ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
  Print  
Author Topic: Six Dead After COSTA CONCORDIA Runs Aground  (Read 57416 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
canberra97
Shiplover
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 158

Southampton Based Ship Lover


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2012, 05:16:26 am »

Townsend Thoresen at the time of the Herald of Free Enterprise distaster in 1987 was already going through the process of being renamed P&O Ferrys it was that disaster that finally put to bed the name of Townsend Thoresen which obviously P&O wanted to distance them selfs from.

It is with great sadness this accident happened and with all the history assocaited with Costa Line I can see the name gradually dissappearing and the fleet absorbed into other parts of the Carnival group especially as the Concordia and her fellow sisters are the same as the Carnival vesssels of the same class.

Although the cruise industry will over come this I think the name Costa has been ruined and this incident will seriously dent the image of the company with the general public who I think will avoid this company in the future!

Once this all settles down and Carnival have to make some harsh decisions I can see AIDA Cruises being operated as a separate identity as it is currently managed by Costa, even though the ships are operated by the German Aida Cruises brand they are registered in Genoa.
Report to moderator   Logged

Cunard Line 1983/1987
British Channel Island Ferries,B.C.I.F. 1987/1993
Geest Line 1993/1993
P&O European Ferries 1993/1993
Stena Line 1993/1996
P&O Ferries 1997/98
Intercruises 2006/2013
Carnival Port Ops 2014
Red Funnel Ferries 2015
Marcelo Rovida
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: January 18, 2012, 06:07:42 pm »


Second ....100 years after Titanic's tragedy, it seems our Naval Engineers should be taken back to school if their projects cannot maintain such a monster perfectly leveled when water comes in. The modern ship projects are said to contain the water in the damaged compartment perfectly leveled in order to prevent the tilting to one of the sides...Can anyone help me to understand if this is not true ? In a ship that is 290m in length, 60m opening is too much for the structure to stay leveled ? I wondered if that opening would have been done by an Iceberg like in the titanic case in deep waters or by a hit from a tanker or other huge vessel. It would mean that the 112.000t liner would be now resting in the bottom of the ocean somewhere and a tragedy with more casualties would have happened for sure.

The comparison with Titanic is apt in that the length is similar (269 m versus 290 m for Concordia) while the rupture in the hull also has a similar length (90 m).
That is more than 30% of the ships hull, damaging more than 3 adjacent compartments.

In damage stability calculations the maximum damage length is much smaller. All compartments are so designed that when damaged, water automatically distributes over the width of the ship (normally U shaped compartments), so no pumps are involved in this.
The remaining intact part of the ship provides sufficient stability to keep the ship upright.

Should however more than 3 compartments become flooded to such an extent that the bilge pumps would not be able to keep up then that is the equivalent of wings falling of an aeroplane, it's the end of the line.

So a gash of 90 metres is simply too much, for Titanic as well as for Concordia.
 

Thanks for the reply. I appreciated ! 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 ?

Another point i would like to raise..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 ?

Whatever the reason was for the tilt over, i believe there should be more serious discussions and revisions on the real security of the actual cruise ships. If her sister ships by any chance would hit another ship (cargo, tanker)that would damage the hull at these extents in deep waters, then the tragedy would be repeated with even more dramatic proportions.

I confess that I never ever imagined that such a huge ship could tilt over easily like this or sunk. I always heard of the outstanding security measures to prevent an accident, but i guess they have never actually been tested under the toughest situations.

I might be saying something completely out of any logic (economical reasons) but i would like to see these ships before launching to pass a sunken test. For instance, testing how much water the ship can make before it tilts or it sunks. 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.

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.

Thank you !


Report to moderator   Logged
Fergal Clohessy
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 331


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: January 18, 2012, 06:15:14 pm »

I wonder if the sudden evasive maneuver carried out by the Capt after hitting the rock could have caused it to keel over?
Report to moderator   Logged
stantheman
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: January 18, 2012, 06:16:14 pm »

What puzzels me is the fact that Cosco Concordia was damaged on the PORT side, yet rolled to STARBOARD. What's the reason for that?
Is there more damage on the Starboard side?
Report to moderator   Logged
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 306


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: January 18, 2012, 08:55:03 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Phil English
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,446


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: January 18, 2012, 09:31:03 pm »

Tuomas,

Thank you so much for that very interesting insight into modern cruise ship design. I've been wanting to read something like that for ages, if only to dismiss the eternal snipes of the less well informed who insist that the old, traditional passenger ships are better designed than their modern counterparts.

