ChatterBank0 min ago
Costa-Concordia
33 Answers
http://www.telegraph....med-for-disaster.html
The Captain has been arrested on charges of manslaughter, the chairman of Costa Cruises said the officer was solely to blame for the tragedy, and the media have added their speculations.
Is there not going to be an international maritime inquiry into this tragic disaster, and if there is, couldn't all these prior accusations have an effect on the outcome of the inquiry?
The Captain has been arrested on charges of manslaughter, the chairman of Costa Cruises said the officer was solely to blame for the tragedy, and the media have added their speculations.
Is there not going to be an international maritime inquiry into this tragic disaster, and if there is, couldn't all these prior accusations have an effect on the outcome of the inquiry?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i aint an expert but i thought that under maritime law then it is the ship owners who would be investigated for negligence- and that negligence has to be proven. if its a civil case (i.e. manslaughter) against the captain then this would be a different trial.
the ship owners are very clear in which way they see this one going.
the ship owners are very clear in which way they see this one going.
We dont know if the captain was to blame, maybe it was a fault with the computer that controls the ships route.
Computers have been known to go wrong, and if the computer "told" the ship to steer a certain course it would follow that course.
All those on here who are saying it was obviously the captains fault are being rather stupid, at least until all the facts are known.
Computers have been known to go wrong, and if the computer "told" the ship to steer a certain course it would follow that course.
All those on here who are saying it was obviously the captains fault are being rather stupid, at least until all the facts are known.
Whilst I think the man is a cowardly, disorganised individual who doesn't seem to have any snse of duty towards his passengers- I do think that we need to wait to find out if he deliberately steered a course too near rocks or if there was a navigaitonal error- if the nav is malfunctioning then all he's guilty of is being a coward, so I'll wait and see what transpires before I decide it's his fault that people have died.
The recorded conversation between he and the harbourmaster is just unbelievable though in terms of being negligent in his duty towards his passengers.
The recorded conversation between he and the harbourmaster is just unbelievable though in terms of being negligent in his duty towards his passengers.
NJ, my conclusions may appear to you to be hasty and ill considered but I do have some experienced in coastal navigation ( I believe I have a piece of paper from the UK's school of navigation somewhere that says that I can do it). I also have experience of being in charge of yachts and boats up to 80 feet long.
One of the principles of avoiding hitting rocks is the concept of a 'position circle' whereby you know where you think you are and you then draw a circle around it that point to allow for errors in calculating that position. It follows that if the rocks aren't within that circle then you almost certainly won't hit them.
There would be no excuse if it was poor visibility, I have navigated in far trickier waters than this case in thick fog and without modern navigation aids, as have thousands of amateur sailors, without hitting rocks.
The captain was in charge of the vessel, the land was in plain sight with good visibility, he had adequate crew to post lookouts( if he hadn't he shouldn't have gone near a hazard). His only excuse would have been if he was not in charge of the ship through illness, which he obviously wasn't otherwise he wouldn't have scarpered so quickly.
We don't even need a jury for this one.
One of the principles of avoiding hitting rocks is the concept of a 'position circle' whereby you know where you think you are and you then draw a circle around it that point to allow for errors in calculating that position. It follows that if the rocks aren't within that circle then you almost certainly won't hit them.
There would be no excuse if it was poor visibility, I have navigated in far trickier waters than this case in thick fog and without modern navigation aids, as have thousands of amateur sailors, without hitting rocks.
The captain was in charge of the vessel, the land was in plain sight with good visibility, he had adequate crew to post lookouts( if he hadn't he shouldn't have gone near a hazard). His only excuse would have been if he was not in charge of the ship through illness, which he obviously wasn't otherwise he wouldn't have scarpered so quickly.
We don't even need a jury for this one.
Yes, your conclusions are ill-considered and without foundation jomifl. Your experience in navigating small craft has no relevance whatsoever to the circumstances surrounding this tragedy. It is rather like saying “I know how to ride a push-bike. It is obvious that the driver of that 40-ton Artic is to blame for demolishing that brick wall.”
All we know is what we have been told by the media. This amounts to second hand information from various people, many of them still in a state of shock. We have no details of any technical failures that may have occurred, no details of the decisions that were made on board, no details of the accuracy of any charts that were used. In fact, very little properly considered evidence at all.
I’m not saying the Captain was not at fault – for the very simple reason that I (nor indeed you) do not know.
And that is the point AOG is making.
I don’t know if, where, with what and under what legislation Captain Shettino may be charged. But if he was charged under criminal law in the UK I’m pleased to say that a jury most certainly would be required.
All we know is what we have been told by the media. This amounts to second hand information from various people, many of them still in a state of shock. We have no details of any technical failures that may have occurred, no details of the decisions that were made on board, no details of the accuracy of any charts that were used. In fact, very little properly considered evidence at all.
I’m not saying the Captain was not at fault – for the very simple reason that I (nor indeed you) do not know.
And that is the point AOG is making.
I don’t know if, where, with what and under what legislation Captain Shettino may be charged. But if he was charged under criminal law in the UK I’m pleased to say that a jury most certainly would be required.
NJ ,I expect the only way we will find the 'truth' is to pay a lot of lawyers loads of money to arrive at a fair and just decision.
you said;
'Your experience in navigating small craft has no relevance whatsoever to the circumstances surrounding this tragedy'
It may be news to you but the same principles of navigation apply to all vessels of whatever size and the rule of the road at sea and the collision prevention regulations as well as the buoyage system is internationally agreed and pretty well understood by most seafarers in whatever size vessel.
You obviously have little understanding of a captains responsibilities or basic pilotage and know very little about boats of any size.
We know that the captain was aboard the ship
We know that the captain has full responsibility for
the ship
We know that the captain was awake.
Techical failure is no excuse, he should not have put the ship in a position where it could have been endangered by a technical failure.
It really is that simple.
If my 'experience in navigating small craft has no relevance whatsoever to the circumstances surrounding this tragedy' then your experience must be substantially less relevant than mine and your opinion worth less.
you said;
'Your experience in navigating small craft has no relevance whatsoever to the circumstances surrounding this tragedy'
It may be news to you but the same principles of navigation apply to all vessels of whatever size and the rule of the road at sea and the collision prevention regulations as well as the buoyage system is internationally agreed and pretty well understood by most seafarers in whatever size vessel.
You obviously have little understanding of a captains responsibilities or basic pilotage and know very little about boats of any size.
We know that the captain was aboard the ship
We know that the captain has full responsibility for
the ship
We know that the captain was awake.
Techical failure is no excuse, he should not have put the ship in a position where it could have been endangered by a technical failure.
It really is that simple.
If my 'experience in navigating small craft has no relevance whatsoever to the circumstances surrounding this tragedy' then your experience must be substantially less relevant than mine and your opinion worth less.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Sunday Telegraph Prize Crossword Sunday...
Crosswords152 mins ago
Which Is Cheaper Asda Or Morrisons...
How it Works164 mins ago
