Skip to footer

Costa Concordia: Top 4 'deceptions' by ship's captain

From the moment that Capt. Francesco Schettino made his fateful decision to steer the Costa Concordia cruise ship close to shore to salute the family of the ship’s head waiter on Giglio island, to his description of whether he stayed with the ship to help evacuate its 4,000 passengers, there has been a pattern of untruths and attempted coverup.

Here are four examples, running the gamut from 'technical' to incredulous, and one certainty: At least 11 people have died.  

Gregorio Borgia/AP
The cruise ship Costa Concordia leans on its side Tuesday, after running aground on the tiny Tuscan island of Giglio, Italy, on Friday evening.

Schettino said on Italian TV that the boat collided with 'unmarked' rocks

Alessandro La Rocca/Lapresse/AP
Francesco Schettino, the captain of the Costa Concordia cruise ship.

  • By Robert Marquand Staff Writer

The captain said the ship was “sailing along the coast with a tourist navigation system” and that an unmarked “lateral rock projection” appeared out of nowhere. “I firmly believe that the rocks were not detected […] on the nautical chart it was marked as just water at some 100-150 meters [328 to 492 feet] from the rocks and we were about 300 meters [984 feet] from the shore.”

Yet local fisherman and others were amazed at the claim. They say the dangerous rocks are well known and clearly marked. Corriere della Sera reported divers confirming the spot where the ship tore a 160 foot gash in the port-side  hull as 310 feet away from a larger visible rock formation that rises out from the water.

In the past, the cruise ships have had permission to sail within 1,500 feet of Giglio island, often to salute the inhabitants with a whistle of the ship. However, on Monday, Costa Crociere chairman and CEO Pier Luigi Foschi told a news conference that Schettino had steered the boat too close to the rocky shore and said that his company’s ships were fitted with alarms that sound when they deviate from the programmed route. "I can't deny there was human error," Mr. Foschi said. "We're talking about an initiative that Commander Schettino took according to his own will and contrary to our rules of conduct."

1 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

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.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

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