Cruise ship aground near Giglio

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Just remembered this part of Wikipedia article. Its not first time (if correct case of Costa) when captain is first out from trouble.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia SS Yarmouth Castle

The first ship on the scene was Finnpulp. The first of Yarmouth Castle's lifeboats, which was only half-full, rowed to the freighter. Captain Lehto was angered to find that only four of the people in the boat were passengers. The other 20 were crewmembers who fled at the first alarm, among them Captain Voutsinas. The four passengers were taken aboard the freighter. Voutsinas claimed that he had come to Finnpulp to request a radio distress call. Lehto turned Voutsinas and the crewmen back to Yarmouth Castle saying, "Go back and look for more survivors." The next two lifeboats launched from Yarmouth Castle contained only crew.

Another infamous case is MTS Oceanos.

[Aesthetica]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Is that one big piece of the reef stuck inside the hole

Right side of the hole in the picture

Yeah, it's a big piece of rock stuck in the 50 m long gash in the side...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

The source informs me there are now clear instructions not to discuss externally so I suppose it now becomes a waiting game...amidst all the speculation

Good, to be honest the CEO should have kept his mouth shut IMHO and waited for the investigation to be completed...but I suppose he was under a lot of pressure...even so you don't finger the captain, particularly if there is any doubt that it might not be his fault or only his fault.
The media will make up their own mind, and will likely blame the captain, but I think that he knows that it's the end of his career as a liner captain, quite possibly the end of it full stop. Even if the investigation clears him, the stigma from this is going to follow him.

[Schöneboom]

My girlfriend has always warned me never to take us on a holiday cruise.

My girlfriend has always warned me never to take us on a holiday cruise.

Has she warned you to never take her on a plane train or coach too?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Schöneboom

My girlfriend has always warned me never to take us on a holiday cruise.

Why? Do she have any specific fears on cruises? Its much more likely that you die in car crash than for example in ship wreck or airliner crash after all.

EDIT: Ah... Tribesman beat me.

[Schöneboom]

Actually it's not about the potential hazards of cruising -- she hates the thought of being cooped up with the same people for weeks on end. Rather like being trapped in a floating resort.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Schöneboom

Actually it's not about the potential hazards of cruising -- she hates the thought of being cooped up with the same people for weeks on end. Rather like being trapped in a floating resort.

Like ending up into same ship with most annoying aunt? Thats undeniably small downside.

Ofcourse unless you want captain to restore tradition of marooning you would be stuck with her "lovely company".

[Type941]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Btw did I understand it correctly that you speak Estonian as your native language?

I speak it, but it's not my native language. Usually Finns are good with news, or better than others but who knows, seems a translation issue. I've seen local business media mix up millions and billions talking about sales results, so knowing how the media model works (just get website hits) I'm not surprised at anything. For example one guy I know posted a link to a blog and said "who can believe this fake story!" and next day he was on radio being portraid as the person behind the fake story itself. All radio stations quoted same story without fact checking it except one who actually called him up and asked if true. Point of the story - media are fking useless in many things and only care about website hits.

Regarding the story, it seems pretty simple to avoid this sort of nonesense. Just man the bridge. I mean you gotta be pretty stupid to miss an island, just looks like they relied on navigation and went way way off. May be it was electronic glitch? Captain thinks he followed the course but appears not. It explains what he says in some way. ... IN future, they just need to put more people on bridge and make sure people are watching where they're going. That's how Titanic could have been saved, and that's how this thing could have been averted.

By the way, this reminds me a lot of this (another south european ship and this time Greek captain, navigation error):





The bastards just sunk it in the end because it seemed like it was easier for them. I won't be surprised one bit if this whole thing is gonna be used to gain insurance money and they'll work on this ship as little as possible, and if money wise it's cheaper to sink it, you wait - they'll tow it and suddenly it will sink 80 metres down..

[Type941]

Originally Posted by Aesthetica

Yeah, it's a big piece of rock stuck in the 50 m long gash in the side...

how does it make sense? Ship on pictures has to its left the coast, but based on this it will have the coast to its right? I'm confused a bit.

[Betonov]

They say she turned for 180 degrees, that's why she's orientated towards the course she came from.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Betonov

They say she turned for 180 degrees, that's why she's orientated towards the course she came from.

If so then that could explain why damaged side is above water. Hard turn to port would have caused water to move to starboard side causing list to and eventually capsizing to starboard.

If previous is correct then it would be nice to hear what was captain's reasoning for turn towards shore. Did he attempt to beach ship to prevent sinking?

[Betonov]

I am more wondering why this caused the ship to sink (she would if she would not beach herself). Didn't shipbuilders learned from the Titanic disaster that watertight compartments should be watertight vertically too. A hole like this shouldn't be enough to sink her unless she was poorply designed or there was a serius collapse of safety protocol

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Betonov

I am more wondering why this caused the ship to sink (she would if she would not beach herself). Didn't shipbuilders learned from the Titanic disaster that watertight compartments should be watertight vertically too. A hole like this shouldn't be enough to sink her unless she was poorply designed or there was a serius collapse of safety protocol

Press here in Finland spoke with Traffic Safety Administration's chief of maritime transportation (my own translation) Mr. Tuomas Routa. He said that ships of size class like Costa Coradia are usually made to tolerate compromising of two or three water tight sections. For landlubber like me that doesn't sound much. Also even if bulkheads are watertight from bottom to top when ship lists before or later windows and other hull openings end up underwater causing water to enter non-compromised sections.

[mapuc]

I have red every posting in the thread and most of the news. I'm not an expert on navigating and sailing a huge ship like this.

I await the final report before I make my statement about it-and it will be from my personal believes.

Markus