Costa Concordia: Why navigation might 'fail' and other cruise ship questions

Many questions remain unanswered after Italian cruise ship, Costa Concordia, collided with rocks off the coast of Tuscany and capsized this week.

4. How do you view the details emerging about the evacuation?

Gregorio Borgia/AP
Italian firefighters scuba divers approach the cruise ship Costa Concordia leaning on its side, the day after it ran aground off the tiny Tuscan island of Giglio, Italy, Sunday.

When a collision or grounding takes place, the captain must take many pieces of information into consideration before a full understanding of the circumstances can be reached, says Mr. Loh.
 
“Just because you run aground doesn’t mean the vessel will tip over,” Mr. Loh says.  “How bad the hit was, how much water is coming aboard, …is the boat listing immediately,” all need to be accurately evaluated.  “That may take some time,” he says, and can lead back to the question of how many people are on duty.
 
“If you have a lot of look-outs on the bridge, you can send someone to see what happened, guage the level of seriousness, and respond more quickly,” says Mr. Loh.
 
Furthermore, the captain does not gather all of the pertinent information of a collision on his own. The Chief Engineer evaluates whether or not a vessel will list, or tip over. The Chief Mate typically aids in evaluating the stability of a vessel and measuring fuel, cargo, and people. He will assist in figuring out how stable the boat is taking those numbers into consideration, says Mr. Loh. “The Chief Mate and Engineer should have some important knowledge or understanding about what’s going on … and we haven’t heard anything about them.”

Regardless, the crew "could have called Mayday earlier," says Loh.

4 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.