Costa Concordia: the truth is rarely pure and never simple

Professional Mariner Forum
22

[QUOTE=Jetryder223;155311]Fair Enough RB, so why doesn’t the OP come back and set us straight? If we are wrong, we’ll admit it. Hell, I bet even the curmudgeonly C.Captain will back down when the proper evidence is provided.

The problem began with the OP’s choice of thread title, compounded by him promoting his book and then not responding to critical inquiries…

The title phrase ‘the truth is rarely pure and never simple’ seems to imply what transpired was not the captains fault. Perhaps the collision was not his fault. I may grant that. But his actions and that of senior officers over the ensuing hours are totally on him.

It was a foregone assumption within gCaptain forum community that the captain of the ill fated ship failed miserably, yes criminally in his duties. If this book is not about defending the Captains actions, let us know.

OP, where are you?[/QUOTE]

Yes the original poster’s choice of phrasing was poor. It could simply be that he seems to be Italian and he used unfortunate translation. He was just trying to promote his book, using a place where people who’d be interested would see it. As far as I can tell from the blurb, he simply wrote a book about lessons that could be learned so as to avoid such an accident in the future.

There’s certainly nothing stopping someone from forking out 39 bucks to read the book to see what it’s about. It’s simply unfair to go crazy criticizing the guy because he chose some unfortunate wording for the heading a web posting.

23

[QUOTE=rob;155279]c.captain, why do you think that anyone who wishes to comment in the forum has to post their credentials first? Stop badgering people if they have something to say that you disagree with. You do nothing but degrade this Forum, have some respect and listen to what other people have to say.[/QUOTE]

Just in case, here’s the front page of my MMC:

24

[QUOTE=Glaug-Eldare;155327]Just in case, here’s the front page of my MMC:[/QUOTE]

looks like some redneck from Lower Alabama…

25

That guy is from Texas, Scooter.

26

[QUOTE=AHTS Master;155347]That guy is from Texas, Scooter.[/QUOTE]

I knew that…just made that little error to give you the chance to correct me to make you feel all important and a big boy!

27

Rob,

thank you for moderating over the debate.
To be honest, after the harsh provocations I lost interest in commenting further. I didn’t want to reply to insults.
I just wanted to share ideas on BRM with professional mariners.

My intention is not to defend Capt. Schettino.
Rather, my point is that focusing only on Captain’s faults may prevent learning from what happened. The systemic analysis proposed in the book is based on a method that has being used in aviation since 1989 Air Ontario F28 crash at Dryden. A commission of Enquiry was appointed to uncover systemic failures in the canadian air transportation system. The commission went beyond the pretty evident errors committed by the Captain of that fligth, and the result was a totally new way to conduct safety investigations. We need to thank that commission if today we can fly with high levels of safety. In aviation accidents are not wasted. They are considered great opportunity to improve.

There is a greta book about this topic titled “Beyond Aviation Human Factors” by James Reason and others aviation experts.
During one of his talks at a conference, James Reason was interrupted by a man standing out and saying that managing safety is not rocket science. James Reason replied: “You are right, it’s not rocket science, it’s much more difficult. Managing safety is the hardest job in town”.

The comments received after I initiated the discussion demonstrare that the maritime industry has not learned the lesson yet.
As I said, I wrote the book for those who are willing to go beyond media coverage and judicial examinations. I do understad and respect the position of those who believe there is not much to learn and understand.

Have you read Conrad’s Lord Jim?

“Nothing more awful than to watch a man who has been found out, not in
a crime but in a more than criminal weakness. The commonest sort of
fortitude prevents us from becoming criminals in a legal sense; it is from
weakness unknown, but perhaps suspected, as in some parts of the world
you suspect a deadly snake in every bush — from weakness that may lie
hidden, watched or unwatched, prayed against or manfully scorned,
repressed or maybe ignored more than half a lifetime, not one of us is safe…”

Regards
Antonio

[QUOTE=rob;155285]His credentials mean nothing to me or anyone else. If he has a valid point to make, this Forum is here to let him make it. If his point has holes in it, then you have the option to explain why his point is invalid.

This thread has nothing to do with Schettino right now, it’s about letting someone new come to the Forum and have their say without fear of being stomped on.[/QUOTE]

28

Dear Rich,

thank you for your comment.
The wording “The truth is rarely pure and never simple” is an Oscar Wilde quote.

[QUOTE=Rich Bogad;155315]Yes the original poster’s choice of phrasing was poor. It could simply be that he seems to be Italian and he used unfortunate translation. He was just trying to promote his book, using a place where people who’d be interested would see it. As far as I can tell from the blurb, he simply wrote a book about lessons that could be learned so as to avoid such an accident in the future.

There’s certainly nothing stopping someone from forking out 39 bucks to read the book to see what it’s about. It’s simply unfair to go crazy criticizing the guy because he chose some unfortunate wording for the heading a web posting.[/QUOTE]

29

Thank you Antonio.

Now that the intent of your book is better understood, you may find this group of mariners a bit more approachable.

