• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

coast concordia and cheerful

thanks exatem of the delucidations. I have not yet understood based on what the hell of cards they were browsing, they say that the rock is very known, how could it not be on the cards? It turns out he moved himself. I think that's the point up. They're gonna have to think about the pollutants.
 
ot:

very passionate about submarines ever since, in an early age, "u-boot 96" lightninged me on the street of vhs :biggrin:. Since then I have continued to be interested (although I did not pursue the engineering career) at 360°...forum, live meetings (I was on board the marconi (s 521) and the dander)...books, readings, models, technology in general. today as today, I am more interested in the metallurgy and the necessary work, than in the medium itself. I think, however, that a 212a is always a splendid view, for those who know what to look under the steel paddle :biggrin:

end
 
Last edited:
thanks exatem of the delucidations. I have not yet understood based on what the hell of cards they were browsing, they say that the rock is very known, how could it not be on the cards? It turns out he moved himself. I think that's the point up. They're gonna have to think about the pollutants.
So if it was on the cards, the problem is that according to the authorized route the ship had to transit to 3 nautical miles from where instead tried to pass, and this for the total responsibility of the commander, who wanted to "share" the inhabitants of the island of a close passage.
the only responsible of the disaster is the commander, who with a criminal maneuver caused the death of several people (still not quantified precisely), the damage of the ship and the damage of image to the company.
then you can discuss everything, the poor stability of modern cruise ships, the absence of the double hull, which would probably not have served at all sight the extent of the collision, etc.
 
the only responsible of the disaster is the commander, who with a criminal maneuver caused the death of several people (still not quantified precisely), the damage of the ship and the damage of image to the company.
But is it possible that onboard systems allow these ingenious raises? Wouldn't it take a procedure like "breaking seals at the helm" when you want to enter dangerous areas?

on the airbus the onboard computer prevents you from pulling the flaps to level to tear the wings, why on ships like that?
 
and in fact the most serious accusation against the commander, is to have abandoned the ship before complete evacuation.
also remove the capital letter from "commandante":cool:. That stupid criminal went down to see him near the coast.
then as a real cagasotto, despite the captainship of port for radio they told him to go back on board if he slipped it to the ground.
They had to tear off the radio with the tins the order to leave the ship.
If I was one of the passengers who escaped the shipwreck of that sort of floating hypermarket, it is guaranteed that I would go visit him in prison to bring him "conforto". . .
 
But is it possible that onboard systems allow these ingenious raises? Wouldn't it take a procedure like "breaking seals at the helm" when you want to enter dangerous areas?

on the airbus the onboard computer prevents you from pulling the flaps to level to tear the wings, why on ships like that?
on trains the computer acts as a controller. The driver is the driver to drive, if he is wrong, the computer warns him, if he continues to be wrong (for example on speed) without providing explanations, the computer takes the commands and takes the train to the station without possibility from the pilot to do much more.

on the ships is not so, and according to me it is correct. There is someone who even says that simoncelli is dead because electronics did not allow him to "correct". I don't know and I don't want to know whether it's plausible or not, of course it's that in this machine/man dichotomy it's more and more difficult to understand who has to make the last decision.
 
the only one responsible for the disaster is the commander, who with a criminal maneuver caused
(cut)
image damage to the company.
I wonder, however, whether the image of the company has been read in the sense that the commander has lost its good name and undermined the trust of future customers or rather it has been read since it has been discovered that the company's executives can entrust the command of a ship from 4000 passengers to an asshole. because now the dick downloads it without much compliments, but someone must have thought it appropriate. and the second officer what he did so much that the commander ordered to go to an area that even tourists who ride on the pedal know that it is dangerous? Did he sleep?
and the other officers and sub-officers on the bridge what were they doing playing a stealth?
possible that no one had a shot of dignity such as to blow off the pseudo commander, take the radio and communicate that they were in the dark because they were sinking?
I have when the judiciary begins to re-emerge in this porcaio of accident will come out of the beautiful ones, starting from the fact that evidently in the plank they were not even able to consult a nautical card. Perhaps the habit of using gps and computers had rusted the sender mechanics?
 
We were a country of poets and navigators, we became a country of jokers, and that's all.
 
because now the dick downloads it without much compliments, but someone must have thought it appropriate.
That doesn't mean anything. :smile:
Sure, "testing" a person for the command of a ship is certainly not like to do the examination of the driving license, but if between a visit and the other for the driver's license (10 years) something happens to you (sortness, decrease view, worsening of physical conditions etc etc.), you make an accident and leaves the pens someone you can give in toto the fault to those who declared you "honey driving"?

According to me, given for good the hypothesis of responsibility of the commander, it was simply the usual "brave" to Italian.
That's it.
"They all do it."
"what do you want it to be"
...
Until things go wrong.

There's a protocol.
hopefully it was not written by imbeciles and/or mentally ill.
must be respected: without "if" and without "but" except emergency situations (which: ship in avaria -> you try to make it beach if there is an island nearby)

That's funny.
 
