Detailed Analysis, Maps and Photos: Two Behemoths Fall: The Costa Concordia Cruise Ship and The Air Canada 767 "Gimli Glider"

The Costa Concordia. Photograph: Andrea Sinibaldi/AP

[See updates at end of article, and a new, detailed video showing exact track of the Costa Concordia]
As an engineer, I'm fascinated by giant machines. In particular, I love to understand how they work, and at time, why they don't work. This post is a story of two major accidents. One is currently unfolding in the Mediterranean near Corsica - the sinking of the cruise ship Costa Concordia, and the other happened almost 30 years ago when an Air Canada 767 ran out of fuel half way to its destination.
Air Canada Flight 143, July 23, 1983 ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet but the pilots managed to glide with no power to a safe landing at a former Canadian Air Force base that was in use for car racing. No one was killed, and the plane was put back into service. (photo by Wayne Glowacki, Winnipeg Free Press) 
Illustration: [Editors Note: This path turned out to be in error. The actual path is shown in the Jan 16 update below]
About two hours into the trip, the ship took a detour from its "usual" route to give passengers an up-close view of Giglio's port town by night, according to officials there. Upon approaching the port, the ship hit a rock that wasn't marked on nautical maps, Mr. Schettino, the captain, would later tell reporters. Instead, the ship struck Le Scole, a well-known rock formation, that skirts the coast of Giglio, according to the coast guard.
detailed article in the Daily Mail in the UK provides a map that seems to echo the WSJ article. That article noted from townspeople that ships usually pass to the west of the Isola del Giglio, not the east.
This Google Map overlay showing the track of the Costa Concordia also clearly shows that the normal shipping routes are to the west of the island. Note the blue track from the Costa Concordia, showing it to the east of the island.
Air Canada Flight 143

Meanwhile back in 1983, the Air Canada 767 took off from Ottawa for a flight to Edmonton. The 767 aircraft was brand new, and only a few had been delivered. Significantly, it measured fuel in the "modern" way ... in liters, instead of in Imperial Gallons, as earlier Air Candada aircraft had done. On this day, due to what should have been a minor problem, a technician had disabled one channel of a fuel monitoring system, not knowing that there was a problem with the other channel as well. 
As a result, the system did not show actual fuel levels during the flight. Next, the technicians on the ground used the wrong conversion factor from liters to Imperial Gallons to figure out how much fuel to load on the aircraft.  It was a huge error. Instead of 20,000 liters, they only added 5,000 liters. (See if you can follow the whole's the full report in Wikipedia)
Since the fuel monitoring system had been partially inoperative, the pilot manually loaded the 20,000 liter figure into the system, (after double checking ground crew's math...but still with the wrong conversion factor.)
Half way to Edmonton, the 767 lost one engine, and very shortly, the other. A warning sound that they had never heard sound. They soon came to realize it meant all engines out. The captain, who was also a glider pilot put the plane into its best glide angle. The pilots calculated whether they could make it to Winnepeg, but decided they were too far away. The co-pilot, it turns out, had been stationed at Gimli before it closed, and even though it was not on their charts, he knew it was big enough and close enough to handle the 767. What he didn't know was that it had been converted to a drag strip and it was in use on this day.
So what caused the Air Canada accident? Simple human error. One wrong conversion that never got caught. One circuit breaker removed (and properly tagged) that shouldn't have mattered. The equipment worked as it was supposed to. When both engines failed, a ram air turbine dropped from the belly of the 767 to provide enough power to fly the aircraft. The pilot's great skill allowed them to make a safe (if precarious) landing.
As for the Costa Concordia, it looks like the cause of the disaster was simple as well. (I'm assuming the WSJ article is correct). The captain of the Costa Concordia wanted to give his passengers a lovely view of a small Italian town on a calm night. One bad decision that led to a calamity.
Costa Concordia's Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) being offloaded by Italian Coast Guard Source: Reuters

