![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
Behold Costa Concordia, the new Titanic*. The prow planted deep underwater, right deck submerged... The sight is eerie, almost surreal. The details about the reasons for this disaster remain mostly a mystery still. And the questions are more than the answers. Are such floating castles really as safe as they appear to be? This is a real concern among people now.
This tragedy can't help but call back memories of the disastrous sinking of Titanic** from a century ago. Then the hull of the presumably unsinkable ship was struck by an iceberg in the North Atlantic. Now Concordia was sunken by the rocks near the Italian island of Giglio***. The steel coat of the ship was cracked open and she sank within minutes. In both cases the criticism primarily fell on the captains, whose careless attitude lead to the downfall of two juggernauts, both then and now****. But still the modern level of technology is supposed to be much higher than it was a century ago, no? And still, the catastrophe couldn't be prevented.
The modern cruise ships are often full of hi-tech equipment that's even better than that of the most modern planes. I'm saying it as someone who has probably spent more time working at 6 miles above ground than anybody here. The navigation equipment includes digital maps, radars, echolot and autopilot systems that could maintain the course on their own. But those gadgets are not that easy to handle, and that could be a problem if the crew is not trained properly, or even if it is but it allows a moment of negligence. And this case was the perfect storm of errors plus huge amounts of irresponsibility, and now you can see the result.
The fact is that the radar and the echolot would've never been able to identify the underwater rocks at Giglio in time. The radar usually functions only above water, and the echolot which is mostly used for detecting obstacles that are deep underwater, is totally useless if the obstacle is too close to the surface, or if it's sitting at a particular angle. Of course there are more sophisticated gadgets but they cost millions and they're used only in special occasions like detecting mines.
And what about the reliability of the digital maps? The captain of Costa Concordia, the now infamous Francesco Schettino keeps claiming that those rocks were never shown on the map. But no matter if his claim is true or not (and, given his record of lies, we have a good reason to doubt in it), it's true that such a problem could really occur in maps. Such blank spots in cartography can never be ruled out completely.
But the presence of such lapses must already be very familiar to any experienced sailor. In any case, no sailor should blindly rely entirely on technology, and should be able to estimate the risks soberly. This is the number one requirement for a captain, and this one obviously failed there. Big time.
The question remains whether after the collision the major leak could've been avoided. The ship was almost brand new, just 6 years old. But the safety standards have changed many times since then. Since 2009 there are new rules in place about the safety of passenger cruise ships that are much stricter. This means that any ships built since then should be many times safer than Costa Concordia, for example they should have a greater number of waterproof layers. So the most modern ships are supposed to be much more stable in cases like this one.
So, granted, there may be no place for panic in the industry. Another example for tightened requirements is the so called Safe Return To Port system. All new ships should be able to reach the nearest port on auto-pilot and they should have reserve engines in case the main ones are broken.
In principle the latest cruise ships should be safer than the likes of Concordia. But even so, the older ones can't be characterized as "unsafe". The problem here was mostly human.
The other moment in this story is the PR part. After Italy was humiliated by the behavior of this piece of human scum, the captain Francesco Schettino, they were able to at least partially restore their dignity thanks to the commander of the port, Gregorio Maria de Falco. The recordings of their conversation in that fatal night displays two very different people. While Schettino was whining and lying and looking for all sorts of excuses for fleeing the ship and abandoning his duties, Falco was shouting at him and urging him to get back and save the passengers.
Italy has found its new villain and its new national hero simultaneously. Many have argued that this incident is symbolic and exposes the flaws in Italian society, but also there's a ray of hope in the whole story, because "Fortunately for every Schettino there's still one Falco to clean up the mess and balance things out" (a sentiment expressed via Twitter. In a way this reminds of the Berlusconi big FAIL and the subsequent Monti arrival as the savior of the nation. And while Schettino will now be prosecuted for manslaughter and will spend time in jail and be publicly disgraced, and quite deservedly I should add, Falco is being raised to the status of a demigod. He still insists that he just followed his duties and he did what every responsible person would've done in his place, but I guess every nation needs its heroes in hard moments like these, so I'd say - better embrace the glory, Gregorio! You totally deserve it.
* [edit] Well fine, not exactly.
** [edit] Yep. That's so stupid of me, isn't it?
*** [edit] And that's where the parallels end.
**** [edit] Okay then, this is another vague parallel, I'll give you that.
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 15:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 15:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 15:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 16:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 16:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 16:29 (UTC)Splashy newsworthy stories scare us, but, they're newsworthy because they are rare occurrences.
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 16:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 22:08 (UTC)This was pilot error. All the way.
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 22:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:15 (UTC)As for Schettino from what I've read he seems to have had a meteoric rise in Costa - the guy joined in 2002 as someone in charge of security and ends up as Captain in 2006. While the company is busy throwing him under a bus one has to ask the question if this guy was ready to be Captain.
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:16 (UTC)*drumroll*
"Tonight, a real life Titanic..."
*shoots self*
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 17:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 22:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 18:56 (UTC)Always read the tiny print!, grandma once told me.
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 19:47 (UTC)The captain turned off the guidance and flagrantly endangered the lives of everyone on board.
Being on a cruise ship is still extremely safe. Don't mistake flagrant disregard for safety with inherent risk.
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 19:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 20:12 (UTC)You can't make something safe beyond the ability for an idiot to break it.
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 20:32 (UTC)And you didn't mention government, yay!
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 21:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/1/12 23:33 (UTC)Funny story. An engineer friend and a few boat buddies were hefting pints one night. He asked why the ferry system in this state (largest fleet in the country) didn't automate the docking systems. After all, the technology for such automation has been around for years.
I realized he thought too much like an engineer. I asked a simple hypothetical question: When the automated ship rams a dock and kills — again, this is never an if question, but when — who loses his license? The captain who was not in control and was forced to just watch the carnage? After all, the captain is still required by law to be aboard. The manufacturer? Do that, and no progress in control and guidance technology would ever happen again.
The captain shouldn't have needed the fancy gadgets in the pilot house. The only thing he needs is found between his ears. It comes with being, you know, the captain.
I survived a trip on Costa Concordia! (2.5 years ago)
Date: 19/1/12 21:31 (UTC)Two things that have changed a bit since then: Costa Concordia & Tunisia
(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 23:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/1/12 23:30 (UTC)In principle the latest cruise ships should be safer than the likes of Concordia. But even so, the older ones can't be characterized as "unsafe". The problem here was mostly human.
Nope. The newer ships are built to merely be more resilient to human malfunction, and offer the humans — who will occasionally malfunction — better tools to avoid said goofs. That is why the crew is required (at least in the US) to keep up-to-date paper charts available at all times and to know how to determine one's position the old-fashioned way when — not if — the magic smoke leaks out of the electronics. And those charts are usually very, very accurate, especially when it comes to heavily-traveled waterways. (In the US, some remote Alaska fishing waters might be the only exception.)
Therefore, the problem here is not "mostly" human. It is exactly the same case as Joseph Conrad dramatized in Lord Jim almost a hundred years ago. It is all human error, and the captain bears the brunt of the blame.
Everything I've heard about him so far depicts him as a despicable, cowardly scoundrel.
(no subject)
Date: 20/1/12 06:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/1/12 19:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/1/12 22:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/1/12 23:23 (UTC)Price pressure extends to every level of operation, from the wages offered to employees to the dock positions they lease from their ports of call. (The closer to the "city" the more expensive the docking space. Ships of that size cost thousands per hour to tie to shore.)
I say Carnival is more to blame because The Wife™ worked there almost twenty years ago. Carnival has had plenty of time to see what kind of quality, in terms of safety for the passengers and crew, a bottom-line motivation brings them. She can speak to sexual harassment (including rape) by crew that Carnival settled and hushed rather than address with discipline that matters. Why? Price of labor. People willing to work that cheaply often come with, shall we say, occasional externalities.
This cowardly captain is just an example of what happens when a company makes it policy to reach as deep toward the bottom of the barrel as their arms will plunge. He might have a point about the charts being wrong; his cowardice, though, lay in leaving the ship and not overseeing evacuation of every soul save his own. He is probably, though, worth every penny Carnival was willing to pay.
(no subject)
Date: 20/1/12 01:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/1/12 23:25 (UTC)I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate?
(no subject)
Date: 21/1/12 14:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/1/12 00:22 (UTC)At first glance it appears to be a classic case of "felony stupid" on the part of the Captain and Executive Officer, but there were probably other factors also in play.
That said, your question on safety and technology got me thinking. There is currently a debate raging in the aviation community about whether or not the various modern convieniences and safety measures are actually making aircraft LESS safe. The argument goes that an over-reliance on automation and computerised controls leads to situations where in pilots are ill-equipped to handle emergancies and often "do not know what the plane is doing".
The most notable example is the crash of Air France 447.
You can read a summary of the report here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877), It's frightening stuff.