Another interesting BBC article was titled “Must a captain be the last one off a sinking ship?” But it wasn’t interesting for the factual knowledge it contained.
“If the captain of the Costa Concordia really left at such an early stage, it is not what the industry would expect in a legal or moral sense.”
As such, he says, it could prompt international regulators to re-assess the need for more precise rules.
I don’t quote this to disparage his experience or knowledge, but to illustrate a peculiar and widespread legal flaw of thinking. Maritime law is centuries old and what to do in the case of a sinking ship is pretty well established. I strongly doubt after all this time that “precision” is needed to describe what to do and not do. I think current law, even Italian law will prove equal to the task of bringing this ship captain (and whatever other responsible parties there may be) to justice fairly.
In my view, you do need some level of precision in order for people to comply with regulation or law. But too much precision makes law brittle. The captain may have abandoned his post in part because he thought he could get away with it. A more “precise” law might well (and IMHO probably would) increase the number of loopholes which a coward could exploit.
You nailed it Karl. This could be applied in many other areas as well.
Agree, as the captain of the vessel he’s responsible for the welfare of those on board, in the event of the loss of the vessel, it’s up to him to decide what actions he should take to save the passengers and crew. It’s the job of the courts to decide if he fulfilled those responsibilities.
What if the ship is already sunk? The Costa Concordia looks like it’s pretty well near the final depth it’s ever going to reach.
What if the ship is listing at a 60 degree angle? Is it even possible to coordinate rescue efforts within a ship leaning that much? If it were more effective to lead rescue efforts from a lifeboat (which could circumnavigate the main ship many times quicker than traversing it on foot), would the captain ever be entitled to make that judgment?
And what about all those times Kirk beamed down from the Enterprise and left them in the lurch?
What if the ship is already sunk? The Costa Concordia looks like it’s pretty well near the final depth it’s ever going to reach.
What if the ship is listing at a 60 degree angle? Is it even possible to coordinate rescue efforts within a ship leaning that much? If it were more effective to lead rescue efforts from a lifeboat (which could circumnavigate the main ship many times quicker than traversing it on foot), would the captain ever be entitled to make that judgment?
Good reasons right there not to put too much precision into a law. You don’t want a captain to decide he can abandon his responsibilities because well, it felt like the ship was listing 60 degrees.
As I see it, there are several problems that come up from the radio transcript posted a few back. First, the captain was on a lifeboat rather quickly into the accident. He left the ship. Apparently, there were a lot of people left on the ship. From reading the radio conversation, he apparently claims that it was too dark to see anything (bodies in particular) and he couldn’t even move other lifeboats out of the way. Both statements indicate to me that it’ll be very hard to claim in his defense that directing the evacuation from the lifeboat was the right thing to do.
There’s also his refusal to reboard the ship for some period of time while giving baloney excuses and/or lying about his actions. All he had to say was directing rescue operations from the lifeboat was the best choice, he was going to ignore the radioed orders, and get off the radio, if you’re not going to help. He’d have to back it up in court, but if that were a good choice, he’d be able to make the argument.
Instead it was things like he stated he would go aboard and that he wasn’t refusing to go aboard, yet he didn’t go aboard. Stuff you’d expect a young child to pull to keep from eating vegetables. Not a grown man with huge responsibilities.
And that’s why I think excessive precision is bad. You do not want to give this sort of person anything that they think they can use to evade a dangerous responsibility legally. The more precise you make the rules, the more they think they can get away with when the rules don’t match exactly the circumstances.
So the captain was for reboarding the ship before he was opposed to it?
I’d like to see them build the world’s biggest bottle around it, and just leave that, with no other records, for future archeologists to find…
Could they perhaps use that sand/sun printer?
I can’t see how this wreak could ever be turned back into a cruise ship, a lot of the value of a cruise ship is in the fittings and decor, which is all junk now.
I keep wondering who would want to purchase tickets to take a cruise on a ship that has already sunk. It’s a reminder of the real danger during a time when most people are trying to completely relax.
If they do re-float it, get it to a drydock, and decide it’s worth restoring, expect a change of name, at the very least…
From an engineering standpoint, I find this interesting.
1) The ship lost power very early.
2) The damaged part of the ship is on the top now, exposed.
I speculate that initial damage was survivable, but required flooding the other side in order to keep the ship stable. Then they lost power while the flood valves were open, so they couldn’t close the valves. Then the ship flipped the other way and “sank”, in as much as it could in the relatively shallow water.
My opinion: Based on the vessel facing 180 degress from its course at impact; I think the Captain thought he could still make anchorage. If he just wanted to beach it, he could have driven into those rocks where it landed by going straight in. Instead, he turned the boat, and probably quickly. A boat like that leans opposite the turn. Add the water wanting to go outside the turn, and he pushes the center of gravity over the starboard side.
Or Occum’s, there’s a lot more damage on the other side and we just don’t see it.
I wondered at the question not thinking salvage in terms of return to duty. Spent too much time in scrap yards where anything with iron in it can be salvaged.
interesting diagram at the linked page. reminds me of the normandie recovery effort photos. they had to cut away the superstructure & though righted she was scrapped. the queen Elizabeth was scrapped in place in Singapore harbor.
I wonder if a non mechanical recovery might work, densification of water on the submerged side and aeration on the seaward side. she seems to be at maybe 70 degrees heel, perhaps 20 past her stability limit.
Another interesting BBC article was titled “Must a captain be the last one off a sinking ship?” But it wasn’t interesting for the factual knowledge it contained.
At the end, a Professor Schroder-Hinirchs claimed:
I don’t quote this to disparage his experience or knowledge, but to illustrate a peculiar and widespread legal flaw of thinking. Maritime law is centuries old and what to do in the case of a sinking ship is pretty well established. I strongly doubt after all this time that “precision” is needed to describe what to do and not do. I think current law, even Italian law will prove equal to the task of bringing this ship captain (and whatever other responsible parties there may be) to justice fairly.
In my view, you do need some level of precision in order for people to comply with regulation or law. But too much precision makes law brittle. The captain may have abandoned his post in part because he thought he could get away with it. A more “precise” law might well (and IMHO probably would) increase the number of loopholes which a coward could exploit.
You nailed it Karl. This could be applied in many other areas as well.
Agree, as the captain of the vessel he’s responsible for the welfare of those on board, in the event of the loss of the vessel, it’s up to him to decide what actions he should take to save the passengers and crew. It’s the job of the courts to decide if he fulfilled those responsibilities.
What if the ship is already sunk? The Costa Concordia looks like it’s pretty well near the final depth it’s ever going to reach.
What if the ship is listing at a 60 degree angle? Is it even possible to coordinate rescue efforts within a ship leaning that much? If it were more effective to lead rescue efforts from a lifeboat (which could circumnavigate the main ship many times quicker than traversing it on foot), would the captain ever be entitled to make that judgment?
And what about all those times Kirk beamed down from the Enterprise and left them in the lurch?
What if the ship is already sunk? The Costa Concordia looks like it’s pretty well near the final depth it’s ever going to reach.
What if the ship is listing at a 60 degree angle? Is it even possible to coordinate rescue efforts within a ship leaning that much? If it were more effective to lead rescue efforts from a lifeboat (which could circumnavigate the main ship many times quicker than traversing it on foot), would the captain ever be entitled to make that judgment?
Good reasons right there not to put too much precision into a law. You don’t want a captain to decide he can abandon his responsibilities because well, it felt like the ship was listing 60 degrees.
As I see it, there are several problems that come up from the radio transcript posted a few back. First, the captain was on a lifeboat rather quickly into the accident. He left the ship. Apparently, there were a lot of people left on the ship. From reading the radio conversation, he apparently claims that it was too dark to see anything (bodies in particular) and he couldn’t even move other lifeboats out of the way. Both statements indicate to me that it’ll be very hard to claim in his defense that directing the evacuation from the lifeboat was the right thing to do.
There’s also his refusal to reboard the ship for some period of time while giving baloney excuses and/or lying about his actions. All he had to say was directing rescue operations from the lifeboat was the best choice, he was going to ignore the radioed orders, and get off the radio, if you’re not going to help. He’d have to back it up in court, but if that were a good choice, he’d be able to make the argument.
Instead it was things like he stated he would go aboard and that he wasn’t refusing to go aboard, yet he didn’t go aboard. Stuff you’d expect a young child to pull to keep from eating vegetables. Not a grown man with huge responsibilities.
And that’s why I think excessive precision is bad. You do not want to give this sort of person anything that they think they can use to evade a dangerous responsibility legally. The more precise you make the rules, the more they think they can get away with when the rules don’t match exactly the circumstances.
So the captain was for reboarding the ship before he was opposed to it?
I’d like to see them build the world’s biggest bottle around it, and just leave that, with no other records, for future archeologists to find…
Could they perhaps use that sand/sun printer?
I can’t see how this wreak could ever be turned back into a cruise ship, a lot of the value of a cruise ship is in the fittings and decor, which is all junk now.
I keep wondering who would want to purchase tickets to take a cruise on a ship that has already sunk. It’s a reminder of the real danger during a time when most people are trying to completely relax.
If they do re-float it, get it to a drydock, and decide it’s worth restoring, expect a change of name, at the very least…
From an engineering standpoint, I find this interesting.
1) The ship lost power very early.
2) The damaged part of the ship is on the top now, exposed.
I speculate that initial damage was survivable, but required flooding the other side in order to keep the ship stable. Then they lost power while the flood valves were open, so they couldn’t close the valves. Then the ship flipped the other way and “sank”, in as much as it could in the relatively shallow water.
My opinion: Based on the vessel facing 180 degress from its course at impact; I think the Captain thought he could still make anchorage. If he just wanted to beach it, he could have driven into those rocks where it landed by going straight in. Instead, he turned the boat, and probably quickly. A boat like that leans opposite the turn. Add the water wanting to go outside the turn, and he pushes the center of gravity over the starboard side.
Or Occum’s, there’s a lot more damage on the other side and we just don’t see it.
I wondered at the question not thinking salvage in terms of return to duty. Spent too much time in scrap yards where anything with iron in it can be salvaged.
interesting diagram at the linked page. reminds me of the normandie recovery effort photos. they had to cut away the superstructure & though righted she was scrapped. the queen Elizabeth was scrapped in place in Singapore harbor.
I wonder if a non mechanical recovery might work, densification of water on the submerged side and aeration on the seaward side. she seems to be at maybe 70 degrees heel, perhaps 20 past her stability limit.