[QUOTE=Burong;64389]Could the evacuation have been managed with NO, or less, loss of life? If yes then why wasn’t the least life-threatening option chosen?[/QUOTE]
We will never know for sure if the evacuation could have been manager with less loss of life. The evacuation was definitely mis-managed and happened in part ‘bottom-up’ as crew and passengers were ready before the captain was ready to give the order.
However, the delay allowed the ship to slow down and come close to shore. Apparently some of the passengers jumped into the water and swam ashore. The delay also caused the evacuation to start only after the ship developed a list, making boarding lifeboats difficult. On the other hand boarding lifeboats when the ship still moves is difficult and dangerous too, this was probalby one of the reasons the captain was hesitant. He probably hoped the ship would stay afloat. After all, the safest place for 4000 passengers and crew is on a floting ship, not in a lifeboat or a wobbly ladder underway into one.
I’ve seen accident reports, where people abandoned their ship into a lifeboat and died, while the ship itself was found later afloat. At least on a sailing yacht I would personally only abandon it, if it is really sinking, not after loosing the mast, for example.
But most of these arguments are futile right now, we don’t have enough information. The captain of the costa concordia certainly bears a large part of the responsability, but I am amazed how easy it is to sink such a large vessel. I would expect that there is more redundancy in floatation. The accident of the ‘MS Sea Diamond’ off Santorini, Greece looks very similar to me, so this is probably a general problem.