Analysis Of Belgrade And Cairo Latin America And The Non...

Belgrade and Cairo: Latin America and the Non-Aligned Movement The Belgrade Conference of 1961 was the first meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. It brought together 28 countries from four continents, of which 25 were full members, and 3 were observers. In her speech at the opening of the conference, Mrs. Bandaranaike of Ceylon stated that the countries present were â€Å"in Belgrade because it is our firm conviction that the non-aligned nations have a positive contribution to make in the cause of peace. If I may attempt to assess the contribution that the non-aligned countries can make at this time, I would say that our endeavor should be to influence world opinion to such an extent that governments, however powerful, cannot regard†¦show more content†¦Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress program kicked off in 1961, shortly after his inauguration. It was part of a new approach by US policymakers, influenced by theories of modernization, to guide the increasingly uncommitted Global South toward a First World vision of modernity. The Alliance for Progress offered millions of dollars to aid in Latin American development, and was also Kennedy’s primary tool against the vision of Latin America offered by Castro. The NAM offered a third option. The conference at Belgrade represented a shift on the part of certain Latin American states to explore a new possibility in the diplomatic arena. In addition to Cuba, as the only full attendant Latin American country, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Brazil all sent observers. Chile and Mexico received invitations to the conference but refused to attend, while Venezuela received an invitation to the Cairo Preparatory Conference preceding Belgrade, but it is unclear if they subsequently were invited to Belgrade after their adamant refusal. Costa Rica went so far as to publicly refuse a purported invitation to Belgrade. This chapter focuses on the emergence of Latin America in this new platform of non-alignment. While the intentions of each nation involved were unique, a deeper exploration of Latin America’s involvement with the Third World in this early stage helps gain insight intoShow MoreRelatedOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 PagesTiffany Ruby Patterson, Zora Neale Hurston and a History of Southern Life Lisa M. Fine, The Story of Reo Joe: Work, Kin, and Community in Autotown, U.S.A. Van Gosse and Richard Moser, eds., The World the Sixties Made: Politics and Culture in Recent America Joanne Meyerowitz, ed., History and September 11th John McMillian and Paul Buhle, eds., The New Left Revisited David M. Scobey, Empire City: The Making and Meaning of the New York City Landscape Gerda Lerner, Fireweed: A Political Autobiography

Essay Vak Learning Styles Self-Assessment Questionnaire

VAK Learning Styles Self-Assessment Questionnaire* Tick the answer that most represents how you generally behave. Complete and bring to the next session. |When I operate new equipment I generally: | |a) read the instructions first | | |b) listen to an explanation from someone who has used it before | | |c) go ahead and have a go, I can figure it out as I use it†¦show more content†¦| | |When I am choosing a holiday I usually: | |a) read lots of brochures | | |b) listen to recommendations from friends | | |c) imagine what it would be like to be there | | |If I was buying a new car, I would: | |a) read reviews in newspapers and magazines | | |b) discuss what I need with my friends | | |c) test-drive lots of different types | |Show MoreRelatedWhat Is the Purpose of Initial Assessment and What Kind of Methods Could Be Used? Evaluate These Methods with Reference to the Ways They Can Help in the Overall Objective of Achieving Learning Goals. How Can You Ensure1454 Words   |  6 PagesWhat is the purpose of initial assessment and what kind of methods could be used? Evaluate these methods with reference to the ways they can help in the overall objective of achieving learning goals. How can you ensure learners are kept motivated and working towards these goals? The purpose of an initial assessment is to firstly, make sure that a learner can enter the programme of study at a level that is appropriate to them. Secondly, these assessments also allow the learner to be able to planRead MoreStudents’ Approaches To Learning Are Directly Correlative1561 Words   |  7 PagesStudents’ approaches to learning are directly correlative to their prior experiences of studying and understanding the key concepts of the subject matter, which is vital to the subsequent approaches to studying and learning outcomes. For sustainable development what is required is an investment in the research related to teaching and pedagogy to best prepare and qualify the students who are to build our communities and who will soon embark on professional careers in architecture. We should studyRead MoreUnderstanding and Using Inclusive Teaching and Learning Approaches in Education and Training985 Words   |  4 PagesInclusive Teaching and Learning Approaches in Education and Training 1.1. Inclusive learning is about recognising that all your students have the right to be treated equally and fairly, have the same access to all products, services and have the opportunity to be involved and included. As a teacher you need to be aware that all students are not the same as they all do not learn in the same way, the ways in which a teacher can overcome this is using the Teaching and Learning Cycle, using visual, auditoryRead MorePttls Teaching and Learning Approaches Essay2777 Words   |  12 PagesTeaching amp; Learning Approaches | | Iqbal Vohra | 6/6/2011 | Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Learning styles 3 2.1. Visual learners 3 2.2. Auditory learners 4 2.3. Kinaesthetic learners 4 3. Functional skills 5 4. Differentiation 6 5. Conclusion 7 6. References 8 7. Appendix 1: Learning styles self-assessment 9 8. Appendix 2: Embedding functional skills in a PTTLS session 13 Introduction This assignment is about different teaching and learning approaches. ItRead MoreLearning Styles Literary Review1726 Words   |  7 Pagesand Principles of Learning (TPPL) Assignment Part A – Literature review analysing theories and principles of learning. Learning Styles A student’s individual learning style is their normal reaction to information or experiences. For example, Keefe (1979) defines learning styles as the composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment., orRead MoreLearning Styles Essay4126 Words   |  17 Pages1. What I intend to do In this assignment I will aim to discuss the factors which can affect learning for a student. Incorporated in this I will discuss theories of ‘learning styles’, comparing and contrasting them and try to identify aspects which can impact upon my practice. I will analyse my own teaching style and that of others to see how the theories can be applied and also assess my own success in meeting the needs of the students. 1.1 Why? The information provided in this assignmentRead MoreDiploma Task 426 Essay2276 Words   |  10 Pagesï » ¿Dawn Muscroft Teaching, learning and assessment in education and training Introduction The purpose of this report is to show an analysis of the role and responsibilities of teachers, incorporating some research topics including codes of practice, and also the boundaries and relationship between the teaching role and other professional roles. The report will also show the roles of initial and diagnostic assessments. My own role and responsibility in education and training BlatchfordRead MoreRoles, Responsibilities and Boundaries Essay example1728 Words   |  7 Pageshas roles, responsibilities and boundaries; governed by copious legislation and directed through company policies/ procedures. These ensure objectives are met and identified persons can be made accountable for their functions. In the teaching/ learning sector however, roles can be blurred and legislation somewhat confusing, suggested by Holtrop (1997) â€Å"Obviously teachers wear many hats; friend, counsellor, judge, mentor, hundreds of roles and different roles for different classes, students andRead MoreReport on time management, SWOT analysis, learning styles and essay and report writing7192 Words   |  29 Pagesï » ¿A Report on Time Management, SWOT Analysis, Learning styles and report and essay writing Written by: Natasha Haley Written for: Graham Pogson Date: 11/10/13 Professional Development Planning C57PD Borders Business Programme, Year 1 Contents Section Page Number 1. Summary 2. Introduction 3. Findings 2.1 Time Management 2.2 SWOT Analysis 2.3 Learning styles 2.4 Report and essay writing 4. Conclusion 5. References 6. Bibliography 7. Appendices 3.1.1 EstimateRead MorePTLLS Assignment 1: Roles and Responsibilities in the Teaching Cycle2088 Words   |  9 Pages1. Describe what your role, responsibilities and boundaries would be as a teacher in terms of the teaching/training cycle. My role as a teacher In her book Preparing to teach in the Lifelong Learning sector 2011 (P9), Ann Gravells explains that â€Å"Your main role as a teacher should be to teach your subject in a way that actively involves and engages your students during every session.† Beyond this, my role as a teacher of business management extends to firstly being an exemplar of good management

