Cruise ship 'Costa Concordia' aground - merged threads - Page 49 - Ships Nostalgia
23:35

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Cruise ship 'Costa Concordia' aground - merged threads

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1201  
Old 29th January 2012, 02:52
5036's Avatar
5036 5036 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,065
Wasn't t a problem on the Titanic the lack of binoculars in the crow's nest?
Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old 29th January 2012, 05:23
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
My location
Posts: 985
If the forcast solar flares over the next two years really get going they will all need their binoculars and those strange archaic instruments called sextants! Break glass for a navigator in the event the GPS goes belly up...........!
Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old 29th January 2012, 10:13
Piero43 Piero43 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Active: 1972 - 2002
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassels View Post
And in the forward part of the vessel.
The light signal "I am aground" is two red lights on the mast. Neither it can be a navigation light, that are clearly off.
Besides, the "light" on the funnel seems to me a reflex on the funnel's plate, being absent the halo that appears in all the lights on the decks.
Piero
Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old 29th January 2012, 10:37
Iangb Iangb is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
My location
Posts: 352
Another photo taken as she grounded, and before any of the stb'd boats were launched. It also appears to show the stb'd anchor was dropped....and a near vertical cable.
(From http://cryptome.org/2012-info/costa-concordia/0041.htm )
Attached Images
File Type: jpg pict10.jpg (137.6 KB, 117 views)
Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old 29th January 2012, 10:46
Piero43 Piero43 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Active: 1972 - 2002
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iangb View Post
Another photo taken as she grounded, and before any of the stb'd boats were launched. It also appears to show the stb'd anchor was dropped....and a near vertical cable.
(From http://cryptome.org/2012-info/costa-concordia/0041.htm )
In this last pic the two red lights "I am aground" are clearly visible on the mast.
P
Reply With Quote
  #1206  
Old 29th January 2012, 10:56
bjmt5r bjmt5r is offline  
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1981 - Present
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piero43 View Post
The light signal "I am aground" is two red lights on the mast. Neither it can be a navigation light, that are clearly off.
Besides, the "light" on the funnel seems to me a reflex on the funnel's plate, being absent the halo that appears in all the lights on the decks.
Piero
Two all round red lights mean "I am not under command". However, if you also put on anchor lights then it means "I am aground".
Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old 29th January 2012, 10:57
Cisco's Avatar
Cisco Cisco is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1963 - 2006
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 6,304
What bjmt5r said....the 2 reds are her Not Under Command lights... presumably turned on while she was...NUC....

The lights for aground are the NUC lights combined with the two anchor lights....

All a bit academic in her final situation...........
__________________
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Last edited by Cisco; 29th January 2012 at 10:59.. Reason: acknowledging btjmt5r's post
Reply With Quote
  #1208  
Old 29th January 2012, 12:15
Heiwa Heiwa is offline  
user
Organisation: Other Merchant Fleets
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1965 - 2011
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 168
The insurance aspects of the incident(s) are of course interesting! The ship owner says:

"The company has insurance coverage for damage to the vessel with a deductible of approximately $30 million as well as insurance for third party personal injury liability subject to an additional deductible of approximately $10 million for this incident. The company self-insures for loss of use of the vessel.

A damage assessment review of the vessel is currently being undertaken to determine how long it will be out of service. The vessel is expected to be out of service for the remainder of our current fiscal year if not longer. For the fiscal year ending November 30, the impact to 2012 earnings for loss of use is expected to be approximately $85-$95 million or $0.11-$0.12 per share. In addition, the company anticipates other costs to the business that are not possible to determine at this time."
Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....EwL3htbA%3d%3d

