Costa “Blames” The Captain

“Preliminary indications” are that “significant human error” on the part of the ship’s Master resulted in the capsizing of the Costa Concordia.

Costa Concordia’s Captain Francesco Schettino“The route of the vessel appears to have been too close to the shore, and the captain’s judgment in handling the emergency appears to have not followed standard Costa procedures,” Genoa-based Costa Cruises says.

Italian prosecutors are understood to have already leveled accusations of manslaughter against Captain Francesco Schettino, who joined Costa in 2002 as a safety officer and was appointed captain in 2006 after acting as staff captain.

Prosecutors have also seized the ship and the DVR – the so called “black box” containing all navigation data and the vessel can be accessed by Costa only with permission from the authorities.

Costa’s statement comes 48 hours after the he 114,000-gt Costa Concordia (built 2006) ended up with a 40 metre gash in the hull.

The captain told Italian television that the vessel had “hit a rock which should not have been there.”

On Monday Pier Luigi Foschi, chief executive of the Carnival Corp subsidiary, is due to hold a press conference in Genoa.

In a statement Sunday evening, Costa said its immediate priority is to account for all passengers and crew and to secure the vessel to ensure that there is no environmental impact.

It added it had taken on an unnamed salvage company to develop an action plan and help establish a protection perimeter around the ship.

1 Comment
  1. Jim Nicoll 10 years ago

    For those who have read the I fully agree with the IMO SG’s recent comment on this tragic incident.

    Wait for a full and impartial investigation rather than jumping to conclusions.

    What we are seeing is trial by press with leaked excerpts of tape recordings that have not been validated seemingly showing the master in bad light. I hope that action is taken against the perpetrator(s) of this. It will undoubtedly prejudice the result of the investigation and any associated trial(s)

    The owners started the ball rolling by basically declaring the master to be at fault – have they forgotten that the master represents them? Who would want to work for this sort of owner who almost immediately threw their master to the wolves.

    Regardless of initial impressions / findings, the owners should simply have stated that they needed to wait for the results of the full investigation before any condemnation of their man on the spot.

    By acting as they have done, the owners have created an atmosphere of bias against the master. Be he at fault or not, the very least any owner should do is to stand by their man.

    Doubtless, the owners will be possession of more information than is being leaked to the public by a baying press. However a wise owner will never pillory their man in public.

    Even if the master is found to be at fault, the owners should bear in mind that he acts on their behalf and whatever they say this fact cannot be changed. It is one thing for a man to betray trust put in him but it is quite another for him to be condemned without his day in court. Will his statements and point of view be listened to with impartiality given that he has been made a scapegoat and hung out to dry, of course not.

    It may be asked why it took so long for a boom to be partially put in place but is anyone doing so?

Leave a reply

©2022 InterManager - Promoting Excellence In Ship Management

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?