for safety. It's tragic that the captain was given a captaincy, and allowed to endanger and (ultimately) kill other people, but hindsight and all that. My wishes go out to victims, and I hope for a swift and just assessment and reckoning.

[Killer Angel]

More seriously, I think that, as has been said, this disaster was the result of massive incompetence and blatant disregard for safety. It's tragic that the captain was given a captaincy, and allowed to endanger and (ultimately) kill other people,

It has been recorded a phone call by Schettino, after the disaster, in which the man reveals "when I sensed the ship was tilting, I abandoned it".
Yeah. :smallsigh:

[dehro]

http://i.imgur.com/0FI1S.jpg

[OracleofWuffing]

It has been recorded a phone call by Schettino, after the disaster, in which the man reveals "when I sensed the ship was tilting, I abandoned it".
:smallconfused: So, was that before or after he tripped into the lifeboat?

[Killer Angel]

:smallconfused: So, was that before or after he tripped into the lifeboat?

As reported by the news, he said that at his phone cell some time after his safe landing...

[OracleofWuffing]

You misunderstand: I'm not asking when the phone call took place, I'm asking when that decision in the call took place. 'Cause, I mean, as a landlocked person, it sounds like either he made the decision to leave the ship and then accidentally tripped into a lifeboat, or he accidentally tripped into a lifeboat and then made a decision to leave the ship. Either way has its own conundrums, and I'm trying to find out which one to ponder first.

Yes, I realize he could be backpedalling and/or lying at either point here, but I'll cross that mountain when I get there.

[Killer Angel]

You misunderstand: I'm not asking when the phone call took place, I'm asking when that decision in the call took place.

Ah...
Sorry, I don't know.
We'll see, the things are in costant development, the responsabilities of the Costa Company are rapidly increasing...