So there is H&M and P&I insurance but no LoH insurance. It would be interesting to know who the leading H&M underwriter is and under what conditions the ship is insured. The deductible ~$30 million is very big. It evidently means every incident costing less than ~$30M is paid by the ship owner and the underwriters are not concerned, e.g. if the ship was seaworthy? Now we may talk about a 'total loss' (value? $500M?) and the question about seaworthyness should be looked into. Because it is really possible that a seaworthy, correctly built ship worth $500M can become a 'total loss'?
Reply With Quote
  #1209  
Old 29th January 2012, 15:20
Heiwa Heiwa is offline  
user
Organisation: Other Merchant Fleets
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1965 - 2011
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 168
We know that the VDR didn't work at departure. Does it constitute that the vessel was not seaworthy?
Reply With Quote
  #1210  
Old 29th January 2012, 15:32
TommyRob's Avatar
TommyRob TommyRob is online now
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1953 - 2010
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,790
Andrew, does contributory negligence by the owner/operator have a part to play in reducing the insurance pay-out? It seems to me to be beneficial to the suits that the incident is portrayed purely as the result of maverick captaincy.
Reply With Quote
  #1211  
Old 29th January 2012, 16:34
Oceanspan's Avatar
Oceanspan Oceanspan is offline  
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1966 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 32
It would appear that all the data from the VDR was retained. According to Fairplay, the reported fault was just an error code relating to the external capsule. Therefore all the data should be available on the removable hard drive in the VDR itself. Apparently the system on the Costa Concordia in fact had two hard drives, one holding details of the last 24 hours and one the previous 30 days, and the equipment was mounted on the Bridge.

I seem to recall reading that shoreside reminded/instructed Capt Schettino during one of his mobile telephone calls to be sure to remove the removable hard drive. Perhaps this is the "laptop" that he is supposed to have handed to a blonde attorney when he set foot ashore?
Reply With Quote
  #1212  
Old 29th January 2012, 16:49
rcraig rcraig is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,695
Short of ordering the Master to deliberately wreck the vessel, or deliberately and knowingly sending an unseaworthy ship to sea, I don't think that contributory negligence by the owners would have any effect on the pay out, but my own actions belie my words...



If there was a course of conduct actively encouraged by the company, on a particular ship or throughout the company, which unnecessarily exposes the vessel to risk, and the master ultimately makes a wrong decision, would that make any difference?
Reply With Quote
  #1213  
Old 29th January 2012, 18:13
Heiwa Heiwa is offline  
user
Organisation: Other Merchant Fleets
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1965 - 2011
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 168
The ITC Hulls are always interesting (aren’t there a later version than 1.10.83?). So we learn:

6.2 This insurance covers loss or damage … caused by … 6.2.3 negligence of Master Officers Crew or Pilots … provided such loss or damage has not resulted from want of due diligence by the Assured, Owners or Managers.

13.1 In case of any loss … it is the duty of the Assured … to take such measures … of minimizing the loss …

It could be argued the Owners were not diligent asking the Master to show off the ship close to shore and that the later capsize/sinking was due to errors not related to the contact.
Reply With Quote
  #1214  
Old 29th January 2012, 20:25
Anchorman Anchorman is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 754
[QUOTE=pilot;571127][QUOTE=bjmt5r;571080]
You can be sure that the check lists are complete though, indeed you may well be asked to sign one before you even got through the chartroom curtain on today's "well run" ships.





I am afraid it is the times we live in, and the officers are only complying with company rules. I guess its same everywhere, terminals ports factories, even pilotage authorities. It was our generation who introduced the mountain of paperwork, checklists etc, so are we to blame?
Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 29th January 2012, 20:35
rcraig rcraig is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
No, I don't think it would.

Hours of fun to be had here:

