PDA

View Full Version : Cruise Liner Costa Concordia runs aground off coast of Italy


ggctuk
17-01-12, 20:36
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/ggctuk/Collision_of_Costa_Concordia_5_crop.jpg

On Friday 13 January, the cruise ship, Costa Concordia ran aground at Isola del Giglio, Tuscany, after hitting a reef in shallow waters. The ship has partially sunk (see the image above). It has been called the worst peace-time maritime disaster in living memory, drawing parallels with the RMS Titanic (which sunk 100 years ago this April). So far, 4,211 people have been evacuated safely, with 11 confirmed dead and 24 still missing.

There are reports that Captain Francesco Schettino and First Officer Ciro Ambrosio fled the ship before any of the passengers got off the ship. They have since been arrested for manslaughter and abandoning ship before the passengers were evacuated. Certain reports suggest the Costa Concordia went four miles off-course into shallow water to salute an officer ashore.

My thoughts and prayers are with those who lost loved ones aboard the Costa Concordia and to the families of those that are still missing.

Carbon
17-01-12, 21:06
Been seeing this on BBC news everywhere... truly is shocking! :(

larafan25
17-01-12, 21:41
Why is the guy arrested for manslaughter? :confused:

Anyways, it seems odd that people would have die din this, but I guess with the ship turning and perhaps the water they could have drowned or been knocked around.

Rai
17-01-12, 21:46
Yes, this was very sad and, by the looks of things, could have been completely avoided.

RIP to those who died, and my thoughts go out to the families of lost ones and to those who remain missing.

With all respect to those who lost their lives though, it is tragic, but it no way compares to the disaster of the Titanic (although comparisons are bound to be compared if only for the year).

benjamin_2010
17-01-12, 21:46
Why is the guy arrested for manslaughter? :confused:

I don't know for sure but I would imagine there is some kind of policy or maybe a law that passengers be evacuated before the crew?

Its a sad story though, very rare for this sort of thing to happen these days.

ggctuk
17-01-12, 21:51
Why is the guy arrested for manslaughter? :confused:

The deaths happened while he was in command of the ship, and were probably avoidable had they stayed to guide the passengers off the ship. It's like somebody being charged for manslaughter when somebody dies in their car in a car crash.

larafan25
17-01-12, 22:21
I don't know for sure but I would imagine there is some kind of policy or maybe a law that passengers be evacuated before the crew?

Its a sad story though, very rare for this sort of thing to happen these days.

The deaths happened while he was in command of the ship, and were probably avoidable had they stayed to guide the passengers off the ship. It's like somebody being charged for manslaughter when somebody dies in their car in a car crash.

Oh I see.

interstellardave
17-01-12, 22:26
Why is the guy arrested for manslaughter? :confused:

Anyways, it seems odd that people would have die din this, but I guess with the ship turning and perhaps the water they could have drowned or been knocked around.

No-one else has mentioned this but the article also states the (alleged) shocking reason that the ship was even in those shallow waters... to salute an officer onshore! They ought to go old-school on his ass if that's true.

Sir Croft
17-01-12, 22:43
Why is the guy arrested for manslaughter? :confused:

Anyways, it seems odd that people would have die din this, but I guess with the ship turning and perhaps the water they could have drowned or been knocked around.
He left the ship. Captains must be the last ones to do so, after he's sure that all passengers have left safely.

Rai
17-01-12, 22:45
No-one else has mentioned this but the article also states the (alleged) shocking reason that the ship was even in those shallow waters... to salute an officer onshore! They ought to go old-school on his ass if that's true.

To add to that, according to a newspaper article I read, this could have been a regular thing that was agreed upon; that the ship go by Isola del Giglio to honour a past captain.

Also, I guess old-fashioned chivalry of 'women and children first' is as good as gone, when, apparently, men were pushing past women and children to get to life boats.

larafan25
17-01-12, 22:56
To add to that, according to a newspaper article I read, this could have been a regular thing that was agreed upon; that the ship go by Isola del Giglio to honour a past captain.

Also, I guess old-fashioned chivalry of 'women and children first' is as good as gone, when, apparently, men were pushing past women and children to get to life boats.

...

Aren't they right on shore, I see rocks..

Why would they all want lifeboats? :/

Sir Croft
17-01-12, 22:58
...

Aren't they right on shore, I see rocks..

Why would they all want lifeboats? :/
Half the ship is underwater, that should give you an idea of how deep it is.

larafan25
17-01-12, 23:01
Half the ship is underwater, that should give you an idea of how deep it is.

I have a four feet deep swimming pool and and I can't manage to sit on the bottom of it.

Unless they can't swim or something.

Rai
17-01-12, 23:09
I have a four feet deep swimming pool and and I can't manage to sit on the bottom of it.

Unless they can't swim or something.

Look at this extract from an article:


The ship is resting in about 20 metres (60 feet) of water but could go down by as much as 130 metres if it shifts free from the rocks.

Does that answer your question?

Carbon
17-01-12, 23:14
Look at this extract from an article:




Does that answer your question?

Actually that a good quote there... I heard that it's sitting on a sea bed cliff... so if it move ever so slightly further into the ocean it will sink all the way.

larafan25
17-01-12, 23:30
Look at this extract from an article:




Does that answer your question?

All the more reason to get off I'd think.

I still don't see how that makes people not want to go in the water. :/

Rai
17-01-12, 23:55
All the more reason to get off I'd think.

I still don't see how that makes people not want to go in the water. :/

you do realise that some of those people were babies and children and some were elderly right? This is a ship wreck, the thing capsized, I reckon that would be pretty scary. I'd imagine that it would be procedure to get people in lifeboats to get them to land so they can get treatment quickly if needed. And some did go in the water, with life jackets on and swam but the nearest land (with facilities/a town was (so I read) about 150 metres away, that's pretty far to swim if you ask me. There was a danger of the ship sinking further, so people had to get off quickly. Getting them into lifeboats means more people can be moved quickly and to safety.

Killercowz
17-01-12, 23:58
Not to mention the water must have been freezing cold.

Cochrane
18-01-12, 00:04
Statistically speaking, most of the people on board the ship were at least 50 years old, with many really elderly (because only they have enough money to spend on a cruise). I think it's fair to say that many of them were not great swimmers. And the decision not to jump into the water was probably correct. Of those who did, three drowned and seven more had serious injuries from the long fall down.

Plus, there is logistics. For that many people, it is in the end easiest, safest and fastest to simply put them all on boats.

Rai
18-01-12, 00:04
^^yes, those in the water were treated for hypothermia. Here's a link to the story as the op doesn't have one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16558910

Sir Croft
18-01-12, 01:23
And some were certainly injured.

Gracious Days
18-01-12, 01:35
It has been called the worst peace-time maritime disaster in living memory, drawing parallels with the RMS Titanic (which sunk 100 years ago this April).

I thought that would've been the Doņa Paz incident from 1987. :o

Still, all 3 happenings were entirely preventable; changing course to go and salute someone...really? I'm wondering how long it took to list to such a degree that the boats on the port side couldn't be launched. That's scary, and is just amplified when you have a crew that behaves such as this one.

Alpharaider47
18-01-12, 05:19
Land ho!!!


I was going to post a Poseidon joke, but the ship didn't fully capsize. Pretty pathetic of the "captain" to ditch though. Whatever happened to going down with the ship? No class.

DragonSlayer
21-01-12, 16:19
What i don't get is why wasn't the part of the ship that is submerged searched immediately for survivors, i saw it on the news that the part of the ship that's above water was being searched first, surely the logical thing to do would have been to search the submerged section of the ship first, and leave the above water half to other rescue teams.

If they had done that straight away they might have gotten to anyone stuck down there before they drowned, and if there was some health and safety issue nonsense that prevented divers from entering the submerged sections they should have used remote control cameras to search for survivors.

The above water part of the ship wasn't going anywhere, the submerged section should have been the priority of rescue teams.

