Costa Concordia: Rock Not Charted or Erroneous Navigation?

The vessel was in touristic navigation, passing by the picturesque island Giglio. This is a manoeuvre which is done from time to time. However, this time, the vessel approached the coast very close to the dangerous Le Scole reef area. The minimum distance to the shore usually is a couple of miles. Even inhabitants of the island remarked that the cruiseship appeared to be closer than usual.

According to several sources, the captain of the Costa Concordia has stated that the rock the ship hit was not charted. The vessel has a draught of 8.2m and was sailing approximately 300m out from the shore and the rocks. The area is said to be well-charted, and the place is used for diving and sailing which makes it well-known.

It is not completely clear where the Costa Concordia hit the rock. According to AIS sources, the vessel may have tried to navigate between two rocks with a depth of 10.3m.

After the incident, the vessel navigated close to the shore, towards the harbour. When turning, the vessel listed to one side, which was critical in view of the shallow waters.

The position is not yet stable: on Monday, 16^th January 2012, the Costa Concordia moved 9cm downwards. If this continues, due by bad weather for example, she may even slide from the rock, potentially to a depth of 100m.

ADDITION 18th JANUARY 2012

According to Lloyd's List on BBC, the Costa Concordia followed a comparable route in August 2011. No rocks are shown on the UK Hydrographic Office's charts, but the UKHO has stated that this could be due to the small scale of its charts, whereas Italian charts are available on a much larger scale.

The Italian Hydrographic Office is working on a detailed study regarding the charting and survey situation of the location.

ADDITION 23rd JANUARY 2012

The Italian Hydrographic Service illustrates the situation by sending charts 74 and 119, added as PDF files.

iim-chart-74.

iim-chart-119.

Where is the very narrow channel referred to above? Barry Lusk - 24/07/2012 - 22:01

With reference to the comment of Cdr. Paolo Lusiani, charts 74 and 119 are added. Joost Boers - 23/01/2012 - 11:15

Can anyone explain the following reported co mment of the Master "We were moving with a tourist navigation system" Ian Russell FRICS MNI - 21/01/2012 - 16:26

It's a real pleasure to read a clear note from Cdr. Lusiani. He state the real situation with no doubt. Thanks a lot Mr. Lusiani Giorgio Vecchio - 20/01/2012 - 23:19

With reference to this article, we would like to point out the following: IIM has no doubts regarding the accuracy and completeness of its charts covering the area of the Costa Concordia accident. There are five IIM paper charts covering the area - n° 74 (1:5000), n° 119 (1:20000), n° 122 (1:50000), n° 5 (1:100000), n° 6 (1:100000), and in all of them the rock hit by the vessel is clearly indicated. The same applies to IIM ENCs. Finally, the bathymetric data in the area of Le Scole clearly shows that the area is not suitable for navigation, especially with vessel of such draught. IIM has not issued any official statements so far out of respect, and not to interfere with the inquiry. Cdr. Paolo Lusiani - Italian Hydrographic Office - 20/01/2012 - 13:08

The ordinary practice of good seamanship dictates that you do not unnecessarikly place a ship in danger. When you have a passenger ship, this is especially so. I have been a pilot for over 20 years and I do not know where all the rocks are. However, I do know where they aren't and that is where I navigate my ships. The master was foolish in the extreme and now lives have been lost directly because of his actions. And he was a coward to whit! Rob Lovell - 20/01/2012 - 01:59

Whats happen whit the automatic and alerts sistem of navigation on this ship ???? pedroleal - 19/01/2012 - 19:39

Were long waves present that reduced the underkeel clearance? Derek Goring - 19/01/2012 - 19:32

Can we start considering 3-D paper charts & Fly-thru Electronic Cherts? This shouldn't happen in this Century! Capt Ayo Olugbode - 19/01/2012 - 19:26

It is wise to ask information about the survey and charting situation of the area concerned to the Italian Hydrographic Institute which publishes and keeps up-to-date the official charts for the Italian waters. All the other charts are derived from those but are not Italian official. Rear Admiral Giuseppe Angrisano - 19/01/2012 - 18:09

It is not a survey problem at all.. I suggest to read this article to understand: http://www.corriere.it/cronache/12_gennaio_19/concordia-severgnini-su-financial-times_e3470532-42a0-11e1-8207-8bde7a1445db.shtml Marco R - 19/01/2012 - 16:38

If the rocks were not fully portrayed on the chart, this could be because it is not an area likely to be scheduled for detailed survey by the Italian HO. But could a crowd sourced survey solution such as TeamSurv picked them up? Tim Thornton - 19/01/2012 - 16:34

Looking at this movie from QPS, it is clear that the rock is on the chart ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5mbKt7rQkQ Italian surveyor - 19/01/2012 - 16:23

So: As always its surveys fault? Phil Stock - 19/01/2012 - 16:11

According to my Transas Marine chart there are 6 rocks not covered by water where she passed. The farthest one about .30 nm, 550 m, from shore. Captain says the vessel passed 300 m from shore which means between some of the rocks. This is frightning with this size of vessel and number of passengers. It's bloody murder. Rolf Hallmén - 17/01/2012 - 22:02

according to the last speed on costa cocordia sight was 18 knts. at this speed through the very narrow channel her draught may well have been 10 meters, oops wilson-sadler - 17/01/2012 - 17:46