ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
  Print  
Author Topic: Six Dead After COSTA CONCORDIA Runs Aground  (Read 64173 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,920



View Profile
« Reply #90 on: January 19, 2012, 09:34:42 am »

Re the resignation of the RINA Chairman, it makes more sense as reported by Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb4fcc0c-41f6-11e1-9506-00144feab49a.html

It was over his alleged personal remarks concerning Costa Crociere knowledge of the practice of sailing close to Giglio, nothing to do with any possible responsibility of RINA for the tragic events
Report to moderator   Logged
kasco
Quite a regular
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: January 19, 2012, 10:48:30 am »

For Ian and Mike (and of course all others)

Capt Cook had no ETA (Estimated Tima of Arrival) He sailed West and told the admirality that he will be back,,sometime. He did not have to show off a vessel and possibly on top of that a sightseeing tour for paxe. There was no AIS and satellite communication where a "stupid" operator asks the captain why he is 30 min late on the ETA !!!!
My best time of sailing was in the Caribbean Sea on my first ship a german coaster from 84-87 with no Satellite Navigation/communication or any other gimmik. You told the last port agent your ETA and 4 days you were there and not 3 days 22 hrs and 21 min. When arrived the agent in that port shook your hand,,brought a newspaper and fresh breakfast bread. Today he yells at you why you are 30 mins late.
Capt:
100 years after the Titanic and it happens again. Solas was to prevent this type of incident from happening.
I notice that the vessel had her stabilizers deployed. Is this normal in narrow waterways?
30 minutes late arrival-17 minutes late departure! My answer to them always is "Do you want it done right or do you want it done fast?"

Kasco
 


Of course the man is under shock, as well as all others, normal. I stated before already I had a situation in 2009 and the only man aboard who paniked and was at that moment useless
was the Chief Officer.
The press is the worst of all, remember Capt Hazelwood and the Exxon Valdes, he was a drunkard and guilty of all charges the day after the accident happened. Nobody reported that years later his was aquitted of almost all charges.
And also there the same as now with Costa Lines, Exxon filed a billion dollar lawsuit against him, up to the accident he was one of the Captains who took a lot of newbuildings
into service, the day after he was dumped and the press delivered the kinfes.
If I ever have a accident (God help me not) the press will not hear from me one word.  They have only ratings in their heads and nothing else. Humanity is not in their books !!!

The official findings will take month if not years, as Phil stated before too, look the other way,,1000s passenger were safely rescued



Report to moderator   Logged
allgramps
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: January 19, 2012, 11:27:52 am »

hi all first time on here with one question after hearing all you have said which is very interesting and informative and seeing the ais plan If the captain had stopped the ship after the collision instead of going hard to port to turn it around would the ship have keeled over or staid afloat ?
Report to moderator   Logged
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: January 19, 2012, 11:33:43 am »

Perhaps not, but it could have sunk.
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,973



View Profile WWW
« Reply #94 on: January 19, 2012, 11:49:16 am »

With the stabilizers, I really don,t know,,to my knowledge (which might be very well incorrect) those things are either retrievable and sometimes not. But looking at the weather, and area most probably this way or that they were not needed at that time.

For the "just stopping"  most probably not. But honestly I do not know if she struck already something during the hard course change or if that was only done to avoid the grounding in the first place. Seems to me that at the initial course change she did
not ground, because she veered hard over to the other side and grounding there then with
that side. But as stated before,, is it all speculation or truth ?,, the findings will take a while,, the VDR (Voyage Data Recorder) can tell most probably all of it. There is vitually anything recorded what can happen,,from engine rpm and vessels speed/course/rudder
angels to voice recording on what was spoken on the bridge and the relevant radar images   etcetc
It should pretty clearly inidicate why it really happen
all else is in the mean time rather mere speculation,,special if one goes by that what the media reports
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
holedrille
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: January 19, 2012, 05:15:56 pm »