Cochrane
21-01-12, 16:43
What i don't get is why wasn't the part of the ship that is submerged searched immediately for survivors, i saw it on the news that the part of the ship that's above water was being searched first, surely the logical thing to do would have been to search the submerged section of the ship first, and leave the above water half to other rescue teams.

If they had done that straight away they might have gotten to anyone stuck down there before they drowned, and if there was some health and safety issue nonsense that prevented divers from entering the submerged sections they should have used remote control cameras to search for survivors.

The above water part of the ship wasn't going anywhere, the submerged section should have been the priority of rescue teams.

This will seem cynical, but: There was no point going underwater first, because the people there were likely already dead anyway.

The rescuers have only limited manpower and they are under time pressure (especially in the first few hours, it was completely unknown whether and how much the ship would move). So they have to allocate their time and resources to saving as many people as possible. And that will probably happen in the dry sections, because far more people are likely to have survived there. People really trapped in an underwater section would most likely already have drowned when the rescuers reached them, no matter what they did, so it makes no sense to make them a priority.

ajrich17901
21-01-12, 18:53
Wonder when the movie will come out :p

Carbon
21-01-12, 19:53
Wonder when the movie will come out :p

This is quite a serious matter...

NiteWolf
21-01-12, 19:55
This is really sad :( Not as bad as the Titanic, but still. And it was on a Friday the 13th? I don't really believe in luck and superstitions or anything but still :/

The Great Chi
21-01-12, 23:14
That Italian captain is a total disgrace to the uniform and the profession.

Maratime law states that the captain should do all in his duty to save the passengers and crew of his ship, and then be the last to leave his ship, but according to the news he was about the first over the side.

The up and coming inquest into this, will surely throw the book at him for his criminal act.

On a side note... davit arrangements for a cruse ships life boats should be looked at, as they could not operate correctly as the ship listed too far.

This will have to be considered during the inquest, just as in the Titanic situation where there was not enough life boats, and by law now, all ships since then carry enough for all, but....

As the davit system which is an old design did not work 100% in this case, cruse ships should come with modern 'immediate launch life boats' that are like the ones on oil rigs and oil tankers, that can launch on rails directly over the side, while passengers are strapped in 'rollercoaster' fashion.

This would allow deployment of life boats quickly and safely, no matter the angle of the ship.

Caesum
21-01-12, 23:23
It has been called the worst peace-time maritime disaster in living memory, drawing parallels with the RMS Titanic (which sunk 100 years ago this April). So far, 4,211 people have been evacuated safely, with 11 confirmed dead and 24 still missing.
I mean, what? Titanic's deaths reached 1504 out of 2208. How eleven deaths can be compared to that?

Greenapple968
22-01-12, 00:19
I never actually heard about this until now. The survivors have obviously gone through a traumatizing experience and I wish them all the best at making a recovery, will take a long time.

I've been studying manslaughter in A level Law and the reason why the Captain was charged for manslaughter is because he as Captain has the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the passengers and staying onboard until everybody is off. The fact that he left and people died after his disappearence makes him liable for their deaths in the eye of the law.

Mad Tony
22-01-12, 00:20
I never actually heard about this until now.How on Earth did you go a week without hearing about this? :eek:

Greenapple968
22-01-12, 00:36
How on Earth did you go a week without hearing about this? :eek:

I meant in depth. I was aware the ship had an accident but I didn't know anything about the Captain being charged for manslaughter or the death rate.

Spong
22-01-12, 01:14
Wonder when the movie will come out :p

Never, if James Cameron has his way.

Alpharaider47
22-01-12, 01:20
Never, if James Cameron has his way.

:vlol: Sure? Give him 8 years, he'll have a 4D spectacle to ram down the world's throat.

DragonSlayer
22-01-12, 15:16
Another body has been found which brings the death toll so far to 13.

ggctuk
22-01-12, 17:28
I mean, what? Titanic's deaths reached 1504 out of 2208. How eleven deaths can be compared to that?

I'm not the one who's been making the comparisons, the media has.