Song and Dance

Published somewhere in November



The maritime press is going the way of the tabloids. 

One widely circulated ‘news’ piece- that Britney Spears’ music is being used off East Africa to ward off pirates- is to me flippant, mildly titillating and largely obfuscatory all at once. It appears that Somali pirates hate the lady’s music, seeing it no doubt as symptomatic of Western decadent culture. Or so say some members of the British merchant navy, who are blasting the eardrums of those aboard approaching pirate boats with Britney’s music. “As soon as the pirates get a blast of Britney, they move on as quickly as they can,” says widely quoted Rachel Owens, a merchant marine officer. Ms Owens does not say what effect Britney’s screams have had on her shipmates and their presumably Western eardrums, or, indeed, on the schools of fish in the Indian Ocean that are being tortured by Spears’ music as surely as the detainees in Guantanamo were (are, still?) tortured with Metallica’s rough rock and Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Born in the USA’.

What is largely unreported in all this tamasha is the fact that each one of the ships that are blasting ‘Baby one more time’ have armed security teams aboard. So, even as the tabloids and mainstream newspapers in the UK and the copy and paste journalists everywhere else go to town with little content but wildly inaccurate headlines (Spears harpoons pirates, anybody?), security teams aboard ships will shrug off the hoohaa and concentrate on keeping their powder dry. Britney Spears is probably a pirate irritant at best and an overrated singer at worst; she can screech loudly, but those who sail must carry a big stick. 

The other piece of titillating news from last week is actually more serious. At the trial of Costa Concordia’s Capt. Schettino in Tuscany, twenty-six year old Moldovan dancer Domnica Cemortan broke down under cross examination- and, after being warned three times by the judge against perjury- admitted that the two had been lovers aboard the ill-fated ship. 

Domnica had denied the affair for two years, presumably in a bid to protect the married Schettino or to save her and her young child embarrassment. Her ‘revelation’ went semi-viral too, with many adding a mean aside -talking to a translator, Domnica had brushed off the fact that she didn’t have a ticket for the ill-fated Concordia cruise- “When you are somebody’s lover, they don’t ask to see your ticket,” she had said. That aside became public after the judge insisted it be translated in open court.

What went under-reported was her dismaying testimony that Schettino was dining with her at a ship’s restaurant just fifteen minutes before the Concordia hit the rocks. This, combined with the fact that Domnica was on the bridge with the good Captain when the Concordia actually ran aground, is pretty damning for Schettino. The allegations that he was cavalier in his navigation and unmindful of safety will resurface with a vengeance now. 

Many cargo ship Captains ban families (including their own) from the bridge during sensitive manoeuvring times; they do not want the bridge team distracted. I have called Civitavecchia (the Concordia’s port of departure) often, and, without second guessing the events of that fateful night, I will only say this: I would not be dining with a Moldovan dancer fifteen minutes before I planned a dangerous ‘sail past’ close to an island off that coast. Hell, I wouldn’t be even dining with my wife. I would not tolerate, in darkness when situational awareness is always a bigger issue, any unnecessary personnel on the bridge. And I would not be comfortable below deck so close to a potentially dangerous manoeuvre.

I am sure Captain Schettino- charged with manslaughter, causing a maritime disaster and abandoning the Concordia- will agree with me today. Regardless of the outcome of the Tuscany trial, his errors of judgement will torture him for a long time, I am afraid. Shipmasters will tell you that Britney Spears’ wails are nothing compared to the torture that the what-if’s of their rank inflict upon them. 

 .

.

Controlling interest- Sea Traffic Control?

One of the regulatory changes being pushed for, in the aftermath of the Costa Concordia incident, is a continuous monitoring of cruise ship positions and navigational data by management ashore. The pressure to do this is coming largely from the United States so far; from high profile lawyer John Arthur Eaves Jr, amongst others. No political lightweight- he ran for Governor of Mississippi a few years ago- Eaves will seek, in a lawsuit against Carnival where he represents 70 Concordia passengers, massive changes in the industry, including  "more responsibility on the part of cruise ship operators and the implementation of a tracking system for ships that would be similar to the flight control system found in aviation." 