I don't know and I don't want to know whether it's plausible or not, of course it's that in this machine/man dichotomy it's more and more difficult to understand who has to make the last decision.
As far as I am concerned, in this dichotomy machine man, I will defend to the extreme man's superiority over the machine. superiority that also means great responsibility, possibility and -because no-right to make, sometimes, choices other than those "perfects" of the computer.

On the contrary, it seems from the ever-heavier evidence that this was dangerous bitch mixed with total lack of professionalism. We'll see.
 
possible that no one had a shot of dignity such as to blow off the pseudo commander, take the radio and communicate that they were in the dark because they were sinking?
Well, if they didn't, that means at least they followed protocol. It seems absurd, but above all by sea, if the commander tells you not to touch the radio, you do not touch the radio, even if the ship is sinking. as under arms. If you take the radio, it's called mutiny.
As far as I am concerned, in this dichotomy machine man, I will defend to the extreme man's superiority over the machine. superiority that also means great responsibility, possibility and -because no-right to make, sometimes, choices other than those "perfects" of the computer.
I don't know... there's always manual mode for plants. If you put in the manual you can even adjust the pump flow by hand. and hopefully those who work there know what to do, like hiroshima and fukushima. on cars, motorcycles, ships, trains and planes I think that instead you tend more and more to give the commands in hand to the computers. I don't know if it's correct or not.
 
Marcof said:
possible that no one had a shot of dignity such as to blow off the pseudo commander, take the radio and communicate that they were in the dark because they were sinking?
Well, if they didn't, that means at least they followed protocol. It seems absurd, but above all by sea, if the commander tells you not to touch the radio, you do not touch the radio, even if the ship is sinking. as under arms. If you take the radio, it's called mutiny.
I hope there is a limit that the regulation puts to the bullshit that the commander can do without the one who stops it being accused of mutiny.
If he ordered all rights inside the port, I think they could have kicked him in the sea.

About bullshit... I would like to know what that big piece of the Navy thought (I think it was some former commander of ships like that) that was repeatedly "saluted" to that way by other cruise ships.
 
from old memories of the military period, the boundary between "ammutimento" and "buonsenso" is very thin and extremely opinable.
If they tell you to shoot inert people, what are you doing?
apply common sense and refuse? apply the rules and shoots?
in the first case, seriously risk the prison (or worse, if you are in war regime)
in the second, you risk mental health and life-consciousness.

One thing they taught us is that "the wrong order does not run". But... What is the wrong order? in case of formality exercises is quite simple. But all the rest?

Are we going back to the famous "professional ethics"? ?
if the customer/titular ordered you to build a structure with 2 tondini (palesely and visibly undersized) what do you do? You refuse? You lose your job? Are you going to sue the client/titular? Will you accept? Dismiss responsibility on the client? And if it turns out he's right? you have all the info to decide what is right and what is wrong?

is not exactly as simple as they paint it....
 
there is then a scaramian consideration (for those who believe it).
if the ship was recovered and reported in the conditions before the disaster, how many would be willing to pay the ticket for a cruise, considering that it is now silent to be a "unlucked" ship? (from the bottle that does not break to the shipwreck).
is not a problem
you take the ship, you recover, you restore, you update the interior.
at operation finished, press f2 and rename in the Phoenix coast!
the ship turns out "new" in the eyes of the passengers and the alo of lose that persecutes it magically dissolves!
:smile::biggrin::mixed:
 
the marinery founded its roots in a millenary history, the first ships in degrees of “holding the sea”, date back to the iv millennium BC the sea travel, with a means built by man, is an activity that dates back to the dawns of civilization, when humans learned to use floating artifacts, inspired by the wind, to transport goods and start their trade. today is a highly technological world, with its own language, mixed with scaramanzie and custom.
among these habits there is also that of “saluting” during navigation the coast, a country, a city, somehow linked to the ship. could be the lands of origin of the crew, of the commander, of the shipowner. the common sense then imposes that this greeting happen anyway to a distance of security and in conditions of "tranquillity".
It is not so relevant that the ship has completed this approach as a tribute to an old commander. the very serious thing and that despite today that by sea there are cities floating from 115.000 tons, are authorized by those same authorities that today investigate the disaster. already in fact, the minister of the environment has said that a norm will be launched that will prevent the transit of these giants in areas of particular interest (rules that already exist for the ships carrying goods).
in a couple of previous posts I wrote some inaccuracies I try to fix. There are clearly rules governing life at sea. la solas (safety of life at sea) is an international convention of imo (international maritime organization) aimed at protecting the safety of merchant navigation, with explicit reference to the safeguarding of human life on board born in 1912 following the incident of titanic. most indications on safety equipment and behaviour that the crew must keep in case of emergency are established on this document. Let's see in detail.
- the solas establishes that lifeboats must be present in numbers to ensure a capacity of 125% of potentially on board. strikes and rafts, in short, must be present in sufficient number to accommodate at least 25% more of the people - crew and passengers - potentially present on the ship according to the established capacity and not to the real one (not always the ships have the "every sold out").

