The disaster in the Mediterranean of the capsized cruise ship is filling the headlines.
The Captain says his charts were out of date and incomplete, and that he is a hero for saving so many lives by sailing his ship closer to the shore so they could be rescued more easily, when clearly so many more could have been lost.
Observers, most of whom admittedly are not nautically trained and were looking at what was happening in the dark, say that the ship was too close to the shore before the accident and therefore the Captain is negligent in that he was disobeying the charts and not observing good practice just to give his passengers a good view of what is apparently a very pretty island. But in the dark - surely not? An electric light shining out of the inky blackness of a Mediterranean winter's night looks pretty much the same everywhere.
Passengers are saying that their safety briefings were not timely, and that maritime law says a briefing only has to be held within 24 hours of embarking. Well, that's about as much use as a chocolate teapot! What if something happens within the first 24 hours, as in this case? That ship was carrying over 4,000 people, and only a tiny proportion had received any kind of safety instructions. Lifebelts were stowed in cabins but don't appear to have been anywhere else, or at least not obviously so. Even the crew have admitted that they were not trained in evacuation procedures when the ship was listing so badly that almost half of the lifeboats could not be used - they are only trained for evacuation from a level vessel!
Some one is negligent here, and from what I can gather from what I have read, it probably isn't the Captain, although he is the obvious scapegoat. The company's procedures seem to be woefully inadequate, passengers and crew alike totally unprepared and the equipment provided, whether charts, lifebelts or lifeboats, inappropriately stored, maintained and inaccessible. So far, it has been established that eleven people have died and I have no doubt that there will be more. This seems to me to be a clear case for a corporate manslaughter charge.
Do they have that in Italy? This was an Italian ship, with an Italian crew and a large proportion of Italian passengers, although there do appear to have been a fair few Brits as well. It has sunk in Italian waters, so it is not unreasonable to expect that any enquiries or a trial, should it come to that, will also be held in Italy.
Whatever happens, those poor people have been so traumatised that they will probably never set foot on a boat again. I can see the legal cases rumbling on and on, and the lawyers rubbing their hands.
They say that cruising is one of the safest forms of travel, but personally I have an in built fear of water (I get panicky in a deep bath!) and can't swim, so you wouldn't catch me on one of the things even before this. I'll stick to planes any time!
In terms of the correct application of safety procedures, if they were carried out within the time limit demanded of the law, then the company has fulfilled its obligations. From what I can gather, a lot of the crew seemed to be lacking in training (as well as gallantry if the stories are true) which is a company liability and they no doubt will have their arses sued ( a legal action is already being formulated I believe). However, it is becoming clear that the Captain was 'showboating' to somebody on shore and gambled with the lives of over 4000 people under his command and was therefore negligent. This is the point, it was his command and the safety of everybody on board was his responsibility. He apparently abandoned ship before all passengers were evacuated, he disobeyed an order by the Italian Coastguard to return to the ship (there is a very interesting tape recording of this conversation) and he dithered over the order to abandon ship in the first place. He broke the rules and was deficient in his command, prompting some junior officers to take matters into their own hands. In the Navy, the Captain of a sunk ship is automatically court martialled, regardless of blame and under maritime law, the captain is the ultimate authority at sea. In Italy, there is corporate responsibility, but there is also individual liability where a single person can be charged with manslaughter for a corporate disaster such as this. A fatal bridge collapse several years ago in Italy resulted in the successful prosecution of the chief engineer of the company that designed the bridge and the then Minister of Transport resigned automatically. Of course, more information will clarify the picture in weeks to come, but it does not look good for the Captain in this tragedy.
ReplyDeleteSteve you know more about this than me, and I guess with your background you have taken an interest. Some of the things you mention have not been reportefd uint he British press, such as the phone call between the Captain and coastguard. I don't know anything about maritime law, but I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't on that ship!
ReplyDeleteIndeed Mrs W. If you want to know more about the phone call, there is a transcript of it in the Independent this morning. I have sent it to you in a message for your info. You can also listen to it as there are numerous links. Boy! that Coastguard was really mad at the Captain!
ReplyDelete