Iliad and Hector free essay sample

Both characters have their strengths and weaknesses and differences in their approach to being heroic. Even with their differences, they have many similarities. Hector is a great leader and family man and a protector of his people. Achilles is a self-centered warrior who is only in it for the glory. Hector commands the Trojan army, while Achilles commands the Greek army. They both have pride and glory and are seen as heroes in the eyes of their sides’ people. Having a passion for revenge might be considered a glaring flaw in today’s standards, but it definitely conforms to the heroic code of Greek society. Hector has mixed feelings about taking part in the war. His wife pleads with him not to go, and he does not want to make her a widow, leaving her â€Å"at the loom of another man†. Hector shows heroism for going to war, but at the same time shows his human side by being indecisive about leaving his family. We will write a custom essay sample on Iliad and Hector or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In Book Twenty-Two, Hector stays outside the ramparts, whereas his supporters are secure. His father Priam, wants him to retreat to safety with Achilles approaching, but his pride and honor prevent him from backing down. His fearlessness is an extremely heroic action. He then flees, which is very unheroic. It seems apparent that there is an inner conflict with emotions and the heroic code. Hector eventually stands his ground and fights. Achilles kills Hector in a very cruel way. Before desecrating Hector’s body, he allows him to die a slow and painful death. His action is another way his behavior conforms to the Greek heroic code. Even the most valiant soldier must have a human side, which definitely must object to the savage killing that is inevitable in war. On the other hand, when Achilles and his soldiers get some type of pleasure from repeatedly stabbing Hector’s lifeless corpse, another kind of human emotion is being displayed. This is the pent up anger and hostility that build up during one’s quest for revenge or simply battle. So, it might be concluded that the heroic code and the human emotions might not conflict after all. Hector is viewed as the more heroic one. He knows his role as the defender of Troy. Although he has a strong love and devotion to his family, he still goes off to defend his country, even after the pleading from his wife. Hector’s traits and character as a husband and father no less admirable than that as his as a warrior. Hector is a man who loves his child and wife and who can forget war when a little child cries. He is seen as the bravest and most accomplished of the warriors. He is a team player, a very gifted leader and soldier. Unlike Achilles, Hector is a more complete and well-rounded person. Hector was a man who was willing to fight until the end. Which he did. Achilles is more of a loner, except of his close friendship with Patroclus. Marriage has no weight in his consciousness. He seems more the estranged youth than the manly defender represented in Hector. He is revered as the greatest warrior in the world, and no man can stand against him. Achilles was a very spoiled and pampered only child. He had a much undeveloped sense of his place in the world. He is viewed as an admirable warrior, and his still in battle boosts the morale of his fellow Greeks when he chooses to fight, but he is an unreliable leader who sulks when he does not get his way. Both Hector and Achilles behave as heroes throughout the Iliad. While they try to win glory in war for their families, their country, and themselves, they both have certain strengths and weaknesses in their character which dictate their very different courses of action and their thoughts. They are both presented with conflicts and dilemmas throughout the story, the resolutions of which must be made using both their human side and their aggressive heroic side, and it appears as if Achilles meets with the most success in this difficult task.