- the number of rescuers must be equal to 100% of the people that the ship is enabled to carry (equip more passengers) and that each safety belt is in the cabin. In addition to these, the rules require that an "additional training" of lifesaving places close to lifeboats. about this additional equipment is not indicated the quantity, the important thing that are numerous. this because in the case of an emergency, passengers must recover their lifesaving in the cabin, those who for any reason were not able to perform this operation can count on additional equipment on the bridges, in the common premises and near the pomps.

- all personnel on board must be trained to emergency. for this are established courses for the management of accidents.

- obligation to carry out emergency exercises on board (the first exercise is generally organized the day after departure so the concord had not yet carried out this exercise).

another source of controversy is on the locking/opening system of the doors of the cabins that seem to have been blocked following the black-out. On this subject, the solas does not say much. as in hotels the key has become electronic and international security standards require that all doors should be opened out. the choice on the opening/closing system is at the discretion of the shipowner who defines the systems together with the manufacturer. In any case, each member of the crew is in possession of a mechanical passepartout as well as the buffer battery present in each door, which guarantees the operation for several hours even in case of absence of energy.
we come now to the commander (in the minuscule sennò marcof gets angry).
everyone knows that the commander in case of an accident, must be the last to leave the ship. It is a real obligation imposed by solas since it establishes that the commander is responsible for safeguarding the human life of all passengers is that his task is to coordinate rescue operations by giving instructions to the crew. Such “instructions” must be given until the last, that is, until all have been saved.
if indeed the commander left the ship with the abandonment still in progress, he made a very serious violation. According to international and national law it is in fact more severe to abandon the ship before the time. much more serious than the error committed due to the accident.
but how do you become commander of a ship like the coast agree? Let's start by saying that the string is long. begins with the attendance of a nautical institute that releases the qualification of "official student" then with the inscription at a port captain in the lists of the "seaman". At this point you can board as the third official and after a certain period, you get the rank according to official. After a further 24 months it is possible to take the examination of “authorization to command”. It is only a licence and it is not said that we are entrusted with the command of a ship. In fact it is up to the armor company to choose its commanders often following a signal from an old officer. some commissions evaluate these aspiring commanders on the basis of their competence. In fact, even if today the ships have an electronic navigation, the ability in the maneuver remains an exclusive prerogative of the commander. Besides this a good officer must have administrative capacity, he must know how to manage his crew, he must know how to relate with the often foreign authorities, he must have what is called “carism”, authority and undisputed ability to command also and especially in front of the practical evidence of navigation.
the commander became such, is the absolute master of the ship.
 
Last edited:
is not a problem
you take the ship, you recover, you restore, you update the interior.
at operation finished, press f2 and rename in the Phoenix coast!
the ship turns out "new" in the eyes of the passengers and the alo of lose that persecutes it magically dissolves!
:smile::biggrin::mixed:
You don't need to, just paint it, like moby teaches
 

Attachments

  • moby_fantasy_1976_3.webp
    moby_fantasy_1976_3.webp
    33 KB · Views: 21
  • MobyFantasy_090824-4714_b.webp
    MobyFantasy_090824-4714_b.webp
    208.9 KB · Views: 17
last night before going to sleep I looked at 10 minutes door-to-door (you fustigate me you are right certain things should not be done...) to see if he had the plastic of the ship on the side table. Unfortunately there was not or at least I didn't see it on the frames. I only listened to an interview with a big-time official who is following the investigations of the incident and the specific questions of the journalist answered:

1- the black box says the commander delayed calling for help. He didn't answer and he was on the phone with others. today will be questioned.
2- He left the ship before all passengers were rescued.
3- They arrested him because there were the assumptions he was trying to escape.

among the controversies of the respondents is that many crewmen did not know the emergency procedures. When one of these went up on a lifeboat he didn't know how to get her off and running, the fact that the case wanted there to be another sailor of another company in vacations who decided to take over the situation. another said that during the evacuation as they were going down with the pomps they received the order to make them laugh. others (it seems to have been documented by amateur videos) that to the questions of the passengers to the crew's men on "what's going on" answered "there is no problem, be quiet" while they were already wearing the life jackets.

the coast cruises speaks precisely of human error and that they have never authorized a similar manoeuvre and that already in December had put at risk the ship to marshes.

It's my personal opinion, but they really gave a ship to a fool!! !
 
is not a problem
you take the ship, you recover, you restore, you update the interior.
at operation finished, press f2 and rename in the Phoenix coast!
But doesn't it take more crap to change a ship's name?
 
But doesn't it take more crap to change a ship's name?
I don't know.
I don't know
But if you don't know, things don't happen.
I mean... also do not break the bottle during the varo porta sfiga. but the passengers do not know it, so they go up quietly:finger:
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top