Have you seen the fascinating video plot of Concordia's last hours?
As is widely known, it shows her approaching the island at 15 knots. When she gets a short distance SE of the port she starts turning to starboard and such is the severity of the course change she crabs violently, effectively hitting the rock going sideways at 20.44. This reduces her speed abruptly to 10 knots and knocks her heading back to the left. After this she carries on in a NNE direction at 10 knots reducing to 5 past the entrance to the harbour, before coming to a stop at 21.02. She then turns on the spot to the right (bow thruster?) and moves in a crabbing motion at a speed of between 0.5 and 1.5 knots SSW towards the shore, where she grounds at 21.54. Note the long time to travel a mile or two. This to me is clearly drifting, not motoring. The impact with the shore is at less than 1 knot and was as much sideways as forward, but may have been instrumental in causing a starboard list.
Two points arise from this:-
1. Her final turn was to starboard, not to port as most previous information suggested.
2. She drifted ashore, and was not driven by any action of the crew.
Holedriller
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,973



View Profile WWW
« Reply #96 on: January 19, 2012, 11:32:06 pm »

hmmmm,
I saw now the AIS and his track. Now I would like to point out the following

Questions coming up

a) when approaching the coast, was the master on the bridge. ?
   Usually on such ships not the norm, could be however.

b) Did he give instructions to the OoW (Officer of the Watch)
   to go close, and did he specify how close ?

c) when the vessel struck first, it veered to stb, then easy turned
   around over stb and then towards the coast with stb side
   Through the free surfaces of the rushing water into the ship, he might have had
   during the turning already a list to stb,,which increased rapidly and then

d) did the capt do it on purpose, the 2nd grounding , it moved rather
   quick towards the coast, that seems not to be the currents

e) If he did it on purpose then he really might have through that maneuvre saved 1000,s of 
   lives

Sounds incredible,,but could very well be.

This is an area with no flat water,,he does not have a place where he might go and
sink but not going under water or anchoring. Almost the whole italian coast is deep and steep and he as ltalian capt would have known that. The only option was most probably, either ground the vessel on that rock on purpose or sinking involved with capsizing rather quick in deep water with the loss of 1000s lives possible ?  Or going aground and saving most of them ? In other words buying time to evacuate the passengers and crew.

Thats a matter if he can prove that, Voyage Data recorder would show what happened maneuver wise also what was recorded voice wise.
Of course that does not excuse the proximity to the first grounding place,, but nevertheless
afterwards he might have done the exact right thing.

Reminds me of the Exxon Valdez, where the Capt was crucified but the 2.Officer in reality did the grounding, and that in rather open waters.


Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
peterredd
Quite a regular
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: January 20, 2012, 03:05:00 am »

I hear that the Captain tripped and fell into a life boat... How does that sound Hey Huh
Report to moderator   Logged

Just love ships
Mats
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 786


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: January 20, 2012, 01:01:53 pm »

Costa apparently says delay in evacuating was "unjustifiable", and that no lives would have been lost had they evacuated immediately:

http://www.tradewindsnews.com/costa/662597/evacuation-too-late
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,973



View Profile WWW
« Reply #99 on: January 20, 2012, 01:29:32 pm »

yes,,now he is digging his own grave

but what concerns me is this
""The Costa chief went on to say that captains have too much control and on-shore alarms should be triggered when a ship leaves its planned route"".

something like that is virtually already in place in most places, like VTS, Vessel Traffic Systems. The problem with that would be,,if a alarm triggers and someone gets alerted, who
is in charge ? The VTS,,the Master ? Does the land authority then take over responsibility ?
It will be a very difficult matter to implement and to decide.
I know only one thing, that evertime something happens,,some new regulation is implemented
with usually installation of more technical gimmicks, where the officers will NOT be trained for,, what they hear,, read the "MANUAL" 
The main reason why on ships nowadays are rather small crews is the automatisation of vessels, only we have now that much of it, when something goes wrong, no people there to deal with it.
The only way to make shipping safe is take the peoples off from the ships, fly airplanes automatic and cars and buses on magnetic lanes,,etcetc
not really a world where one would want to live.
No excuse for the guy, but accidents happen and will keep happen,, and very often accidents
are resulting out of stupid decisions. No accident happens because someone sat down and thought it through, and even then.
I guess we just "forbid accidents by itself to happen" and all the world will be in order for good :-))
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
MarineWeather
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 3



View Profile WWW
« Reply #100 on: January 20, 2012, 02:34:42 pm »

You may find the below track reconstruction quite interesting:



It seems like when they hit a rock (near Le Scole island), engines went off and Concordia was in intertia motion. Then, when it'd finally stopped the wind start to drifitng it towards shore

image source: http://www.navsim.pl/about_navsim/news.html
Report to moderator   Logged

MarineWeather.eu
Marcelo Rovida
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: January 20, 2012, 04:59:37 pm »

However, i read somewhere the actual hole in the hull is confirmed to be only 48.8m. I would think that if she did not sustain any other damages on the other side, she should have not tilted over. Am I wrong ?

