"Cruise ship sinking of Italy" Topic

The sinking of the cruise ship off (damn near ON) the coast of Italy overnight should be a reminder to all naval wargamers who seem to think NOTHING CAN GO WRONG, that even in this modern age with all sorts of navigational aid and electronic devices…shite still happens!

It had me thinking back to a modern naval wargame a few years ago when a player insisted his ship could not possibly run aground because of modern devices aboard.

My very first thought was along those lines.
Shoot, even the Carthaginians had charts for that area!

Per your second point, how often do we hear about submarines ramming dishing vessels, running aground, etc. I just wonder how many we have NOT heard about. A heck of a lot of captains do not make admiral.

It's hard to believe one ship sank (actually torpedoed) with over 9,000 lives lost link

Wait. The Russian satellite will hit it now…

The Captain is under arrest, last I knew there were 6 fatalities.

With all the sonar, radar, computors etc, how? It's not like it hasn't been charted since….Troy?

Even without all that, I still can't see being that close in shore with such a large vessel.

Perhaps a kayak, but not a cruise ship.

I imagine his next performance review will be less than stellar…..

Ship hits rock on port side (see hull gash in photos)……then lists to starboard? Damage control wasn't manned I expect or a weird counter-flooding operation.

When I first saw that a ship with 4500 people on board sunk, I thought it was someplace like a Philippines ferry. Could not believe a cruise ship ran aground in Italy.

A couple of years ago, a British Royal Navy warship hit a rock off Norfolk Island (Australia) – the rock was named after the previous RN warship to hit the same rock.

"Even without all that, I still can't see being that close in shore with such a large vessel."

She didn't sink at the site of the grounding. The captain steered the ship inshore to make the rescue effort easier.

"Ship hits rock on port side (see hull gash in photos)……then lists to starboard?"

Ship damaged port side, heeled to port, then turned inshore (see above) and heeled the other way as a result.

"Damage control wasn't manned I expect or a weird counter-flooding operation."

What damage control? These ships are designed to remain afloat after a certain amount of damage (2 main watertight compartments, IIRC) and remain upright (within 12 degrees) to allow safe abandonment. I don't know enough about the ship to know if the damage sustained was greater than the design damage case. Suffice to say I think there will be a LOT of "lessons learnt" in cruise liner design and operation coming out of this.

Second cruiser liner from that company that's crashed within a 3 year span. I think they're hiring the least qualified crew to save costs.

"Suffice to say I think there will be a LOT of "lessons learnt" in cruise liner design and operation coming out of this."

And they will be quickly forgotten and never applied. /headshake

Not necessarily. If the design standardsa are found to be deficient they'll be revised and updated, and mandated as part of the IMO / SOLAS regulations – no compliance, no sailing. Of course t takes time for changes to come into effect, and they generally aren't retrospective (double hulled tankers for example – those regs took many years to finally come into full effect).

Wheres the ship registered?

Port of Registration is Genoa Italy

More on the ship from Wiki

link

Didn't another ship ground off of Santorini just a year or so ago? Might mean that for gaming modern close inshore actions an die roll be made for a faulty course programing error.

Might mean that for gaming modern close inshore actions an die roll be made for a faulty course programing error.

There's an idea . A new weapon that sends false reports to an enemy ship using GPS!!!

Sounds like the Pirates of Penzance will be back in operation soon, Mal.

It seems as if the Old Man was showing off, bringing his vessel close in to the island to wave at the tourists etc on the island. He suggested that they should have been safe as they were 1000' away from any rocks. That's less than a third of a mile! It would have been poor seamanship to even bring a small coaster to less than a third of a mile from known rocks! Shocking!

A new weapon that sends false reports to an enemy ship using GPS!!!

Bond movie.

The Iranians have them, so I suspect others have GPS jammers, false signal providers as well.

Supposedly, that's how they got the US drone to land in their back yard.

It seems the captain was showing off, trying to give the passengers a nice photo of the lights of the fishing village.

News here shows film of the same vessel doing the same thing a few years back – with fishermen syaing it was too close even then.

However the Captain could also be correct in saying the rocks weren't on his chart – Italy is seismically active and hence the sea-bed does have a tendency to be mobile.

Which is possibly why the cruise company gave him a set route to follow….

Seems there are now 26 people missing according to the Italian coastguard (and incidentally maximum respect for the rescue workers because that environment must be hellish to work in).

So assuming the worst, that's 32 fatalities.

Looking at it from a purely dispassionate point of view, a 99% survival rate is pretty good.

But why hadn't the passengers been given their emergency instrucitions as they should within 24hrs?

Quite. Costa are trying to cover their arses as well by saying that the Old Man went closer than he should have. Locals, as you suggest, report that Costa vessels always went too close, in their opinion. Given the slab sided nature of the vessel, if the wind created slightly more leeway than was allowed for the vessel could easily have gone so close to existing rocks that the disaster occurred. In any case, that large passenger vessels routinely went so close to a known hazard meant that a disaster was inevitable.
Passenger vessels, as you suggest, are required to carry out a lifeboat and emergency drill within 24 hours of embarkation. It was appalling that they should have sailed with both passengers and crew, by which I mean the 1,000 or so waiters, barmen, cooks, cleaners, musicians, gym instructors, shop workers and dancers, and the, perhaps, 15 or so actual seamen, not knowing their lifeboat stations.

link

5 more bodies found.

They didn't routinely go that close. Maps on the BBC show the course deviation:

The captain claims that the rocks were not on his chart:

"We didn't hit it with the bow of the boat, but from the side, as if this rock had some kind of spike beneath the water. I don't know if it was picked up or not but on the nautical chart it said that we should have had deep water beneath us. […] We were about 300 metres from the rocks, more or less, we shouldn't have hit anything,"

Not sure how much of a comment that is. It could have missed the bow by inches and only as the stern swung across hit the side. 300m sounds hellishly close to me. However if he had stayed on course he wouldn't have been anywhere near them.

The passengers were apparently all given emergency procedure cards, but no drill had been carried out. However it seems that there was only 40 minutes from striking the rock to the capsize, presumably with half the lifeboats rapidly under water on the underside as the ship rolled.

To his (limited) credit, it does appear that the captain recognised that his ship was doomed and turned back to the nearest shore/harbour. Several passengers were able to swim to the shore, or wait on board to be rescued due to the relatively shallow water. It could have been much worse if they were a mile or so farther out and/or in much deeper water.

news says Captain didn't actually turn back towards shore, the ship did it itself because of the 70 m hole – is it possible?

Captain also left the ship waaay before all passengers were evacuated. he is facing 15 years jail sentence. News ran a phone call registration of the captain, on shore, being ordered by coast guard livorno to return immediately on board to help passengers, and Captain trying to fudge. You should have heard the Coast guard office telling him, with a pretty angry voice, "Captain, you maybe saved yourself from the sea, but I promise I will get you in a lot more trouble than that"… I bet he will!

I believe there is no international law that requires a Captain to be the last person off a ship. However I believe most captains treat their ships as their own personal charges and they would carry a certain duty of care to their passengers and crew.

It is, as I understand it, Italian law though.

Certainly the coastguard directly ordered the captain back on his vessel.

Listen to the audio. The coastguard is almost apoplectic with the conduct of the captain, being especially scathing when the captain complained it was dark….

Yes, there do appear to be several reports that Italian law requires the Captain to remain on board, presumably until reasonably sure that [at least most of] the passengers and crew are secure – I woul;d think it would be unreasonable to expect him to personally guarantee the ship is clear.

I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall something about the Cpatian remaining on board to retain claim to the ship, thus preventing it being claimed under salvage rights (but I know nothing about maritime law!)

Presumably that is in Italian waters (would it matter on an Italian registered ship if it was in international waters?). Looks like the penalty is 12 years.

Costa's spokesperson said that the set course would have taken the vessel on a track that was 500 metres from the rocks, rather than the 300 metres that she was actually doing when the grounding occurred. 500 metres is shockingly close to a known navigational hazard. The BBC's map is based on Lloyd's speculation rather than on actual evidence. There don't seem to be any actual alteration points, or "waypoints" on the map, just an approximate track between the islands. Obviously, Lloyds have their own information but don't have access to actual records of courses steered or tracks made good, just what shipowners choose to tell them.
In maritime law there is no requirement for the Master to remain onboard, there is, however, a deep seated moral obligation for the Master to supervise evacuation and to remain onboard until the people for whom he is responsible are away, safely if possible. One member of the crew needs to be onboard for legal control of the vessel to be retained; they don't have to be the Master. I did study basic maritime law for Mate's and Master's.

Given the inaccuracy in civilian GPS, sounds a bit too close to me.

Concrete evidence seems to support that as well.

I imagine that evacuation drills/instructions will change, and that they will need to take place before the ship leaves the dock, in the near future.

I saw the data recorder was recovered.

In 2001 we went on a cruise in Malaysian waters with the Star Line. We were put through abandon ship procedure within a matter of two hours….and before the ship actually left the wharf at Singapore. By the time it did sail we knew our lifeboat stations, how to use our lifejackets and other safety procedures. Other passengers aboard who had already been on ship for a few days were excused the drill, but all new passengers were required to do it before leaving harbour. To make sure, the crew went around to the cabins of all new arrivals and told them when the drill would be and that they were REQUIRED to attend it.

For the next week every time the ship called at a port we saw the same thing happen. Those who had been through the drill once were excused unless a certain signal was sounded, and then everyone had to attend.

During the drill you not only had to go to your station…you were also shown the inside of the lifeboats and things explained.

I noticed too, that although the ship was much older, all our lifejackets were only a year old. While showing us how to use them the steward said they were updated every few years. (I wonder who they sold the old ones too?)

Every day we saw Officers supervising crew members exercising fire fighting, damage control, injured person recovery etc. They never missed a day. They did first aid drills twice a day….with someone acting as a heart attack victim, a broke leg…etc.

That line at least, was very careful about safety and I was quite impressed. The crew were also very smartly dressed and walked about looking like they were proud of their ship.
When spoken too they said 'Yes sir'…'No sir'…and were very respectful.

Most of the sea crew were from Skandanavia. The Hotel type staff from the Phillipines, the waiting staff from East Europe and the Chef's team from England. Despite the mix, I saw all groups involved in the exercises. On one occasion while at the Pursers desk I saw one of the Hotel staff told to go and take part in an exercise 'At once'. Obviously she had been a bit slow in responding and received a real rocket from one of the officers.

It made me feel confident.

I had the same experience of Mal in the three crusiers I took… BUT when we walked with the people which belongs to our group-boat preceding by an officer I always think (and talk this circumstance with my wife) how would be our pacefull move to the boats in that huge ship in a real emergency.
In one of those cruciers (at the Caribbean)our group had to walked behind two guys in weelschairs. Two crew members push them slowly and the rest of us walked to our save boat. I remember asking to one of the crew members (who was a peruvian guy) in spanish in a softly voice; "Do you think than in an emergency all these process would be like this one?" and he look at me with surprice and very honestly he answer me: "No way amigo. It would be hell".
Well, 17 passengers of that sink crucier were Argentines and of course they are on TV since the sinking telling us who people fight for a place, push even childrens, etc.
One of them took a very interesting film with his phone showing how people show their panic and fight for the boats while from the speakers you hear untill the last minute that it was nothing wrong, that it was a technical problem, etc.
All of these while the Captain was taking a transport to his home refusing to help his own ship as the local police force ask him while he was in land.
This case remember me that from the days of the Titanic not so many things had changed about human nature.
In this or in other cases would prevail the "Sauve qui peut"

Amicalement
Armand

They certainly shouldn't have been using GPS whilst in transit in coastal waters, they should/would have been using radar ranges and bearings, and visual bearings from the navigational features in the area. Using GPS in such conditions would have gross mal-practise and grossly poor seamanship.
The data recorder records radio conversations and probably courses and course alterations, but little more.
Mako11, current regulations demand that they should have carried out a muster drill prior to sailing, they just didn't bother.

The data recorder records radio conversations and probably courses and course alterations, but little more.

I believe that intention is that it can prove the actual route travelled. God forbid the rock was actally mapped and his navigation was so far off that he wasn't where he even thought he was…

Is there a martime equivalent of the INS that aircraft use?

"Suffice to say I think there will be a LOT of "lessons learnt" in cruise liner design and operation coming out of this."

And they will be quickly forgotten and never applied.

Titanic's lessons learned were rather heavily enforced, at least the ones that didn't demand scrapping and rebuilding ships.

Given the inaccuracy in civilian GPS, sounds a bit too close to me.

Civilian GPS is accurate to within single-digit meters. Has been ever since KAL 007.

Is there a martime equivalent of the INS that aircraft use?

GPS that records your track is more accurate than *most* INS rigs. For that matter, I heard that the INS used by fast-attack subs was yoinked off an F18. The backup gyro used to live in a tank or SPH. The really good gyros are … delicate, expensive, and certainly classified. Aircraft gyros would likely be cheaper and more robust.

My guess is that the Captain/Navigator/Quartermaster wasn't crosschecking his position like he should have been. If they really were 300m from known rocks and normal travel was ~5000m, it's possible that a breeze caught the ship. Lord knows those cruise ships have enough sail area to make a glass calm on their lee side.

The Master would have been engaged in serious posing, the 3rd Mate, or Chief Officer if they have 2 Mates to a watch as some people carriers have, would be Officer of the Watch, and would have been plotting the position. The Quartermaster would have been doing his job, either bridge wing lookout, or steering. Is a Quartermaster a navigator in the USN?

link

You do know that is a satire site?…

The Captain has admitted an "error of navigation" and excess speed making it impossible to turn in time.

"Investigators have recovered the "black box" system similar to those used by aircraft, that record voices on the bridge, as well as radar position and other data, which they hope will explain how the incident happened."

This alleged transcript of the conversation between the Coastguard and Commander is interesting: link It does sound as though he is judged by someone who isn't there – I can imagine in the confusion and darkness that it can be very easy to say "get on board". Presumably his view would be that he had given a clear order to abandon, his crew were carrying that out, and he may have thought he was assisting best co-ordinating things in the water. Admittedly not a strong (moral) argument.

Incidently, I notice that when she was launched, the champagne bottle failed to break…

Are you sure GeoffQRF, I thought that this article on Cameron was quite insightful…..
link
and this one on Clegg…
thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/clegg-wants-unbearably-middle-class-economy-with--adverts-201201164769/"link

Well yes, very often 'satire' sails about as far from the truth as the Costa Concordia sails from the shore…

Not really looking great, is it…

link

"The BBC's Bethany Bell on reports that there was a Moldovan woman beside the captain on the bridge when the accident happened. Newspapers suggest she was not on the passenger list, and perhaps could have more information on what happened. "

Of course it IS possible that it was the ISLAND that was out of position. There have been earthquakes!

The BBC's Bethany Bell on reports that there was a Moldovan woman beside the captain on the bridge

AHH HA!
There you have an explanation for why the Captain was anxious to get home. He wanted to tell his story to his wife before she found out from the news!

Of course it IS possible that it was the ISLAND that was out of position

I believe Japan has moved.

Yep, possibly as much as 13 feet/8 metres: link

Etna also erupted in January, about 650km away. I suppose it is possible that the rock wasn't there a few months ago.

I used to love the older charts of the area around New Guinea/New Britain. There used to be comments from the Admiralty on the charts like "The existence of this island is doubtful", and "Reported to lie 20' South West of this position". Mainly because the original 19th century charts were based on not necessarily accurate surveys and random reports from vessels trading in that area. However, that doesn't really apply to the Tuscan coast!

A re-emerging Atlantis?

The island was lurking, just underwater. When the ship came near, the island lunged at it, and just managed to catch it.

Given the captain's excuses so far, that'll be his next one.

Think he already tried that one:

"…as if this rock had some kind of spike beneath the water…"

He doesn't seem to be cut from the same cloth as Kennedy, Roope or Fegan does he?

Who will he blame next?

link
So the Sub's Commander got lost!
And then he thought that it was a U.S. warship!
It sounds a believable as the other story's.