Managing partner of International Registries Clay Maitland implies that the implementation of continuous shoreside oversight of cruise ships is just a matter of time. “I think we are going to see the underwriters and others insisting that the management of a ship [from shore] is a 24 hours a day, seven day a week affair, regardless of the training of the crew," he writes, resulting in  “even further restrictions on the declining independence of ships’ Masters”. 

I don't know if an Air Traffic Control kind of setup- with managers monitoring ships instead of a State owned ATC, as happens in civil aviation- is in the offing. What I do know is this: There will be new regulations after the Concordia. Chances are these will be the usual knee jerk, ill thought out and poorly implemented (also poorly implementable) regulations that are shipping's bugbear; although the disaster-regulation-next disaster-next regulation cycle is not unique to the industry, its record is uniquely awful when it comes to using regulations to meet stated safety objectives. Relatively new cases in point, the STCW, ISPS and ISM regulations.

That aside, there is an inherent problem with civil liability lawyers pushing for maritime regulation, as Mr Eaves is doing, simply because they are not qualified to do so. More bluntly, they don't have a clue about what their knee jerk responses will mean on the ground or whether they will atually enhance passenger safety. Besides, the Concordia incident did not happen because the owners did not know what route the ship was taking. Quite the contrary; management had long successfully pressurised Costa Masters to take the 'touristic navigation' route, according to all reports. Even the boy selling peanuts on the beach probably  knew that cruise ships came close to that island and hooted and stuff. 

Of course, what a ATC like control function (lets call it STC, for Sea Traffic Control, shall we?) would do is shift greater responsibility - and therefore, greater liability- ashore. Owners would find it much harder to play the 'rogue Captain' game as in the Concordia. Errors of management would become glaringly obvious, greatly hampering a shipmanagers blame-the-Master-and-limit-liability manoeuvre that is a Pavlovian reflex today. 

In addition, I have, quite apart from issues of liability and oversight, more practical concerns with all this. The last thing a ship Captain needs is a remote-back seat driver, not because of his fragile ego but because the onus for safe navigation lies with the Master alone. We may deny it, but a 'Super Captain' monitoring the ship sitting in an office will feel obliged to give his input to the captain or navigating officer- after all, the purpose of any STC will be to monitor the ship's position and avoid accidents. If so, this Input- given remotely in real time, and especially when given to a junior navigating officer, will be an instruction at worst and interference at best. In any case it will be confusing and is likely to create conflict and indecision on the ship- and will probably result in less than safe navigation. 

I have no problems with the 'declining independence', as Maitland says, of the ship's Captain. I do have problems when his authority is eroded and his responsibility confusingly diluted- while his accountability remains unchanged. 

The ATC instructs aviators to change course, speed and altitude as a matter of routine. Do we expect the STC to give similar instructions to the Captain if, in their opinion, the ship is heading into danger? Keep in mind that, unless recently experienced Masters are used in an STC, we may find out of touch Masters- with little Command experience  to begin with- are instructing well experienced Masters at sea. This would be ridiculous except that this is already happening from many managers' offices; a formal STC will only make things worse. Master's will find the phrase 'overriding authority' ringing even more hollow if the STC degenerates into a 'Super Captain' scenario; chances are that it will.

The bottom line is that- pressures of 'touristic navigation' or not- most everybody at sea and ashore knows very well, most of the time, what is safe and what is not. An STC can probably help if the bridge team fails to appreciate enhanced risk or is situationally less than fully aware; however, it is hard to see how a sea traffic controller will see a looming disaster faster from the swivel chair in his office than the Captain will from the bridge. 

The solution to the recurrence of a Concordia type incident is not yet another layer of iffy oversight or another back seat driver breathing down a Captain's neck, especially if he is an accessory to the crime of touristic navigation. A Sea Traffic Controller advising a Captain in clipped tones about dangers and non conformities in navigation sounds like a sexy idea, but- like most sexy ideas usually are- it is likely unworkable.

Besides, aren't existing VTS systems-essentially State run marine traffic monitoring systems  that use radar, CCTV, AIS, VHF etc- designed to do just that? 

.

.

Capt. Schettino and the night of the long knives

Note to Shipmasters: If you must screw up, then for heaven's sake don't screw up where the cameras can see and record you, because then you will be drawn, quartered, and fed to the lions.

