Skip to footer

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

An Italian cruise ship, the Costa Concordia, collided with rocks off the coast of Tuscany and capsized this week, leaving many unanswered questions as to how and why the accident occurred. The Monitor spoke with admiralty and maritime lawyer David Y. Loh, who points out how an over-reliance on technology and staffing shortages have been problems in the industry. Mr. Loh is a former Lieutenant Commander in the US Navy and specializes in risk management. 

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.

1. How reliable are navigation systems on big ships?

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.

  • By Whitney Eulich Staff Writer

The captain of the Costa Concordia cruise boat that ran aground off Tuscany on Friday claims the rock he hit wasn’t marked on navigational charts, reports Reuters. But maritime lawyer David Y. Loh says relying on one navigation system is never fail-proof.
 
“[A large rock] wouldn’t show up if the [electronic] navigation system was turned off,” Mr. Loh says. “If it was turned on and operating properly it would work properly, but that also presumes someone is monitoring the system and its settings.”
 
Some navigation systems will have an alarm built in that will go off when it is close to hazards, Loh says. When a boat is leaving port and close to land the alarm may go off incessantly. “If you’re close to land you might turn [the alarm] off to prevent that,” he says.

Steering a large vessel like the Costa Concordia cruise boat should never rely solely on electronic navigation systems, Loh says. “I don’t know why they were so close and whether or not [the ship] was in a sea lane,” says Loh, but if they intended to take that route, procedure would have likely called for consulting with a local pilot familiar with the coastal terrain.

1 of 5
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.