http://www.hma.com.cy/files/itc_en.pdf
Interesting. I have no knowledge of relevant case law. Taking it baldly, if the company allowed, or worse, encouraged masters to close inshore, and were aware, or ought to have been from vessel plots that vessels did so to close proximity to hazards, allowing little room for emergencies, this would seem perilously close to failing to exercise due diligence in the general sense of it's meaning.
It will be interesting to see the outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #1216  
Old 29th January 2012, 20:46
x7 dave x7 dave is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 105
apparently she is slipping deeper in the water due to heavy sea`s.moving 4 inches over the weekend.
Reply With Quote
  #1217  
Old 29th January 2012, 20:47
x7 dave x7 dave is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 105
also the owners being sued in the united states by lawyers for the passengers.
Reply With Quote
  #1218  
Old 29th January 2012, 20:53
TommyRob's Avatar
TommyRob TommyRob is online now
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1953 - 2010
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,790
Succinctly put Mr Craig - that's exactly my line of thinking. With the continuous monitoring and control exercised shore side, the argument that everything was OK when it left Tilbury a few weeks ago is becoming less tenable.
Reply With Quote
  #1219  
Old 29th January 2012, 21:05
Heiwa Heiwa is offline  
user
Organisation: Other Merchant Fleets
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1965 - 2011
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by x7 dave View Post
apparently she is slipping deeper in the water due to heavy sea`s.moving 4 inches over the weekend.
She is apparently firmly resting with deckhouse and superstructure on the rocky bottom/shore at 50° heel. But the deckhouse and superstructure is not very strong so it is getting deformed/further damaged and she is setting deeper. I doubt she (50 000+ ton weight) will slip away.
Reply With Quote
  #1220  
Old 29th January 2012, 21:06
muldonaich muldonaich is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1960 - 1990
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,405
i think we should step back a bit and stop listning to all the media hype and sea lawyers its very easy to condem wait till the enquiry has been held and all the facts have been heard brgds kev.
Reply With Quote
  #1221  
Old 29th January 2012, 21:08
bjmt5r bjmt5r is offline  
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1981 - Present
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 22
Oh, good grief!

Let's leave this to court.

So many 'experts' spouting crap, that have no clue.

I'll get my post count up here, get a 'expert' then tell him/her....sorry, come into the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #1222  
Old 29th January 2012, 21:31
pilot's Avatar
pilot pilot is offline  
Senior Member
Active: 1963 - 2011
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmt5r View Post
Oh, good grief!

Let's leave this to court.

So many 'experts' spouting crap, that have no clue.

I'll get my post count up here, get a 'expert' then tell him/her....sorry, come into the real world.
Must admit there does some to be a clutch of self opinionated gentlemen who aren't afraid of demonstrating their knowledge without the restrain lesser mortals show in waiting for official findings.

Still found memories of a SN lynch mob that spent some considerable time airing knowledge of how a tank had been over pressurised and caused an explosion. Turns out it was a terrorist attack from a launch.

Will await the predictable out burst that just 'cause you don't agree etc. etc.
Reply With Quote
  #1223  
Old 29th January 2012, 22:13
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piero43 View Post
The light signal "I am aground" is two red lights on the mast. Neither it can be a navigation light, that are clearly off.
Besides, the "light" on the funnel seems to me a reflex on the funnel's plate, being absent the halo that appears in all the lights on the decks.
Piero
Not really correct , but this has already been pointed out to you.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #1224  
Old 29th January 2012, 22:13
bjmt5r bjmt5r is offline  
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1981 - Present
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilot View Post
Must admit there does some to be a clutch of self opinionated gentlemen who aren't afraid of demonstrating their knowledge without the restrain lesser mortals show in waiting for official findings.

Still found memories of a SN lynch mob that spent some considerable time airing knowledge of how a tank had been over pressurised and caused an explosion. Turns out it was a terrorist attack from a launch.

Will await the predictable out burst that just 'cause you don't agree etc. etc.
Oh, someone like me.....careful now.

Talking sense here does not seem to work. So many 'experts' but all may be clueless. I know what I tihnk about the 'experts; but are they on board now? Are they sailing with 22m draft. Are they carrying 300,00 MT of oil?

I am

to anwer the 'experts'


From day one I said - leave this to the court

Now, what part of the above is difficult to understand?

To remind the DUMB - Leave it to the court
Reply With Quote
  #1225  
Old 29th January 2012, 22:21
Jacktar1 Jacktar1 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldonaich View Post
i think we should step back a bit and stop listning to all the media hype and sea lawyers its very easy to condem wait till the enquiry has been held and all the facts have been heard brgds kev.
not before time.....
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruise ship Ushuaia leaking in Antarctic - merged threads Santos News and Views from the Shipping World 4 5th December 2008 00:40



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.