Research Findings from the Costa Concordia Accident

Introduction The Costa Concordia disaster is the greatest tragedy to occur in the cruise ship industry in recent decades. This accident resulted in the death of 32 people and the injury of 64 more. By the end of the rescue operations, two passengers were reported missing and rescue personnel believe that these individuals are dead.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Research Findings from the Costa Concordia Accident specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This tragedy greatly distressed the leisure travel industry as people became wary of safety conditions on the sea. The company that owned the Costa Concordia and the ship’s Captain, Francesco Schettino, received widespread condemnation following the accident. The captain was arrested and charges of manslaughter and negligence were opened against him (Ognibene, 2012). However, most of the reactions to the accident have been emotive with the media contributing to t he public uproar because of sensational reporting on the events. In the days following the event, the captain was vilified and held solely accountable for the accident and the media gave him dreadful titles including â€Å"Captain Disaster† and â€Å"Captain Coward†. It is important to objectively analyze the events on the night of the tragedy in order to decide on who is to blame for the sinking. This report will set out to clearly outline what happened on the night of Friday 13, 2013 with special focus on the actions of the captain, the ship’s crew, and the Italian Coast Guard. The paper will then review the reaction of Cruise lines to this incident and highlight some of the new policies the industry has introduced to increase safety at sea. The paper will conclude by offering a number of recommendations that will safeguard the safety of cruise ships in future. Events on the Day On January 13, 2012 at 7:33pm local time, the cruise ship Costa Concordia set sail from Civitavecchia to Savona. The ship had on board 4,229 people: 3,206 passengers and the rest the ship’s crew members. The ship was under the command of the 52-year-old Italian, Captain Francesco Schettino.Advertising Looking for report on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Two hours into the journey, the ship was passing the Italian Island of Giglio and Captain Schettino gave orders for the ship to change course so that it could sail closer to the Island’s shore as a salute to the local islanders. The BBC (2012) reports that the captain gave the precise coordinates to be followed to the ship’s helmsman. Fig 1: Map showing standard route and the deviation by the Concordia A few minutes later, (21:45 pm local time) the ship collided with a reef that was present near the island shores. The impact led to significant damage to the ship as the rocky outcrop had stripped part of the shipâ⠂¬â„¢s hull leaving behind a huge hole on the left-hand side. Water started entering into the ship’s engine room from this hole leading to a temporary power blackout as the generators were submerged in water. Captain Schettino readjusted the course of the ship in an attempt to resume the original path. The ship was able to turn and it moved past Giglio Port. However, the damages to the ship were great and water was flooding into the engine room. As water flowed into the lower parts of the Concordia through the huge hole in the ship’s hull, the ship tilted to one side (BBC, 2012). The ship started listing to one side due to the water intake from the damaged hull.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Research Findings from the Costa Concordia Accident specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Realizing the ship was greatly damaged, the captain turned the ship towards the port of Giglio and it drifted in this dire ction until it grounded close to the harbour. Fig 2. Ship positioning from collision with rock to eventual sinking Captain Action As the captain of the ill-fated Costa Concordia, Francesco Schettino was in charge of making all the major decisions concerning the movement of the ship. He is the person who gave the order for the ship to change course and travel nearer the shores of Giglio Island. This order was not unusual and Captain Schettino has stated that this was a standard procedure when sailing past some islands. This assertion is backed by previous ship records that reveal that on August 14th, 2013, the Costa Concordia had engaged in a similar near Island sail without any incident. Cinelli (2012) reports that passing closer to islands such as Giglio is a widespread practice in the Italian cruise industry. However, Captain Schettino took a great risk by going closer to the Island than was reasonably safe.Advertising Looking for report on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Top company officials agree that while ships deviate from the passage plan and pass close to the shore, such manoeuvres are only engaged in under safe conditions. Captain Schettino was travelling at a higher speed than was safe when making his fly-by salute pass to the Island. The ship was moving at the relatively high speed of 15knots when moving in the dangerous waters close to the Island. Brazier (2012) states that this speed was unsafe since the ship was moving in close proximity to obstacles and at such a speed, the captain would not be able to make the manoeuvres necessary to avoid a collision or stop the ship in case of an emergency. A former cruise ship captain explains that the near-shore salutes are conducted at very low speeds (5 knots) to ensure the safety of the ship. On realizing that the ship was sailing too close to the coast, the captain ordered a number of manoeuvres to be made in an attempt to avoid disaster. Forensic reports by MIT (2012) indicate that the Ship M aster ordered the ship to turn â€Å"hard to starboard† saving the ship’s bow from the shallows and then â€Å"hard to port† to try save the ship’s stern. However, this move did not help and the port side of the hull hit the rocks. The captain changed the direction and attempted to resume the initial course of the ship. However, the ship had suffered great damage and it started listing due to the heavy water intake through its hull. When Captain Schettino realized that the ship was taking in water, he turned the ship’s direction and eventually grounded the ship successfully. In his court trial, the captain’s lawyer asserted that this manoeuvre saved many lives since if the ship had been left to drift into deeper waters, it would have sunk into the deep sea drowning hundreds of passengers and crew (BBC, 2012). The captain gave orders for the Coast Guard to be called in and gave the call to abandon ship. However, the captain did not remain in the ship to oversee the evacuation process. Pisa and Hall (2012) reveal that the captain abandoned the ship before rescue operations had been completed. He was able to communicate with the Coast Guard from a lifeboat even as evacuation efforts were going on in his ship. The Italian Coast Guard ordered him to return to the ship and oversee the evacuation of his passengers and crew. However, Captain Schettino claimed that the ship was tilted at a steep angle making it impossible for him to return to the ship. In the days following the accident, Schettino was bitterly criticized for his irresponsible action following the accident. Further investigations into Captain Schettino’s past revealed that the 52-year-old had a record of sailing accidents. Schettino had been involved in a cruise ship accident just 2 years before the devastating Costa Concordia accident. Pisa and Hall (2012) report that while commandeering another cruise ship, the Costa Atlantica in German, Captain Schetti no had had an incident that caused damage to the cruise ship on June 2010. While no casualties were suffered during this accident, its cause was a miscalculation by the captain who had made his entry into the German port of Warnemunde at a higher speed than was safe. Crew Action Before the accident, the crew was engaged in typical ship operation based on their respective assignments. The first crew members to realize that an incident had occurred were the engine crew. The engine crew department gained knowledge of the flooding in the engine room at 9:55 pm (exactly 10 minutes after the crash) and the chief engineer promptly informed the crew on the bridge about the flooding (MIT 2012). The Engineering crew assessed the extent of the flooding in the engine room and concluded that it was substantial. A message was therefore passed on to the bridge with the captain being informed about the major flooding. The accident caused a major commotion on deck and some passengers wanted to know what was going on. The crew serving on deck tried to keep the passengers calm. They informed the passengers that the ship was suffering from some minor problems and it would recover in a little while. The passengers were requested to remain in their rooms and stay calm even as some passengers tried to make their way to the bridge. Once the captain had announced that the ship was in trouble, the crew asked the passengers to put on their life jackets. The ship’s captain ordered his crew to inform the Coast Guard of the failure in the ship at 22:25 and a request was made for rescue operations to begin. The Crew assisted the passengers to put on their safety jacket and oversaw the loading of the lifeboats. Crew members were also responsible for lowering the lifeboats and steering the passengers away from the sinking ship and into safety. There was a marked lack of coordination during the evacuation process. Eyewitness accounts from passengers aboard the Concordia reveal that the evacuation process was chaotic with some crew members showing little proficiency in their task. This disorganization increased the time taken to carry out the evacuation process and some analysts suggest that it contributed to the high casualty rate in the accident. Coast Guard Response The Coast Guard was first alerted to the presence of a problem on the Costa Concordia by calls made by passengers aboard the damaged ship at 22:12pm. These passengers contacted the local police with reports that they suspected a major problem on their ship. The MIT (2012) reports that at 10:12pm, the maritime rescue centre attempted to contact the Concordia and find out what was going on. The captain failed to provide the Coast Guard with accurate information concerning the real condition of the Concordia. Data from the ship’s black box voice recorder reveals that the captain told the Coast Guard that the ship was only suffering from a minor blackout in spite of the fact that he had been infor med by the engine room chief that the damage done to the ship was major and the ship could not continue its journey. The captain only made a call to request for help from the Coast Guard at 22:25pm after he realized that the ship was greatly damaged. By 10:39pm, the Coast Guard had dispatched a patrol ship and it was alongside the Ship assessing the situation. Twenty minutes later, Captain Schettino ordered â€Å"Abandon Ship† and the evacuation process progressed. By 11:37 pm, most of the passengers and crew had successfully left the ship and the captain revealed to the Coast Guard that only approximately 300 persons were on board. T he Coast Guard assisted in the rescue operation of persons who had jumped overboard into the seawater to escape from the sinking ship. Using motor boats, rescue personnel were able to save many individuals from the sea. Search and Rescue By 00:30am, most of the persons on board had been rescued by there were about 50 who could not leave the ship due to its precarious position. The Coast Guard had to dispatch helicopters to save some of these people. The helicopters were also used to rescue the castaways from the seawater. Throughout the night of the accident, the Coast Guard engaged in intense activity to rescue the castaways. They were assisted in this task by the local population who also played a part in retrieving of persons from the water. Search operations continued both at sea and on board the ship with survivors being transferred to hospitals in the nearby island. Rescue operations were undertaken to rescue individuals trapped in the ship. Underwater search operators blew the doors of submerged cabins and 30 bodies were found, mostly at deck 4 of the Concordia. Rescue operations had to be halted for a few hours on 16 January 2012 following bad weather conditions. The rough seas and threats of a storm made it impossible for rescue personnel to continue with their activities. However, the weather cleared and the resc ue operations were resumed with more dead bodies being retrieved from the sunken ship. On 18th January, the rescue operations were suspended as the Coast Guard feared that the Costa Concordia was sinking deeper and it would move into the deep rough seas. The search and rescue operations continued until 31st January when the operations were officially terminated. This termination occurred since the Italian authorities concluded that there was little probability of finding any more live passengers and the risk to the rescue divers was therefore unjustifiable. Findings on the Accident All the evidence indicates that the accident was caused by human error and in particular, the actions of the ship’s captain, Francesco Schettino. The Costa Concordia accident was caused by the captain’s order to divert the ship from its normal course and sail closer to the island. The captain must be held responsible for his decision to deviate from the original voyage plan and sail close to the island. The report indicates that the captain’s decision to change the original course of the voyage was done without the consent of the company’s top management. Captain Schettino also demonstrated a lack of competence by sailing at a high speed in hazardous waters and failing to react immediately the risk was perceived. The captain should have issued the order for the ship to change course as soon as signs of danger became apparent. However, the captain himself admits that his order for the ship to be turned was issued too late. The captain is responsible for the significantly high number of deaths and injuries after the accident. He exercised poor leadership by failing to give orders as soon as he was made aware of the damages caused by the collision. The MIT (2012) reveals that Captain Schettino failed to take any immediate action when the Chief engineer informed him of the flooding in the engine room. This document demonstrates that the captain delayed in sou nding the alarm. He did not admit to the relevant authorities that the ship was in trouble in good time. Consequently, timely steps were not taken to abandon the ship as soon as possible. Following the collision with the rock, Captain Schettino attempted to resume the original course of the Ship instead of contacting the nearest harbour for assistance. The ship’s engineer had warned the captain that the contact with the rock had caused significant damage to the ship’s hull. MIT (2012) notes that the delay in sounding the â€Å"General Emergency† alarm led to loss of time that could have been taken to abandon the ship before it took in too much water and put the lives of more passengers in danger. While most of the blame falls on the captain, some blame can be allocated to the blame. The company that managed the crew ship is also to blame for the incident. To begin with, the top company officials were responsible for hiring the ship’s senior personnel incl uding Captain Schettino. This report has demonstrated that Schettino did not have a clean record since he had been involved in another incident while captaining a ship in German waters. The company should not have employed a captain who had a history of making mistakes while at sea. The decision by Captain Schettino to deviate from the official course can be blamed on the organizational culture of the company. In as much as the company insists that the near shore salute carried out by Schettino was unauthorized, this report reveals that passing close by islands such as Giglio was a common practice by the company’s ships. Since there are no records of captains in the past being reprimanded for such action, it can be surmised that the company did not disapprove of this dangerous practice. The public assertions by Costa Crociere’s management that Captain Schettino acted against company policy by changing the route of the vessel are an attempt to shift all the blame to Sch ettino (Johnston, 2012). The company is therefore responsible for endorsing a dangerous practice by its ship captains. Fig 3: Proof that the Concordia had sailed near the island in the past Reaction by Cruise Lines The Costa Concordia disaster evoked a reaction from the cruise ship industry. The Costa Concordia accident was disastrous since it led to the death of 32 people and damages to the â‚ ¬450 million mega ship. Players in this industry were shocked by the magnitude of the losses in human life that the disaster led to and the material loss caused by the sinking of the multimillion-dollar ship. The accident also led to a negative public perception of the cruise ship industry. Until then, cruise lines had established themselves as the â€Å"safest forms of holiday† and grabbed a significant market share in the holiday travel industry. It was therefore important for cruise lines to reassure the public of the safety of cruise ships. Cruise lines therefore set out to imp lement reforms to ensure that cruise ship safety was improved in the post-Concordia days. New Policies for Safety at Sea A significant policy change that was triggered by the Costa Concordia disaster is with regard to the time when passengers are informed of safety protocols. At the time of the Concordia disaster, the laws in place required the ship to inform passengers of the emergency evacuation procedures and the safety protocols within 24hours of being on the ship (Bender, 2012). However, the Concordia disaster highlighted that this law is flawed since if a disaster occurs before the 24 hours, the passengers will not have been given instructions on how to deal with a disaster. Major cruise lines therefore decided to make use of new regulations that require passengers to be informed of the emergency procedures and protocols before the ship begins its journey. The Costa Concordia accident highlighted the inefficiency in ship emergency protocols. In particular, the incident demonst rated that most crew members were not adequately trained on how to deal with emergencies. Cruise lines have tried to come up with robust arrangements for dealing with emergencies and ensuring that an adequate number of trained personnel are available to handle the emergencies. Crew members are today better trained on how to manage an emergency such as the one involving the Costa Concordia. Brazier (2012) reveals that Cruise lines ensure that crew members are familiarized with emergency tasks and role that they might have to undertake in case of a Concordia-like disaster. Cruise lines made changes to the training of the crew members for emergency preparedness (Archer, 2013). Changes were also implemented in the configuration of life jackets. Previously, life jackets were primarily placed in the cabins of the passengers. Following the Concordia disaster, it became apparent that passengers might not have time to go back to their cabins following an emergency. New policies therefore req uire extra life jackets to be placed near the lifeboats so that passengers can access these safety devices without being forced to go to their cabins. Hondro (2012) explains that because of this new regulation, each cruise ship will be equipped with significantly more lifejackets than the number of passengers on board. Recommendations for Future Safety In addition to the changes already embarked on by the cruise ship industry, there are additional changes that can contribute to the future safety of cruise ships. Ships should be fitted with the most sophisticated devices to warn the Captain and crew about possible collisions with undersea objects in good time (Brazier, 2012). In the case of the Costa Concordia collision, the captain did not receive an early warning and he allowed the ship to continue on its doomed course. The navigation tools used should also be updated to include all significant features especially near shores. The ship captain revealed that the rocks that caused th e disaster were not visible on the nautical chart he was using to navigate. Major decisions by the captain should be made in collaboration with other crew members. The captain of the cruise ship should be required to obtain some input from other knowledgeable members of his crew when making key decisions to minimize the risk of human error. In the case of the Costa Concordia accident, the captain made the order to deviate from the computer-generated course unilaterally. Brazier (2012) observes that when one person is required to take all the key decisions with no input from others, the risk of human error increases. It is conceivable that if the captain had involved key members of his crew in the decision-making, someone would have recognized the error in this course of action and brought this information to the attention of the captain (Tyler, 2012). All cruise ships should have crew members that are conversant in the major languages used by the passengers. This will ensure that th ere is no communication breakdown between the crew members and the passengers in times of an emergency. In the Costa Concordia case, most of the crew members were not able to express themselves in English despite the fact that most of the passengers communicated in this language. The evacuation process was therefore prolonged and chaotic since crew members could not issue understandable instructions to all the passengers. Cruise ship captains should be required to stick to the original voyage plan drawn before the ship leaves harbour. The captain should not have the discretion to change the course of the ship except in the case of an emergency. The Concordia disaster was primarily caused by the error by the captain when he changed from the original computer generated course of the ship. The capacity of future cruise ships should be reduced to less than 2000 passengers. In spite of all the safety mechanisms, disasters can happen while at sea. The huge capacity of cruise lines makes t he impact more serious because of the difficulties of evacuating thousands of passengers in an emergency. More modestly sized cruise ships would present less of a danger since evacuation efforts would be less complex. A thorough vetting process should be used when hiring the ship’s top personnel including the captain. This vetting process should eliminate any candidate who has a history of negligence or incompetence at work (Drabek, 2013). Such a process will ensure that incompetent captains are never allowed to sail and put the lives of thousands at risk while at sea. Conclusion This report set out to outline the events of the night that the Costa Concordia disaster occurred with the intention of clearly demonstrating what went wrong and who is to blame for the incident. It began by providing details of the events that led to the accident along the shores of Giglio Island. From the information provided, it is evident that Captain Schettino is to blame for the disaster. Howev er, the report has shown that the company is also responsible since it promoted a faulty culture or sailing close to islands and also hired Captain Schettino; a man with a previous shipping accident record. The report has stated that the Costa Concordia case can provide valuable lessons that can be used to ensure the future safety of cruise ships. Based on the accident, new regulations have been implemented by industry leaders to increase the safety of cruise ships. With stringent safety standards in place, it can be expected that another disaster of the Costa Concordia scale will be avoided and in case it does occur, the emergency procedures will be greatly organized leading to minimal or even no casualties. References Archer, J. (2013). Costa Concordia: is cruising safer, one year on? Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/9795647/Costa-Concordia-is-cruising-safer-one-year-on.html BBC. (2012). Costa Concordia Disaster. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/w orld-europe-16563562. Bender, K. (2012). Costa Concordia Disaster Sparks New Regulation: May Be Too Late to Salvage Business. The Global Business Law Review, 1(2), 1-3. Brazier, A. (2012). What can we learn from the Costa Concordia? Loss Prevention Bulletin, 224 (1), 8-9. Cinelli, A. (2012). Costa Concordia captain claims ship managers told him to take cruise liner close to shore, transcript shows. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/25/costa-concordia-captain-claims-ship-managers-told-him-to-take-cruise-liner-close-to-shore-transcript-shows/ Drabek, T.E. (2013). The Human Side of Disaster. NY: CRC Press. Hondro, M. (2012). Tragedy of Costa Concordia leads to new cruise ship regulations. Retrieved from: http://digitaljournal.com/article/323985 Johnston, A. (2012). Concordia hearing: Scapegoat fears for captain Schettino. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17218879 Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (MIT). (2012). Marine Accident Investigatio n C/S Costa Concordia. Rome: Italian Maritime Investigative Body on Marine Accidents. Ognibene, S. (2012). Prosecutors target cruise ship captain, Costa executives. Retrieved from: http://www.webcitation.org/65mQ7BysG. Pisa, N., Hall, A. (2012). Captain Calamity had already crashed another cruise ship before hitting the rocks in Costa Concordia. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108790/Costa-Concordia-Captain-Francesco-Schettino-crashed-ANOTHER-cruise-ship.html Tyler, D. 2012. Costa Concordia aftermath: when is it OK to challenge a captain’s decision? Professional Mariner Journal, 8(2), 32-44. This report on Research Findings from the Costa Concordia Accident was written and submitted by user Myah R. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.