Will we know what happened on the Costa Concordia? Absolutely. Since 1999, international rules require most ships to have "black box" recorders much like airplanes. So, it's likely that the answers are all in the black box (which is actually orange, and appears to be a VDR 4350 from SAM Electronics
Cover photo from VDR 4350 Voyage Data Recorder from SAM Electronics (an L3 Communications Company)
Here's what the system records:
  • Speed log – Speed through water or speed over ground.
  • Gyro compass – Heading.
  • Radar – As displayed or AIS data if no off-the-shelf converter available for the Radar video.
  • Audio from the bridge, including bridge wings.  (Editor's note: This will be very important)
  • VHF radio communications.
  • Echo sounder – Depth under keel.
  • Main alarms – All IMO mandatory alarms.
  • Hull openings – Status of hull doors as indicated on the bridge.
  • Watertight & fire doors status as indicated on the bridge.
  • Hull stress – Accelerations and hull stresses.
  • Rudder – Order and feedback response.
  • Engine/Propeller – Order and feedback response.
  • Thrusters* – Status, direction, amount of thrust % or RPM.
  • Anemometer and weather vane – Wind speed and direction
  • Conclusion
    It seems to me that technology can be made to work remarkably well if we have the will to design our machines correctly. At the same time, it seems that human error can so easily slip in and overturn (literally) our best designs. Luckily, in both of these cases, large loss of life was prevented. In the case of the Air Canada flight this was due to the combined skill of the pilots, a well designed aircraft, and no small dose of luck. In the case of the Costa Concordia, the relatively small loss of life (compared to what it could have been) might be attributed to the good weather and the location of the incident so close to land.
    By the way, this article in the Telegraph pointed out that  the Costa Concordia did not fall over due to taking on water from one side. Rather, it is so tall that it it is not stable in water shallower than 26 feet, and that it is lying on its side because that's what it must do in shallow water. Note that the gash with the rock in it is facing up in all the photos. You would expect a gash to flood its own side and end up under water. The article is worth reading.
    Update January 16, 2011, 11:30 PM
    The basic elements of the article above are still correct, but there is now more clarity on certain items. For example, it appears that the Costa Concordia set out for the island from the beginning, and that the first time it hit a rock was when it reached the island. In addition, a savvy reader spotted markings on the Voyage Data Recorder to show that it's from another manufacturer.
    This animation shows the reports of the Costa Concordia's Automatic Identification System (AIS). This clearly shows that the Concordia set a course to Isola del Giglio soon after leaving its starting port. Note that this video is available in 720 HD. Select that and view in full screen. You can even see the ship turn around at the :36 mark in the video.

    This screen shot from the AIS video seems to show to course changes. The first seems to change the course from passing the island to the west, and instead passing to the east. The second course correction seems to take the Concordia directly towards the Isola del Giglio.

    Illustration: Guadian UK View Flash Animation
    This illustration seems to be the most accurate that I can find, and the easiest to understand. It looks like the Concordia came colse to Giglio, struck rocks near Le Scole, then continued north, only to turn south towards the port of Giglio, where it eventually became stuck on an an underwater outcropping and tipped over with the previously damaged side of the ship facing upward.
    Lastly, an eagle-eyed reader named Oliver Brandmueller wrote to me and pointed out that the Voyage Data Recorder on the Costa Concordia is actually an Avecs Bergen MER VDR. He also sent me a PDF brochure of the unit. (The website at does not seem to work.) 
    The brochure shows how the data that is being replayed is displayed.
    Update Thursday, January 26, 2012
    This video, from the Costa Concorida News Page of John Konrad's blog, shows very detailed, AIS data recorded from a receiver on the island of Giglio, and narrated by John with tremendous insight from a ship captain. Watch and listen to the replay, and you'll feel like you finally have a clear idea of what happened. Data for the recording was provided by Quality Positioning Services BV (QPS), headquartered in Zeist, The Netherlands.
    This video shows, without a doubt, that the Costa Concordia slammed into known rocks because it approached the island too fast, and failed to turn soon enough given the momentum it had already built up. The ship turned, but still had motion (slipping sideways) towards the island and the rear of the ship slammed into well known rocks. For the captain to say he hit unmarked rocks is an unfathomable statement.
    It is truly hard to believe that after such a monumental collision, that the Captain of the Concordia would still insist that their only problem was a power blackout, even after getting immediate inquiries from the port of Giglio by radio. This fascinating recording of the radio exchange shows just how clearly Giglio interrogated the Concordia, and also how vigorously the crew insisted that there was no problem. It's only 30 seconds and its worth listening to.
    Recording of Captain Schettino Speaks With Gregorio De Falco of Italian Coast Guard

    This recording of Captain Schettino talking to the Coast Guard is one of the central elements of the drama that unfolded after the grounding. The captain had left the ship, along with his 2nd in command, and had landed on a nearby reef and was awaiting rescue. 
    Earlier Recording Where Captain Schettino Promises to Stay on the Ship
    The Italian Magistrate's Report
    There was a hearing to determine whether Captain Schettino would be jailed or otherwise held. The Magistrate's Report (PDF) is in English and contains some fascinating details, including this one: 
 appears evident that, once having abandoned the ship, albeit in untimely fashion, he remained in place on the reef of Isola del Giglio where he had landed aboard a launch, and watched the ship sink at the mercy of the tragic event that was occurring (see the service report of Capt. Roberto Galli, Head of Area Security of the Municipality of Isola del Giglio, declarations made by Dimitros Christidis and by Stefano Iannelli and eyewitnesses, unambiguous on the point). 
    Voyage Data Recorder Was Inoperative
    Separately, this report from Thomas Gunn Navigation Services says that the Voyage Data Recorder Module removed from the ship was scheduled for repair the day AFTER the accident. But the key data was probably also available on hard drives: 
    A FAULT in Costa Concordia’s VDR was due to be repaired on 14 January, the day after it capsized, the company has confirmed. However, the problem only affected the 12-hour recording in the capsule itself, a spokesman assured Fairplay, not the two hard disks on the bridge, which held details of its last 24 hours and the previous 30 days. 
    Costa Concordia Links:
    4.  Detailed background about Voyage Data Recorder by Northrop Grumman.
    5.  Specification for Voyage Data Recorders
    6.  Interactive maps showing Guardian's view the Concordia's path. This does not match the illustration provided by the Daily Mail.
    7. This site provides some recorded data of the Costa Concordia's path. This partial path matches what the Guardian is showing in the link above.
    8.  This site claims to have the full course of the Costa Concordia, including a harrowing navigation between two small islands where they claim the Concordia hit the rocks. The site data does not show the Costa Concordia passing through the two islands. A quick measurement on Google maps shows the gap in the islands to be about 200 feet. The Costa Concordia is about 120 feet wide.
    This video appears to be a playback from the site. This seems to match the Guardian's (#6 above) very nice interactive illustration above.
    Gimli Glider (Air Canada 143) Links:
    3.   Gimli Glider fly-by on way to retirement
    4.  Gimli Glider three months before retirement

    Photos: You Co-Work, Lets Co-Party - Good Times at the #TechCoParty at Kingston Station!

    What a simple lead-in: "You Co-Work, lets Co-Party"

    Here are photos from a really fun Co-Party held tonight at Kingston Station in Boston. Hosted by Ben and Sonciary of Promobox, Ryan and Sravish of Kinvey, Nick of Escapist, Raj of Localytics, Dave of the Tap Lab, Ben of Indie Ambassador, and Brent & Jesse of Evertrue. The event was sponsored by Microsoft BizSpark, Dogpatch Labs, Gunderson Dettmer, Silicon Valley Bank, Goodwin Proctor, Avalon Ventures, Atlas Venture, Boston Seed, and Magners Irish Cider. Wow, quite a list. Importantly, this meant that for a nominal $30 cover, there was food and an open bar! Further proof that co-working is fun and efficient, and when you add the right hosts and sponsors, co-partying works pretty darn well too.

    Here are an assortment of photos from the action: (also available for prints and download at this link)

    How Cool is This: The MakerBot 3D Printer in action @GreenLightLabs

    Nick Tommarello and I have set up a place for entrepreneurs called Green Light Labs. It's at the CIC at 1 Broadway in Cambridge. We've outfitted the space with some unusual amenities, including a loft bed and a reclining "work surface" called the Love Sac.

    But the coolest thing of all is the 3D printer, officially called the "Thing-O-Matic", but more commonly known by the name of its maker…MakerBot Industries.

    If you love things mechanical, then have a look at this video!
    The Thing-O-Matic by MakerBot Industries
    The MakerBot laying down a "raft" that it will build the 3D object upon.
    The software. We're making a test cube here It ends up looking just like a Strawberry Starburst. Just much tougher to chew. And minus the strawberry flavor.
    Brad shows off an actual part.
    Notice that #2 had some issues. That's called learning curve.
    The part on Solidworks.

    If Something Doesn't Look Right, Maybe It Isn't Right

    Boeing's X-32A lost the Joint Strike Fighter competition to Lockheed's F-35. Does this thing look right?
    Here's the Lockheed F-35. This was the winner. And it looks right. Turns out it was a great design.

    I love mechanical design. And I love airplanes. I learned to fly with my Dad, starting when I was 14. By then, I was hooked on flying. I solo'd at 16, got my license at 17, and an instrument rating at 18. Even before these teen years, I was obsessed with airplanes, and to this day, my favorite analogies involve airplanes and flying.

    For this post, I'll illustrate the point that we have an amazing ability to sense when things look right, and when they don't. I'll use two airplanes where there was a "flyoff" -- a competition between to designs made for exactly the same purpose. The first, is the the most expensive airplane program in history, the Joint Strike Fighter. It was Boeing's F-32 vs Lockheed's F-35.
    Even looking at the top view, something just doesn't seem right about the F-32 on the top. It just seems like the wing is too bulky, too fat.
    This is the F-32, parked at a museum. Tell me that looks don't matter. But more than that, don't you just get the feeling that something isn't right about this fighter plane?
    Lockheed F-35, the winner
    Boeing F-32, the loser
    F-35 from Lockheed

    This video of the Marine's F-35B vertical take off variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. Lockheed actually managed to make one basic aircraft fulfill three roles: land-based for the Air Force, carrier-based for the Navy, and vertical/short takeoff for the Marines. If you love airplanes, watch this 15-second video. You'll see the first supersonic jet in history that can take off and land vertically.