It doesn't really matter how large the hole is. What matters is how many and which compartments are flooded. In this case it was apparently more than the ship could handle (2-3).

As for capsizing, if you have a partially-filled compartment, you'll get so-called free surface effect (water sloshing around), which greatly reduces the stability of the vessel. This has capsized ships (Herald of Free Enterprise, Estonia) in the past. Although in basic damage stability calculations the ruptured compartments are usually considered either lost buoyancy or extra mass, if the hole is small enough, they will act like partially-filled tanks instead and might capsize the ship e.g. during a turn.

This is also why the Costa Concordia capsized on the "wrong" side - the captain turned hard to port.

aren't these ships being built extremely high and thus compromising the balance point ? I mean..they seem to be like real inverted icebergs and therefore making it easier when losing the perfect balance for any reason, to tilt over ?

The superstructure of a modern cruise ship is relatively light. It is built of aluminium and high-strength steel, and contains large open spaces. On the other hand, the hull is thicker and contains heavy machinery and propulsion system components, fuel tanks etc. that keep the center of gravity down. Also, with ships it is not necessary to have the center of gravity below the center of buoyancy - what matters is the so-called metacentric height (you might want to google that, along with basics of ship stability), which must remain positive. However, if it's too large and the ship is "over-stable", it will be very uncomfortable for the passengers and the crew.

You can tilt an intact modern cruise ship quite a lot and it will still righten itself. I don't think the classic liners were considerably more stable.

I am just being very dramatic, but I am not even sure if a simulation like this exists on these projects or they are just pure calculations.

You can easily do extensive damage stability calculations with advanced ship design programs such as NAPA, although it might be that they only test if the ship passes the requirements (e.g. two compartments), not what would happen if three or four compartments were filled.

Anyway, with today's computer programs there is no need to make such tests in reality as long as the ship model corresponds to the actual ship.

Another thing i read about Concordia project is that it did not have a double hull. Most ships are said to have it if the navigation conditions or areas where the ship navigates demand so. Since I am not an expert and just wondering many things after this, if someone could explain, i would appreciate. Of course i can imagine that the cost involved would be very high that would not be feasible, but I would like to understand the opinion of someone that understands better.

All ships have double bottom, but AFAIK complete double hull is only mandatory for tankers, ro-ro ships and perhaps bulk carriers. I guess it is left out if there is otherwise not enough space inside the hull - the side compartments can take quite a lot of space and they can not really be used for anything because cruise ships don't need that much water ballast.

Double hulls are not very expensive, but it's more of a design issue.

Thanks a lot Tuomas !! You cleared a lot of my doubts and i can see the situation now in a different way and it became much more understandable now.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,973



View Profile WWW
« Reply #102 on: January 20, 2012, 11:25:57 pm »

What I wondering a little

there were seemingly no black outs (that,s correct, total loss of power I mean). The vessel was lighted on the rocks as far as I know.
If there was power,, those ships have rather powerfull bow and stern thrusters. With those
in operation the Capt could have easy over come 12 kn wind. Somehow it does not fit unless he really intentionally beached the vessel because he realized that she will capsize.

That would be interesting to know.


Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: January 21, 2012, 08:21:56 am »


Somehow it does not fit unless he really intentionally beached the vessel because he realized that she will capsize.

I am quite sure the ship was intentionally beached to prevent it from sinking. Didn't the captain claim that he saved teh passengers by doing that?
Report to moderator   Logged
Allan RO
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,617


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: January 21, 2012, 10:34:19 am »

Hi there

It is stated in the forum posts above that she rolled to starboard because of a hard turn to port - there is absolutely no evidence on the AIS charts of any hard turn to port, in fact she turns slowly to starboard before she heads back to her final resting position, surely this raises the possibility of further damage to the side of the hull that can not be seen.

Allan
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved