68 replies to this topic

[sharkman]

The evacuation never should have happened because the idiot captain never should have gone off course. Now he's saying his route was 'authorized' as if sinking his own ship is not his fault. I hate people who continue to spin and duck the responsibility and never admit that they screwed up. Putz.

[American Woman]

The evacuation never should have happened because the idiot captain never should have gone off course. Now he's saying his route was 'authorized' as if sinking his own ship is not his fault. I hate people who continue to spin and duck the responsibility and never admit that they screwed up. Putz.

His route may have been authorized:

We’ve already seen video of the Costa Concordia showing off near Giglio, now Lloyd’s List has put together this infographic showing a similar–and possibly approved– course the Costa Concordia took during a voyage on August 14. This time, the cruise ship passed to within 230m from the shores of Giglio.

Not only is this info painting a grim picture for the captain and officers of the Costa Concordia, but for Costa Cruises and its parent company, Carnival.

“The previously approved route took the vessel far closer to shore than the 500 metres claimed by Costa,” explains Richard Meade, Editor of Lloyd’s List in a press statement. “This is not a black and white case. Our data suggests that both routes took the vessel within 200 metres of the impact point and that the authorised route was actually closer to shore.”

link

Time will tell.

[eyeball]

His route may have been authorized:

It matters not.

I was always taught and the law states that I'm ultimately responsible for ship safety on any and all vessels that I operate.

I cannot by law allow my employer's wishes to trump the Collision Regulations.

You will not find anything in here that changes the fact that the master is always the person most responsible for ship safety.

[guyser]

It matters not.

I was always taught and the law states that I'm ultimately responsible for ship safety on any and all vessels that I operate.

I understand this is your area of expertise.

But really, matters not? Even if he was ordered to do a sail by (or whatever they called it) the same as had been done the previous August and ordered to do so by the owners of the ship?

He will of cours e pay the price, but should that price be shared? (if provable?)

[eyeball]

I understand this is your area of expertise.

But really, matters not? Even if he was ordered to do a sail by (or whatever they called it) the same as had been done the previous August and ordered to do so by the owners of the ship?

He will of cours e pay the price, but should that price be shared? (if provable?)

Well I'm certainly no legal expert and while the owner will bear responsibility for liability but I think the captain in this case should bear the full brunt of any personal repercussions involving his loss of control over the ship and subsequent actions such as abandoning his passengers, crew and ship. All of my training and certification testing impressed on me that I'm solely responsible for the decisions I make, including following stupid or dangerous orders and advice.

It's up to me whether I leave the dock and I've had to cancel trips because of weather and disappoint people not to mention blow off thousands of dollars in potential income for the company that day, it's just part of the job.

I've certainly heard of companies that pressure their skippers to take chances and skippers that don't want to be seen as chicken-shit that do, but not my boss and not me. That's exactly what got the Costa Concordia into hot water and the Titanic in cold and it's why the Captain's word and actions should be what count.

Edited by eyeball, 23 January 2012 - 04:38 PM.

[guyser]

Well I'm certainly no legal expert and while the owner will bear responsibility for liability but I think the captain in this case should bear the full brunt of any personal repercussions involving his loss of control over the ship and subsequent actions such as abandoning his passengers, crew and ship.

Thank you.

I suspected as much and agree. In thinking about it, the Capt will pay, but the company will have to pony up large to settle the suits already filed.....and oh they will pay !

[Post To The Left]

The captain's antics while certainly amusing and depressing at the same are distracting from the real issue: Uncontrolled Capitalism in the cruise industry.


In 1886 the American government passed a law, thePassenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (PVSA), this simple piece of legislation basically kills the American domestic cruise industry and opens the door for foreign owned vessels with little to no controls over what they do. Sure this happened in Italy today but it's only a matter of time before something happens to a cruise ship sailing from an American port.

As is the case with capitalism the first order of the day is to profit and if there are no regulations the shareholders force the company to sacrifice everything (safety, environmental costs) in the name of profit.

The crews on these ships are from various nations, they have no common language and they work in sweatshop conditions 12-14hrs a day, seven days a week. They have no idea of what to do in an emergency because it would cost money to train them to function like a real crew. This is why this industry, and capitalism in general, needs to be regulated and reined in to prevent disasters like this happening (another case would be the gulf oil explosion).

Sure this time it was the fault of the captain but what about next time when a freak wave hits a ship, or a equally overworked shipping vessel's crew crash collide into a cruise ship.

One is crew-to-passenger ratios, which have widened over the past few decades from an average of one crew member for every two passengers to one for every three, according to the International Transport Workers’ Fed-eration. Crew members work 12-to-14-hour days, seven days a week, for months at a stretch, with minimal time off. “Half the ship is working in a state of fatigue,” says James Walker, a former cruise-industry lawyer who now represents aggrieved crew. “All types of safety studies have shown if you’re really exhausted you can be impaired to the point of intoxication.” The mostly Asian crew of the Costa Concordia had been on an eight-month shift when the ship capsized after running ashore off the Tuscan island of Giglio. Accommodations were like the Titanic’s steerage section. Only managers had shared cabins, and the others slept in dormitory bunks.

“These are bean-counter dynamics,” says lawyer and author of Unsafe on the High Seas Charles Lipcon, who is in talks with several potential Concordia plaintiffs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/22/costa-concordia-disaster-brings-hard-look-at-cruise-ship-safety.print.html

[jbg]

As is the case with capitalism the first order of the day is to profit and if there are no regulations the shareholders force the company to sacrifice everything (safety, environmental costs) in the name of profit.

The crews on these ships are from various nations, they have no common language and they work in sweatshop conditions 12-14hrs a day, seven days a week. They have no idea of what to do in an emergency because it would cost money to train them to function like a real crew. This is why this industry, and capitalism in general, needs to be regulated and reined in to prevent disasters like this happening (another case would be the gulf oil explosion).

One of the few times you'll hear me rooting for regulation (the financial industry being the other) but, I agree heartily. Safety should not be a race to the bottom (pun intended).

[-TSS-]

If it wasn't a serious issue involving deaths of people, the captain's behaviour would make just brilliant comedy.

[cybercoma]

Actually, as has already been posted by guyser, it's not part of international law.

If it's not international law, then it's some sort of law related to shipping:

He is under formal investigation in the case, accused of multiple manslaughter and abandoning ship before the evacuation of more than 4,200 passengers and crew was complete.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/23/costa-concordia-captain-francesco-schettino-faces-news-charges-in-cruise-ship-sinking-reports-say/

[Derek L]

If it's not international law, then it's some sort of law related to shipping:

No, it’s not International law, but Italian Criminal & Maritime Law.

[cybercoma]

Right, but isn't maritime law partly governed by international conventions?

http://en.wikipedia....nal_conventions

[GostHacked]

Right, but isn't maritime law partly governed by international conventions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#International_conventions

They were in Italian waters, so I am not sure that would apply as much as the Italian rules.

[American Woman]

There is no international law against abandoning ship or stipulating that the captain has to be the last to leave the ship, but the cruise ship was sailing under the Italian flag - it was registered in Italy - so Italian maritime law applies, and Italian maritime code criminalizes the act of abandoning ship.



Edited to add: Crew members have testified that the captain wasn't wearing his glasses at the time, and was having trouble seeing the control panel. Things do not look good for him.

Edited by American Woman, 04 March 2012 - 10:18 AM.

[Derek L]

Right, but isn't maritime law partly governed by international conventions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#International_conventions

As GostHacked correctly inferred, they were in Italian territorial (shallow) waters……..If the incident had occurred in International waters, he could be tried in the The Hague.