The Gold Standard Luxury Travel Forum

The Costa Concordia ran aground late last night tearing a large gash into her port side and is not resting at an approximate 90 degree angle.

There are conflicing reports of the number of dead and missing of the 3,200 passengers and 1,000 crew members. As of now it looks like up to 6 have died - one reportedly being a heart attack - (though that is not an accurate figure) and approximately 50 are missing (and may have found there way to small churches, homes or other places on the island of Giglio.

Fortunately, due to calm seas, shallow water and land nearby this tragedy could have been far, far worse.

Here is my blog article including video: http://goldringtravel.blogspot.com/2012 ... ounds.html

I will keep you posted, but if anyone has any additional information, please post it.

With a Korean couple on their honeymoon, the Italian Purser (with broken leg and suffering from hypothermia) rescued from the ship and the number of missing reduced to 17 ovenight, I want to provide you with some thoughts...knowing that everything you and I read ultimately is not going to be found to be 100% accurate. (So don't take my comments as gospel, please.)

News reports are painting a picture of Francesco Schettino as an absolute, if not arrogant, captain.

Captain Francesco Schettino is quoted as saying he was the last to leave the ship. Forgetting the stories to the contrary, I am seeing a situation where 50 people were reported missing and, so far, 3 people were rescued. The ship had no risk of capsizing and I am not aware of any order from the Italian Coast Guard for him to abandon the ship, so why would have have left his command? I know captains that would have been leading the search and rescue...without hesitation (and probably ignorning any such order to leave the ship).

Captain Francesco Schettino is quoted as saying his charts did not identify the "rock" that tore a 160 foot gash into the the hull of the Costa Concordia. Folks, today ships require more than paper charts; as electronic charts are not only used, but heavily relied upon...and interface with autopilots, GPS and radars. And, by the way, those electronic charts are custom made for the Costa Concordia.

And, by the way, what of local knowledge of an extremely rocky coastline and then trying to pass a huge cruise ship between two large rocky outcrops? It makes no sense to me.

OK, that said, the reports are that the ship was 2.5 nautical miles off course...a course that she had repeatedly taken on her prior voyages (according to crew members). So far he has not provided any reason for this. It has been speculated that he wanted to bring the ship into shallower water, but that - so far - makes no sense. Why?

1. If you look at the charts, this alleged course to shallower water was not the most direct.

2. The ship's design is such that water-tight doors, if properly closed, would have prevented the flooding of the ship, so there would be no reason for this. While I do not know what happened on this ship, it is a notorious problem of lazy crewman propping open these heavy watertight doors rather than turning those big wheel-like closures and pushing and pulling these heavy doors.

I don't have all the information, but cruising significantly off-course, blaming charts that are used by thousands of others, apparently failing to use common nautical sense, and seemingly having abandoned his ship (whether technically permitted or not) does not sit well with me. When the failure of safety systems is added, it is most troubling.

I am seeing this as "human errors" and the result of what happens when a ship is run arrogantly rather than as if 5,000 souls and half a billion dollars are at stake.

Costa is now admitting there was "significant human error".

I think the list is going to be longer than the one I mentioned.

I understand the Italian for "Abandon Ship" is, Me First.

Certainly a devasting experience for the passengers. I can't imagine the horror.

A $5.6 billion drop in shareholder equity in one day.(17%) At least the stock is still above its 2008 low.

Wonder if insurance will still pay if they prove gross negligence by the Captain?

Wonder if there are implications for Seabourn based on the parent company’s financial woes?

Can’t imagine the average Seabourn client would cancel out of fear, but I have been lowering my estimate of the average I.Q. of a typical Seabourn passenger based on recent CC posts.

The latest reports say that the captain brought the ship close to shore so one of the crew could wave at his relatives on shore.

There are many reports and, to be sure, there is some truth in most, but total truth in pretty much none.

Wht I do know is that the Captain did not have authority from Costa to alter the course of the ship (which has made this journey many times). What I also know is that the change of course had to be known and intentional as there are alarm systems which notify (quite persistently) anytime a ship strays from its programed course.

I also know, from the industry releases, that the captain was a - get this: Security Officer in 2002 - and became a captain in 2006. This is, to me, outrageous. (Wait till you read my article on Captain Geir-Arne Thue-Nilsen, captain of the Seabourn Quest for the World Cruise, which I am about to publish) Logging time at sea so that you can get your 3,000+ gross ton ticket should never, ever, be enough.

Troubling more is the fact that the captain should have stayed on the ship while rescue operations were underway. I cannot fathom how he left his post...even if he claims all the known passengers were off the ship (which I am not confident was the case).

Now as to why the ship came in close: Only one time prior - for the Festival of San Lorenzo - had the ship altered its course. But even in that singular instance (so the island could wave to the ship and visa versa) it was nowhere near where the accident happened.

Even if true, one never, ever, plots a course with no room for error. Essentially shooting the ship between two rock outcrops is inexcusable.

But the thing that really gets me is that it seems pretty clear that watertight doors were left open. If those doors were shut, then a compartment might have flooded, but there is no way the entire ship could. What seems like the arrogant, rule-breaking, manner of the captain filtered down to the engineering crew as well. (Not the first time I have seen this!)

Ok, those are my first real comments after gaining what are more of the facts.

As for Carnival, between the insurance and cashflow Carnival will be just fine. I won't do the math here, but with over $15 Billion in annual revenue and an announced effect of between $0.12 and $0.17 a share...or less then a spike in oil prices...things may not be rosy, but not disasterious. And, remember, the claims will almost never be litigated in the US, so the amount of damages awarded will be substantially less.

OK, I will breathe now.

Here is a very good, but short, article comparing captain (small "c") Schettino with the Italian Coast Guard Captain De Falco: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... ZP20120118

My lastest article: http://goldringtravel.blogspot.com/2012 ... dy-is.html.

It is focused on the hype and misinformation.

I just posted this comment to this article in Maritime Professional: http://maritimeprofessional.com/Blogs/F ... atter.aspx.

"I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has, in my opinion, become pervasive. You can read it here: http://goldringtravel.blogspot.com/2012 ... dy-is.html .

The fact is that making comments like "Would you want to be passenger number 6,001 when your giant liner springs a leak in mid-ocean?" undercuts the very reasoned, and accurate, comments just before it about the human factors and doing things like staying on course, promptly evacuating the vessel, not abandoning ship, assuring all watertight doors are properly closed and secured, etc.

In the end every person can focus on a muster drill because they can understand them, but the fact is the practical and economic efforts have be focused on what well and truly mitigates the accident and the following consequences. (For example, how many man hours and dollars have been spent patting down grandmothers and infants before boarding a plane...rather than profiling -which has a long history of success? The fact is people can understand the "show" so it is done regardless of its ineffectiveness.)

Yes, there are the theories that a disaster may happen 50 miles offshore in bad weather. But with millions of miles at sea and it never having happened, do we focus on the highly improbable because we can and it has great emotional impact, or do we focus on true mitigation where it matters even if it isn't sexy?

In the end, nobody should be a safety officer in 2002, get his ticket in 2006 and operate a vessel with over 4,000 souls in 2012. Stopping that sort of thing is far more effective than focusing on a muster drill when 99.25% or more survived. Why isn't anyone discussing that breakdown instead?"