Costa Concordia

quote:
Originally posted by stmbtwle

There's a big difference between a simulator and the real thing when it comes to ships. Ships are 100-200 ft wide these days... From the center of a ship where the wheel is, you really can't see that much. It would be like you parking your 7-whatever close enough to the terminal that your passengers could walk out on the wing and step off, WITHOUT the help of any signalmen on the ground.

The Master (captain to you) doesn't have to be at the wheel or even inside the wheelhouse; that's what the working class are for. He is going to be wherever he needs to be to best manage his ship, and he has more important things to do than steer. If he wants to showboat by taking the wheel, you can bet there's a pilot somewhere else telling him what to do.

I know ships have changed since I retired, but I rather doubt they've changed THAT much.

Click to expand...


If you are not operating the simulator the same way you operate the ship, then the training is a waste of time and money. Please, tell me why any company would pay thousands of dollars an hour for a simulator only to have their crews operate their entire CRM in another fashion? Is that what you are trying to tell us here? Really?
 
Done well the marine simulators can and do teach crew to perform as a well oiled team, with everyone knowing their tasks and being able to be aware of what is happening around them.

I suspect that this assembly of folk did not have their whole act together.A hard-nosed person such as I am would suspect this resulted from an overall lack of the required high level of bridge discipline. No matter, this is a clear failure of command and will always be understood as such in the seamans bars and clubs throughout the world. Professionals will never cut this bunch any slack.

Beyond this discussion but remember that this case is the first of possibly hundreds of legal proceedings that will involve the entire ownership chain and truly vast sums of money that the insurers will be liable for.
 
The simulator is where you START, Greg, and whatever the price it's a lot cheaper than a ship. It's been a long time, but when I was on the VLCC simulator, the "captain" took the CONN, not the helm. A: You simply can't see well enough from the wheel and B: there are more important things for the Master to do. If he's actually steering the ship, he's probably neglecting some other job he SHOULD be doing. Which could be why the Costa Concordia went aground.

If the cruise lines are so cheap they can't afford to pay a helmsman (and who knows who else) it's no wonder they have problems.
 
So you are saying there is no recurrent simulator training?
 
There is some recurrent training but it's certainly not the be-all-end-all. Simulators are used to improve one's skills an to help present situations and responses one might not run into in real life. However I'd bet most training is still the "old fashioned" way; on the bridge.

But even with the simulators there is a team and everyone is supposed to do his job.
 
quote:
Originally posted by stmbtwle

There is some recurrent training but it's certainly not the be-all-end-all. Simulators are used to improve one's skills an to help present situations and responses one might not run into in real life. However I'd bet most training is still the "old fashioned" way; on the bridge.

But even with the simulators there is a team and everyone is supposed to do his job.

Click to expand...


One that that belief runs counter to every other mission critical industry, from nuclear power to airlines to railroads.

Two, you still don't get it. If you are executing a time critical maneuver, where you give the command to execute the maneuver you can have the tightest team in the world. You can be sympatico like twins, however in every command there is an act of communication. To my knowledge we have yet to have telepathic communication of Vulcan mind melds. If for one second that communication breaks down for the slightest reason, from language accent, to external noise, to fear to simple receptive aphasia you have an accident. That is why if the command involves a time critical reaction, one that cannot have a "huh?" or "what did you say" the commander better execute it on his own unless he can assure himself his communication be it verbal, electronic, cipher whatever is 1000% reliable. That is why the guy who calls the aborted takeoff in an airliner has the throttles in his hand, why the guy who declares the missed approach on a CAT II or CatIII flies it himself. You simply cannot risk a communication break down in some situations.

Look, the bottom line is the Concordia Captain should not have put the vessel in the position he did, but once he made that decision he had to analyze the situation as being time critical and make sure there was no communication break down, in this case basically "what did you say". A simple pre brief might have saved the day although that is not clear. One thing is for sure, just because you have a tight team does not mean commands will be properly received and executed. If you don't have time to recover, you need to rethink the plan or remove comm errors from the scenario.
 
**** Mon, Dis is all again our wonderful Eyetalian culture...
 
Ship's are not as time-critical as you may think. I agree it might be quicker for the captain to control everything directly, and he can send the rest of the crew home. For that matter he can control the ship with his I-pad, from the wing or the bow or fly bridge or his bedroom. For that matter he can control it from his office ashore like it was a big floating drone. Why not?

Probably for the same reason you have two pilots on your airplanes...
 
Not suggesting the Captain control everything, you are now being absurd to defend what cannot be defended.
 
The Captain of a ship is responsible for everything.

The Captain of a Cruise liner has a social role that could get confused with the real one. No excuses though.

Do not ever expect the Captain of a Naval ship to take the helm. As stated, the conning officer gives the orders. That person will not have their hands on the wheel or controls either.
The captain may take the conn, oversee, or not be on the bridge. It is the responsibility of the captain even if he is ashore on business or leave.
It is called a crew, or a bridge team for those reasons.
The Captain is supposed to create a crew or team that will operate the ship and learn from doing. If one person does it all, we have only a very busy one person and no help or backups.
I have read science fiction in which human brains were implanted into equipment to operate it. At least that would keep the Italian Captain from leaving the ship, and from messing around with the duty blond.

The civilians have morphed this into their own world.
This is the second Eyetie Capt of a cruise ship to have abandoned his ship and its crew and passengers to sink.
Showboating does not help the case.
 
The man has to hang. He deviated from the authorized course. Eff'm.
 
"Whenever you are executing a manuver that requires immediate action from a Captain's decision, Captain takes the helm."

Sorry, but this is simply not true. I can absolutely garantee you that the Captain NEVER touches the helm of any Navy ship. Even in time critical situations he does not have the conn but instead is on the bridge monitoring the actions of his Conning Officer.

I seriously doubt that commercial ships (transport or passenger) have a policy of having the captain act as the helmsman.

Mike
 
+1

The captain never takes the helm, nor does the watch officer. There are "helmsmen" for that job, and in most cases they're better at that job than the officers.

On a merchant vessel the Master may take the CONN, but not the helm. There is a BIG difference.
 
quote:
Originally posted by getakey

new info on the transport
Dutch company wins $30M contract to transport the Costa Concordia on its submersible ship the "Dockwise Vanguard". I guess they changed their minds about floating it

Click to expand...


No they will have To float it to get lifted, but they will only have to keep it afloat for a fairly short time with having to cover any distance. I guess it makes it a lot easier
 
Seems to me what they have planned is far safer and probably faster than simply towing the Costa Concordia as it is. Towing would have to be VERY slow to avoid damaging the pontoons, and if one of them broke loose and the Concordia sank again there would be hell to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top