Cheers
Phil
Report to moderator   Logged
kyle pesely
Quite a regular
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: January 18, 2012, 10:17:39 pm »

agreed.

thanks Tuomas for shedding some light on the design.

please keep the facts coming. i love when discussions get technical.
Report to moderator   Logged
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,861



View Profile
« Reply #82 on: January 18, 2012, 11:06:44 pm »

Yet another (possible) twist:

"President of RINA Resigns, Possible Consequence of Costa Concordia Incident"
<http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/president-of-rina-resigns-possible-consequence-of-costa-concordia-incident?mid=581285>

Seems pretty speculative, so perhaps 2 + 2 = 5?
Report to moderator   Logged
Clyde Dickens
FAQ Administrator
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,492



View Profile
« Reply #83 on: January 19, 2012, 12:30:10 am »

Phil and Kyle

I agree with both of you.  The type of information Tuomas has supplied adds to the quality of the site.  Which cannot be said for predictable repetitions of tedious themes.  

Modified later to add

Thank you also Ted, for the same reason.  We are better informed by the site than any public media reports I have seen
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 12:43:05 am by Clyde Dickens » Report to moderator   Logged

To view some of the shipspotting sites I use, see the listing at  http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=510326.
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #84 on: January 19, 2012, 12:32:32 am »

Jan & Fergal

If a hole is ripped, water rushes in and a "free surface" is created. you can imagine that water "runs" around and is not a stable medium. When this ship hit one side the rock, it was steered seemingly hard over to the other side. This hard rudder giving will list a ship to the opposite side of which the rudder is placed "hard port gives a stb list" for example. The water will move instantly to the other side and therefore increases rapidly the list (heeling) to the opposite side. As you can imagine, once that happens the vessel looses also rapidly on stability to the point that it could capsize.
It has happened in the past,,that cargoes were shifted due to bad weather and created a list to one side, then the mistake often happens that ballat water is pumped to the opposite
side. The danger there is that once the midship-upright level is reached it can happen with very little rolling (listing) that suddenly the list increases rapidly to the opposite side because the water is not "fixed contained, but loosely in a tank" and sloshes without stop to the other side of the tank and then the shifted cargo may slide back and the list becomes far greater to that side then it was to the other (bulkers are in this danger because of the repose angel of grain (grain slides very quick at about 23 degrees). Ships capsized because of that. Here with this passenger ship most probably happened the same or in the progress,,first on the rocks,,hard rudder,, plus water ingress,, water sloshes over to the other side and increases the "loosing stability momentum" .
In one way they might have been lucky that they right away went to the other side onto rocks, if not they really might have capsized with the result of not 11? dead, but possibley 100,s if not 1000,s

brgds
capt ted
Report to moderator   Logged

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

Posts: 139


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: January 19, 2012, 12:41:44 am »

I think she capsized due to the "free surfaces" of water in the engine room.She lost her stability.
And the people on the ship can be very lucky,that this happened in this position on the rock and not at open sea!
Report to moderator   Logged
Ian Horsfall
Quite a regular
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: January 19, 2012, 03:12:53 am »

With all due Respect Capt. Ted & Mooringman, Schettino is is a Wanker
Explain to me how Capt. Cook can Sail from England to Aussie 3 times with no Modern Navi Aids and return home to England and this Clown can,t find his way out of the Med, what a disgrace to Seaman of all Nationalites Schettino is , That is if all the Reports we have Listened to and have read are true,
Ianh 
Report to moderator   Logged
peterredd
Quite a regular
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: January 19, 2012, 04:50:06 am »

I just love reading topics that bring out so much information from members of this site.I read a lot online from all over the world and i would have to say on a subject like this one i get the best..From Shipspotting..You get a lot more information from people like yourselves whom have worked in the industry or have sound knowledge on such issues, than from ill informed Media..Keep up the good work..  



Cheers
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 05:01:06 am by peterredd » Report to moderator   Logged

Just love ships
Mike Cornwall
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,050


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: January 19, 2012, 07:54:24 am »

With all due Respect Capt. Ted & Mooringman, Schettino is is a Wanker
Explain to me how Capt. Cook can Sail from England to Aussie 3 times with no Modern Navi Aids and return home to England and this Clown can,t find his way out of the Med, what a disgrace to Seaman of all Nationalites Schettino is , That is if all the Reports we have Listened to and have read are true,
Ianh 
Ianh,

I do think you are being a little judgemental here.
You and I have no real idea what really happened because WE WERE NOT THERE.
Whilst I agree it looks as though he made a cock up, that has yet to be proved, he at least deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I think it is absolutely despicable the way he has been pilloried in the press.
As to his behavour afterwards, I "think" he has suffered a panic attack and has gone into some sort of shutdown mode.
I am sure there is a medical term for this, but his actions appear not to be that a person thinking rationally.
We shouldn't condemn him for this, how the hell would any of us react in this situation. I am not sure all of us would come up smelling of roses. some of us would excel, some would not. We are all different.
What I do find absolutely abhorent is the behavour of his employer. They way they have dumped on him is beyond the pale. The other skippers in their fleet must be looking over their shoulders and asking questions.
This is a truly appalling accident with some real incompetence somewhere, but lets wait, cool down, and see what the enquiries report.

Get off the old mans back.
Report to moderator   Logged

Hilifta
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #89 on: January 19, 2012, 08:28:30 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.

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

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.059 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved