Carnival Cruise ship collision in Cozumel

[Christi]

Great news. Nobody is at fault! Apparently wind and current can adversely effect a ship. Who knew?

Retired Ship's Captain Explains Cruise Ship Crash In Cozumel

The headline should be “Retired Ship’s Captain Excuses Cruise Ship Crash In Cozumel“

Funny that was NOT wind or current related - it was Captain error - someone's a** is being covered with that article

 

[formernuke]

Funny because I have seen official documentation that alcohol may have been involved - no conclusive evidence yet - but it's being investigated

When will people learn that ANYTHING WITH A MOTOR OR ENGINE and alcohol don't mix.

 

[Christi]

Great news. Nobody is at fault! Apparently wind and current can adversely effect a ship. Who knew?

Retired Ship's Captain Explains Cruise Ship Crash In Cozumel

The headline should be “Retired Ship’s Captain Excuses Cruise Ship Crash In Cozumel“

Hahaha - "Passengers on the Glory were given $100 to spend on board the ship before it docks in New Orleans on Sunday."

 

[Christi]

When will people learn that ANYTHING WITH A MOTOR OR ENGINE and alcohol don't mix.

Standard procedure to investigate - confirmed that no alcohol was involved

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Um, be careful what you wish for? We don't need another Costa Concordia. 32 souls perished in that cluster F*** because the captain was showing off. I don't want to be a victim of the next showoff or goofoff. I don't want my loved ones to be, and actually I don't want you or your loved ones or anyone else to die, either. We especially don't need it in Cozumel, as fragile as the reefs are right now.

Like it or not, cruise ships are here to stay. Carnival (parent of Costa) didn't stop sailing after the Concordia disaster. In fact, six years later their stock had doubled, or about a 12% return, not including dividends. And it was up 7.6 % today even with this news.

I wish I didn't know this, but if one of those things sideswipes a reef it'll just crush the limestone and the passengers won't notice a thing. I would have paid money to be sitting on the side of the drydock a few months later when that boat went in for refit and inspection - "So why is this stretch of the hull missing paint?"

 

[Snoweman]

I wish I didn't know this, but if one of those things sideswipes a reef it'll just crush the limestone and the passengers won't notice a thing. I would have paid money to be sitting on the side of the drydock a few months later when that boat went in for refit and inspection - "So why is this stretch of the hull missing paint?"

My understanding is the Costa Concordia went in for dismantling and scrap.

 

[Soloist]

Standard procedure to investigate - confirmed that no alcohol was involved

Thanks for the update. Nice to know it was just incompetence.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

My understanding is the Costa Concordia went in for dismantling and scrap.

The Costa Concordia was a total loss; however that hit hard rock. I saw another instance where a cruise ship peeled off a couple spurs of a reef wall; limestone reef matrix is a lot softer. Going by a report of that trip I happened to find on Cruise Critic, there was a holiday party on the ship at the time and no mention of any impact.

 

[seeker242]

by that standard the captain does not dock the ship either.

That right. On the bigger vessels, captains are usually not the one steering the vessel. That is the helmsman's job. The Captain is the one who gives orders to the helmsman, when there is no pilot onboard. And lots of the time, it is not even the Captain giving the orders to the helmsman but the watchkeeper, as was the case with Exxon Valdez.

 

[NAM001]

That right. On the bigger vessels, captains are usually not the one steering the vessel. That is the helmsman's job. The Captain is the one who gives orders to the helmsman, when there is no pilot onboard. And lots of the time, it is not even the Captain giving the orders to the helmsman but the watchkeeper, as was the case with Exxon Valdez.

You prove my point. my comment was in response to one that said the pilot did not dock the ship, I said that neither does the captain by that standard,, if you look at the actual hands on of those actually doing the physical docking such as the helmsman who is one of the the hands on stations. or the thruster controlman. The point being that the thruster guy or helmsman is not blamed for a collision because they are faithfully following orders from those that ARE ADMINISTRATIVLY DOCKING THE SHIP. The captain and no one else is responsible for that. The pilot does not relieve the captain of collision accountability. The pilot IMO is a local navagator that replaces or assists the onboard navigator. and stations himself withthe caaptain or his designated rep that will be commanding the departure. The captain is always in control and accountable. That is why the buck stops with him. In addition there are normally many captain qualified captains on a cruise shsip. ONe I was on had 4 full certed to command alone on board. Still they answer to teh registered Captian of he ship. Yes there are certainly exceptions and those exceptions will be considered as to whether the registered captain is removed for error in judgement or not. Two ships look like they are getting underway,,, at the same time,,, with in a ships length of each other,,, manuvering to position them selves to leave port. One ship with thrusters pushing it self into the path of the other. Only the captain or his rep can authorize that. Its not the helmsmans fault for answering a left full rudder and back 1/3 uynless he does it wiht out orders to do so.. It is the fault of those acting under the CO's authority to call orders in the captains name. Its hard not to hear that long blast of the whistle saying underway from the near by ship and not check and respond to other ship movements. Especially those 1/2 ship away.

You mention the valdez. It is still the captains fault. The fault would be not having trustworthy watchkeepers (as you put it). He issues orders and if the watchkeeper fails to comply or is asleep then that is extenuating conditions demonstrating that the captain was not in error of judgement in the orders issued, . When that happens investigations occur to see why the watchkeeper was asleep and if it was a reason the captain could have prevented. Seldom is the captain cleared from all fault.