The long knives- and longer pencils- will be then out. Reporters - made instant nautical experts complete with Perry topsiders adorning their feet- will tell the world that you are an incompetent coward. 

Your country will loathe you. The same people who expressed gratitude at your 'touristic navigation' - that was good for business- will want to hang you from the nearest lamppost.

Your contemporaries will disown you, shamed and disgusted. You should never have gone so close to land regardless of commercial pressure. You should never have abandoned the vessel when one or two hundred souls out of four thousand two hundred remained on board, your colleagues will say. None of us would have done that. Never. Ever.

Out of touch ex-Shipmasters, who have forgotten how to steer a ship leave alone command it, will spin fictions on camera and otherwise. They will attribute heroic qualities to ship captains- and to themselves, by extension- in a forlorn attempt at self-aggrandisement. A few moments of evaporating fame paid for with exaggerations and lies.

Your owners will quickly damn you, calling you an idiot and your action inexplicable (They are concentrating with everything at their disposal to limit liability - they need to vilify you). 

The head of your ship's classification society will have to hurriedly resign when he dares to suggest that other factors are also to blame for the screw up, implying that the ship coming close to shore- 'saluting'- has been going on for long, with possible encouragement by many. 

The hype will be built up until it reaches a crescendo. The sad deaths of around thirty people will be forgotten, almost, by the wolves baying for your blood. Headlines will scream- One hundred years after the Titanic! The biggest insurance disaster! Captain was talking to a beautiful woman! Crew did nothing! (Then how were three thousand passengers, many without even basic safety familiarisation, evacuated?) Pigs were flying! 

Your haggard mug shot will flash across TV screens across the world. You will look like the war criminal that you are being treated as; dazed, confused, and incoherent as you come to grips with the trauma of the shipwreck and your role in it. The world needs a devil- you are the chosen one for today.

Tapes will be released by the coast guard of your conversation with them after the sinking. Their official- rested and probably coffe-ed and prepared for the recording, will come across as a decisive hero in those. You, shipwrecked, traumatised and stressed, will come across as the villain they want you to be. The soap opera needs a hero as a counterpoint to you, the villain; it has chosen the coast guard officer for today.

There will be few questions raised about systemic issues that led to the tragedy, largely because the Sperry loafer talking heads are used to sidestepping puddles and do not have a clue which questions need to be asked when a ship goes down. Others do know, but they have the sense not to ask them in public. The owners are powerful, the regulators untouchable and the cruise industry brings in money. The Captain, however, is powerless and pack dogs go after soft targets. Simple as that.

In conclusion, towards the end of this piece, here is another bunch of notes. The first one to active sailors is this: There- but for the grace of God- go you.

To the wider industry, including its out of date sailors and others quick to lynch Capt. Schettino of the Costa Concordia: Wait, please. Demand a fair trial. Capt. Schettino has almost certainly made navigational blunders; he has probably- additionally- failed in his duties post the grounding and blackout. He certainly disregarded or underplayed the accident with coast guard officials and that may have cost lives. Let him be vigorously prosecuted; he should face the legal consequences of his actions, however rigorous they are. And so should Carnival, if there is proven negligence; let the truth come out there too.

To the loafer-ed reporters and sanctimonious television news anchors, many of whom seem somewhat excitable these days: It is time to pick on other bones, I think. Nothing more to see- or hype- here. Move on. You can return, as briefly as possible, in case there is an environmental disaster should oil from the wreck leak.

Meanwhile, consider this: At least half dozen ships have had accidents in the last two weeks across the world. One has gone down without a trace on Christmas day, killing 22 crew. Others have suffered casualties. Most of these incidents were not even reported by the international press; one or two were, almost as footnotes, and quickly forgotten. 

The Costa Concordia incident- terrible and tragic as it is, with around thirty expected casualties- is not grounds for damning Capt Schettino and the crew of the ship like this. Schettino is guilty- even if all the charges against him are true- of many things, maybe even manslaughter. Let him face the music, but for heaven's sake stop reviling him as if this was genocide.

In short, get some perspective. If for some reason you can't do that, then get a life instead.

.

 .