30

[QUOTE=Jetryder223;155376]Now that the intent of your book is better understood, you may find this group of mariners a bit more approachable.[/QUOTE]

again, I am not judging a thing yet but now we need Mr. Di Lieto to state how that there are lessons to learn from the COSTA CONCORDIA accident that we have thus far managed to miss? So far, his return has not stated anything for us in this regard except to tell us we are not seeing the bigger picture.

addendum

Since Di Lieto is in Australia I know his time zones and ours do not coincide for him to post till what will be tomorrow (Wednesday) here so we will have to wait till the am to read his reply but I do want to let him know that I have read his 21 page paper on the COSTA CONCORDIA grounding titled “Anatomy of an organisational accident” but will refrain from commenting on the contents of that before Di Lieto comes back here. There is much discussed in his writing but I am not finding anything in it that offers any revelations. It seems pretty straight forward in its dissection of the events leading up to the ship striking the rocks at Le Scole.

.

31

Do you have to be an ass to everyone? Why would the man come on here and give away the very thoughts he is trying to sell in his book. If you really do want to know what lessons we have missed, buy the damn book.

You have always come across as grumpy, but lately you have made this place almost intolerable.

32

[QUOTE=c.captain;155388]again, I am not judging a thing yet but now we need Mr. Di Lieto to state how that there are lessons to learn from the COSTA CONCORDIA accident that [B]we have thus far[/B] managed to miss? So far, his return has [B]not stated anything for us[/B] in this regard except [B]to tell us we are not seeing the bigger picture[/B]. Please sir, [B]do not tell us[/B] that we need to buy your book to discover what you wish to teach to the maritime world? That will not scour here…

addendum

Since Di Lieto is in Australia I know his time zones and ours do not coincide for him to post till what will be tomorrow (Wednesday) here so [B]we will have to wait [/B]till the am to read his reply but I do want to let him know that I have read his 21 page paper on the COSTA CONCORDIA grounding titled “Anatomy of an organisational accident” but will refrain from commenting on the contents of that before Di Lieto comes back here. There is much discussed in his writing but I am not finding anything in it that offers any revelations. It seems pretty straight forward in its dissection of the events leading up to the ship striking the rocks at Le Scole.

.[/QUOTE]

c.captain, please don’t write as if you’re speaking on behalf of the entire gCaptain Forum. The bold faced above details what I mean by that.

33

[QUOTE=txwooley;155418]… but lately you have made this place almost intolerable.[/QUOTE]

Why, when they are on an internet forum, do otherwise intelligent, literate adults forget that they are not required to read or respond to material they find offensive? All you have to do is move on, don’t read posts by people who disturb you.

Personally, I am intolerant of people who whine about posts they don’t have to read from people whose posts they find intolerable. The problems is personal, not the content of the site. The only reason I am responding to the issue is because many sites are so watered down by administrators trying to protect thin skinned whiney folks that the site becomes a place where Casper Milquetoast would feel comfortable and useless to the rest of us.

34

I’m all about a good argument or debate, and if it gets a bit heated, I’m ok with that.

Regarding c.captain…

He is the most active person on the gCaptain Forum and has a relatively informed opinion on a huge range of topics, I don’t think anyone can deny that. His colorful commentary has been very helpful in furthering discussions that otherwise would not have gained any traction. Unfortunately, the direct personal assault he has handed down on many occasions has turned a lot of people off from participating in discussions, particularly new users.

As a moderator of this Forum, one of my main priorities is to ensure that a standard level of decorum is maintained which subsequently leads to a greater level of engagement. The greater engagement, the more interesting this place becomes. The bar I’m setting really isn’t all that high though.

Most of you have anonymous profiles, which is great, but before you write your next post, pretend that you’re putting your full name on that post and see if that changes the tone or content of what you’re about to say.

35

Thanks Jetryder,

I am willing to share the first two rows of the VDR transcripts submitted to IMO by the Italian Authorities.

"Have a look to see what speed we need to get out of here and approach Giglio… we’ve got to sail past this f***ing Giglio…
Right, let’s chart the route then…”
“Is half a mile OK Captain? There’s [enough] depth of water [there].”

It is 18:27 on 13th January 2012. The Captain of the Costa Concordia is talking with his Second Officer. They are planning to sail past the Island of Giglio by deviating from the planned route to Savona.

The week before, the maître d’hôtel on board had made a special request to the Captain. “Given that I’m due to sign off, I would be grateful if you could pass by Giglio for a sail past”2, he said. The Captain had refused due to adverse weather conditions and postponed it until the next cruise. For this reason when the maître reminds him of his promise on the afternoon of 13th January, the Captain keeps his word. He agrees to meet on the bridge after dinner and gives instructions to plan the deviation.

Change is one of the most powerful error inducing conditions and it should be managed with extreme care. However, a former
Captain of Costa Crociere describes the concept of “touristic navigation” as common practice within the company, so much so that this practice has been included in the passenger programme on many occasions. The former Captain also explains that sail pasts are usually conducted at very low speeds (five knots) and arranged beforehand with local authorities.

Therefore if it is true that sail pasts are part of cruise business, why should the decision made by the Captain be considered an error?

The aim of a sail past is to entertain passengers on board and to promote the Comapany brand for those that watch the event from ashore. On that particular evening however, conditions were not in place: it was late (10pm), it was winter, there was no agreement with local authorities and the passengers had not been informed. Therefore the decision can be classified as a violation that is non-functional to company interests. The description of previous sail pasts seems to imply that the non-functional character on 13th January is also extraordinary. The violation can also be considered incorrect due to the increase in the level of risk associated with the close approach to the island (half a nautical mile) when compared to the one related to a coastal navigation at several nautical miles from the coastline.

Why did the Captain decide to opt for a sail past? What was his interest in modifying the original route only half an hour before departure, interrupting his dinner, going up onto the bridge and carrying out a close approach to a semi-deserted island?

In order to give answers we need to get inside the situation and distance ourselves from the tragic consequences of that decision. Conversations captured by the Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) can help us to understand this. When the Captain talks to the Second Officer and says “right, let’s chart this route then”, his tone of voice suggests that he was not at all happy about having to perform “this f***ing sail past.”

Reading between the lines of the Captain’s statement, the possibility emerges that a certain pressure could have been applied by the on-board hotel department, often known for being very influential on a cruise ship. After having already refused an evening sail past, it seems that the Captain felt obliged to go along with the request made that evening. Management of a ship with more than 1000 crew members is based on very delicate social dynamics. Just as is the case for the mayor of a small town, the captain of a large ship cannot ignore this. If present, the excessive influence of the hotel department on the ship’s command can be considered a latent condition and it is linked to cultural aspects rather than specific
organisational processes.

Bearing all this in mind, imagine that we are on the bridge of the Costa Concordia at around 6:30pm. The Captain and Second Officer are working on the plan to deviate from the original route. Does the situation that we are witnessing seem strange? This is something that has been done in the past and has not presented any problems. So what harm can come from making a small concession for the sake of social equilibrium on board, given that there are no company policies that say otherwise? If we take a moment to forget what actually happened afterwards, the Captain’s decision does not seem so absurd. We need rather to analyse a selection of “technical” errors that were committed during the planning itself as well as the control of navigation later on.

Happy to discuss it further.

Antonio

[QUOTE=Jetryder223;155376]Thank you Antonio.

Now that the intent of your book is better understood, you may find this group of mariners a bit more approachable.[/QUOTE]

36

Antonio’s post above only make me repeat what I said before. The practice of showboating whether condoned or not does not excuse the lack of situational awareness of those on the bridge and in command that allowed the ship to be ripped open like it was as well as the subsequent actions of those people when the vessel was in distress. I had no sympathy for the captain before and if I had there would be even less now. From his actions both at the time of the incident and his failure to insure his crew were proficient in emergency procedures, he had no business in that position.

37

although I have much I would like to write now which is typically less than gentle, since it appears that I am now “persona non grata” in this discussion I will remain on the sidelines today but if anyone wants to read that 21 page paper written by Mr. Di Lieto dissecting events on the COSTA CONCORDIA leading up to the ship grounding on Le Scole and being lost, you can find it here:

Costa Concordia – Anatomy of an Organizational Accident

38

this is a public forum to discuss matters maritime…not a site to advertise. besides if the man wants us to buy his book he should give us an indication of what revelations it contains as opposed to just saying there are revelations in it

You have always come across as grumpy, but lately you have made this place almost intolerable.

that sir is hyperbole plain and simple

39

c.captain brings up a good point… the Forum is not a place to make sales pitches either.

40

[QUOTE=rob;155446]c.captain brings up a good point… the Forum is not a place to make sales pitches either.[/QUOTE]

I actually thought the questions about the gentleman’s credentials were not 100% unwarranted. If he is holding himself out to be a subject matter expert, it would be helpful to know on what basis he could be considered one. I might have a lot of opinions on flying an airplane but I am not sure my opinions would hold a lot of weight in a commercial pilot forum. I might be more interested in his opinion and book if I knew that he was very experienced in the industry. I might be less so if he were only peripherally involved and was trying to apply theory that wasn’t applicable to the industry. I’m not saying he isn’t qualified… or his theory is wrong… just saying that his credentials/experience are not irrelevant when he is claiming to be an expert.

That being said, the fact that these “sail bys” may have been somewhat encouraged or culturally acceptable, that doesn’t nullify the requirement that they operate the vessel in a safe manner and follow proper navigational protocols. I don’t think that the “well, we have always done this” is ever going to be an acceptable reason to forgo safe operations.

41

[QUOTE=rob;155446]c.captain brings up a good point… the Forum is not a place to make sales pitches either.[/QUOTE]

I wanted to read all the comments before posting a defense of c.captain, and what I would have said is what he just said. The initial post wasn’t a discussion starter, it was a cryptic add for a book. If this were my forum I probably would have deleted it immediately…