Don't sail onto rocks ?

What I found most interesting about this and it reflects on our work is how quickly conclusions were jumped too. The captain was arrested on possible manslaughter the owners denounced the captain as being responsible the press blamed the captain (interestingly a very small piece on sky news yesterday, Italy has the 2nd highest volcanic incident rate in the world and it is entirely possible that a rock was forced upwards by volcanic activity which was not charted and that the entire event following the grounding was a excellent piece of seamanship in getting the cruise liner to shallow waters and saving possible thousands of lives) all of this within 24 hours, and the investigation will have barely started. How often have we seen knee jerks reaction to incidents both large and small before a proper investigation is in place to determine what happened, what controls were in place and did they fail and what human behaviours were involved

Absolutely. I remember the Kings Cross fire when the news media seemed fixated on finding the person who dropped the cigarette that caused the fire. Whereas later investigations revealed many management systems failings.

I have sailed from this port myself. but looking at the map of the area and the depth of water which has been reported as 50-60 feet while the draft of the ship was 25.8 feet, enough depth for the safe passage of the ship. The main concern is however, the ship was off course by quite a bit. The ship was supposed to sail to the left (port) of the island not to the right (starboard). The ship was about twenty five miles out and it has been reported that he was not on the bridge at the time of the incident and the first officer was in control. This I believe is quite normal as the captain has duties welcoming his passengers so may not have known the ship was off course, only time will tell on that issue. The ship actually struck the rocks to the south of the Island some three or four miles short of the place of capsize but the water tight doors were not closed in time to save the ship. Only time will tell who was at fault or what went wrong, but to prempt the case with knee jerk reaction like arresting the captain and the company passing the buck within a day or so is somewhat a case of protecting ones back, just like the Potters Bar rail crash where there was supposed to be a phantom maintenance crew on site near the points but were never identified. Lets wait and see what comes of the inquiry before making rushed judgements.

Tony M Though you conclude your opening post about the recent cruise liner major incident with the comment that "There is a lesson for all of us." I'm unsure myself as to what the lesson is at present. Though I might have misunderstood some aspects of the incident as reported, what does seem clear at this stage is that the media have gone into overdrive as usual with snippets of information about the incident. The various voids of factual information have been filled by speculation from various quarters, no doubt to sate the public clamour for information. Some of the reports that the liner's captain had been arrested (a fact) seem to insinuate (i.e. speculate) that he was at fault or even totally to blame for the incident. Therefore, rather than emulate the media by indulging in speculation on this forum, isn't it best to wait for publication of a report, perhaps even an interim one, of the detailed investigation which is likely to have started? I referred to the cruise liner event as a major incident rather than a tragedy. Though the death toll is currently six (though more may be found inside the liner), the media & public interest seems to stem from the fact that the event was unusual and involved a large ship and lots of people on holiday. By comparison, if a similar number of people are killed during a motorway pile-up the circumstances tend to receive local/regional media coverage for a short time. National media coverage seems to occur only if a pile-up has unusual aspects and/or there are few other stories to report at the time. In case my comment about the small number of fatallities in the liner incident appeared to be callous, I should add that it was definitely a tragedy for each of the persons killed, plus their respective relatives and friends. The same applies to anyone killed at work or by work activities, as those of us who have dealt with work-related fatalities tend to know only too well.

As a professional mariner with a Master's CoC I have been horrified at the knee-jerk reaction from the media and, it would seem, the Italian authorities. However, my main concern is that the incident has happened, what then occurred. It seems that there were problems launching some of the lifeboats due to the exccessive list. Modern ships should be designed with sufficient cross-flooding arrangements to ensure that any list is minimal. I would also point out that the contact and hull penetration was some time before the vessel finally grounded (news reports vary from 2 to 4 hours) and in this time the Master managed to get the vessel close to shore so that it would not sink - there is an old adage that "your ship is the best lifeboat" and he appeared to be working on this principle. Accordingly, it is far, far too early to make any reasoned conclusions. I just wish the media thought the same!

RIP to those who have lost thier lives, and thoughts are with the families at the minute.

Over 4000 people evacuated and rescued from a fatally holed vessel sound like a success story to me. I will not speculate on causes or anything else to do with this incident.

You jest ? "like a director at work" Penny-pinching, blaming others, refusing to be held responsible.....and those are the good parts of directors. The captain however is solely responsible for the correct and legal operation of the ship. Exactly the opposite of most directors. Oh, and a video shot by a passenger shows calm passengers. Not many crew though.

quote=David H]Just goes to show how important the "human factors" are. The ship was probably launched with inherent safety devices built in, state of the art positioning, stabalising and communication gear as well as sonar etc. Senior management will have centuries of experience between them and the trip was done weekly - so should not have been any surprises. And then calamity - with the weak link being suggested as human error. How can we manage that then? David

I watch the media coverage and the succession of various experts, and now the owners, giving an opinion that the media instantly turns into fact and I find myself thinking that the only lesson to be learnt is that fact is the most unlikely thing to emerge in the early aftermath of any such incident. For example, last night I watched two completely different accounts of the route taken by the vessel. p48

That's a bit OTT isn't it? Ships hit submerged objects and non-sumberged objects from time to time. Passenger vessels have sunk from time to time (think Zeebrugge). So comparing it to the Titanic is a bit sensationalist IMO. There are no lessons to be learnt as yet as the investigation hasn't been completed. Of course the owners are blaming the Captain! I am suprised so many of you are so quick to judge and so quick to believe what the press are reporting - quite ironic when so many on here are so quick to jump on the inaccurate reporting of H&S stories! I'm disheartened by this thread. I could make many assumptions but I prefer to wait for the facts. So far the only facts are that the ship hit a rock and sank.

The KNOWN facts are that the ship struck rocks and was grounded. Unless the shipbuilders included a bus-sized lump of rock into the ship. Other know facts are that the ship went the same route dozens of times previously without striking rocks.

Dangerous source I know, but Wikipedia indicates the vessel was registered in Genoa, Italy.

Drat. Forgot the last comment: "Thus, while the current focus is on Capatian Francesco Schettino and his dereliction of duty, perhaps more questions should be asked about why his ship capsized, and about the regulators' dereliction of duty – why they have ignored post-collision stability problems in large cruise ships"

If the Captain of the Titanic had slowed-down in the face of iceberg warnings, and the build had been of good quality, and the watertight compartments had been higher, and the Californian had its radio on, the casualties would have been much lower. Even if all the lifeboats on Titanic had been launched only half the passengers would have been accommodated. A classic case of not letting management have anything to do with safety ?

I did not criticise anybody. As some people have posted, looking at the positive side 99% survival rate for a crash of that magnitude could actually prove to be a succesful emergency plan, although I very much doubt it. I dont think this is an emotive use of words. If anybody thinks what happened can be minimised by the relatively low percentage death count you need help!

On the other hand........the incident happened near land in good conditions. IF the ship had capsized in mid ocean..........................

None of the above were there, me included. Before anymore rubbish is spouted, can we wait until the investigation before we make fools of ourselves? Innocent until proved guilty? Fair trial? Seems to me that quite a few 'men' left the women and kids high and dry Rob