    The F-35B program has had many technical challenges, and this report from Bloomberg News shows the latest sea trials of the Marine's version of the JSF.
    The Northrup A-9, the losing contender in the A-9/A-10 close air support flyoff. It first flew in 1972.
    The A-9 in flight.

    My second example compares the winning A-10 from Fairchild vs the Northrop A-9. This program began in 1967, and test flights began in 1972. In this case the airplane's role is different. Essentially, these planes are "flying tanks" that support ground troops. They literally need to be bullet-proof, and withstand heavy fire from the ground.
    The Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt (also called the "Warthog") 

    In this case, neither aircraft looks beautiful or sleek. But they're not supposed to. Their mission is to be tough and unstoppable. If you were on the ground, and were under attack and needed help, which of this puppies would you want to call in?
    The A-9
    The A-10 (Okay, this is unfair because this picture shows it loaded with weapons. But still)
    Oh wait. This one of the A-9 does have weapons. Who you gonna call?
    Same here. I rest my case. The A-10 not only was a better design. It looked right for the part.
    Epilog: The A-10 Thunderbolt joined the Air Force in 1977, and is still in service today. It is planned to remain in service until at least 2028. The A-10 aircraft above saw service in Iraq. It landed safely after encountering heavy fire over Bagdad.

    Smartphones Are the New Cigarettes; Why I Turned my iPhone Back On

    My x-dumb phone.

    Receipt for said x-dumb phone.

    Third in an on going series about what smartphones are doing to us.

    Okay, I admit it. I lasted 19 days. I never did smoke, but I sure did get hooked on that new way to light up, the smartphone. (But read on, cause it's not entirely like it seems) 

    The story started on November 9th, when I went to the AT&T store and asked for a downgrade and bought a dumb phone to experience life before smartphones.  On that same day I posted Smartphones Are Making Us Think Small Thoughts because I found that I spent almost every free moment staring into my 4 inch screen. On November 17th, in How to Show an iPhone Who's Boss., I outlined what I found was so addictive about the iPhone and what I had done to stem that. And today, I'll cover why I returned my dumb phone, re-ignited the AT&T plan on my iPhone, but I'm still making fundamental changes in how I use the iPhone.
    The AT&T store in Central Square, Cambridge

    I learned many things during my experiment. For example:

    Three Apps Fuel My Addiction: The iPhone does all kinds of useful things, but I learned that there are three apps that are my main addictions: Mail, NY Times, and Fluent Reader (a news reader). In my experiment, I removed these from my iPhone. No mail. No NY Times. No news. That was a big help. (Also took off all Twitter apps.) These apps are still gone, even though I've turned the AT&T service back on.

    Speed Kills. Or More Exactly, Addicts: It is widely known that speed is crucial for addiction. Google is very careful to make sure that search is always super fast, because they know that even milliseconds of reduced speed lead to lowered use. And one of the things that smartphones give you is instant start. Watch two people at a restaurant. Watch when one leaves for a trip to the bathroom. Time how long before the other takes out their smartphone. Time how long it takes before they are getting their "fix". I believe this is the key to addiction, and the key to keeping smartphone addicts thinking small thoughts. Watch when his girlfriend heads to the bathroom, does the guy ponder how to solve that big problem he's been working on? Nope. Out comes the iPhone to check for an email that turns out to be discussing three possible meeting times.

    Usefulness vs. Addictiveness: I learned that the smartphone has two different worlds. The world of useful apps, vs. addictive apps. I think its worth asking yourself: "What are my most addictive apps?" Just watch yourself in those free minutes. Where do you go? Do you open Pages on your iPhone to work on that book? No. Explore Maps for your next meeting? No. It's something that gives you the quick fix. That burst of smartphone nicotine. I'm leaving my nicotine fixes turned off, even though the phone is back on.

    After getting my iPhone plan turned back on, I went to lunch at Four, the burger place next to the iPhone store. As I munched on a wonderful salmon burger, I thought "hey, my 3G service is back" and I was about to fire up my favorite - the NY Times. Ah, but the icon was still gone, and while I could have gone on Safari and typed in, I didn't. For two reasons. One was that would take too long, and my fix was no longer instantaneous. And two, I thought: why did I do this experiment, and I shouldn't stop now. So instead of looking down at my screen, I looked up and looked around. A tv showed what happened in the football games on Sunday. Kind a cool. People walked in and out and I looked them and they glanced at me. Hmmm. That's interesting too. Somehow, my food tasted better as I looked around.

    And then I had big thought. "This is better." It's better to look up. To look around. 

    So the iPhone is on, but the nicotine apps are still being held at bay. Day 19.

    I intend to keep the addictive apps off my iPhone. I intend to look up. Not down.