ShipSpotting.com Forum
Shipspotters all over the world => Shipping News and information => Topic started by: Kyle Stubbs on January 14, 2012, 04:34:04 AM
-
Just saw this article posted in my local news, haven't seen much else on it yet. Sounds pretty bad, six dead, and the remainder of those on board being evacuated from the vessel. The "position" of the ship off the island of Giglio is described as "worsening," which sounds rather ominous.
The article I saw is here:
Reports: Cruise Ship Aground Off Italy, 6 Dead (http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Reports-cruise-ship-aground-off-Italy-6-dead-137330463.html)
UPDATE:
A much more detailed article, Cruise Ship Runs Aground Off Italy; Deaths Reported (http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/13/10152446-cruise-ship-runs-aground-off-italy-deaths-reported) is found on MSNBC.
This article includes a couple images of the vessels condition, and describes her as having a 20 degree list, but not in danger of sinking. Said of just over 4,200 people on board, several were thrown off when the accident happened, and the condition warranted an abandoned ship, first by lifeboat, and with increasing list, now by helicopter.
-
Seems as if it happened at the entrance to the port! picture at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9014706/Two-dead-and-thousands-evacuated-as-cruise-ship-runs-aground-off-coast-of-Italy.html
-
this is the type of situation that you hear about in shipping from a hundred years ago.
people have lost their lives, a few officers and a captain are about to lose their careers, and Carnival is going to be paying out the future lawsuits from this for at least the next decade.
such a shame.
i can only begin to wonder what the scenario was here, and how much human error played a factor.
-
from the pictures it looks like shes just offshore, so i can only guess that if the sea wins this battle that she wont be completely submerged.
at that point you can only hope she doesnt roll over.
-
Have just seen on TV here that she has capsized. About a third of the hull is above water. But she is on her side.
-
this is the type of situation that you hear about in shipping from a hundred years ago.
people have lost their lives, a few officers and a captain are about to lose their careers, and Carnival is going to be paying out the future lawsuits from this for at least the next decade.
such a shame.
i can only begin to wonder what the scenario was here, and how much human error played a factor.
I agree what a mess up [putting it mildly] a lot of paper work has just been created..This day an age it makes one wonder how this can happen. Was no one on the bridge..
-
Horrible.
(http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/s/s/19/media19/2012/Jan/14/LiveLeak-dot-com-32680cef1e08-6562f58a65d3ade5ffdb1baaf212adeb4233967925-1326525.png.resized.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bad5904847dad46f98&ec_rate=300)
-
http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/14/foto/uno_squarcio_di_70_metri-28082517/1/ (http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/14/foto/uno_squarcio_di_70_metri-28082517/1/)
-
German TV just reported that "at least 3 people died" in that tragic event. If Costa Concordia is already really lying on her side by now, I'm really happy that the evacuation of such an amount of passengers and crew seems to have worked very swift and well organized.
But this accident happened only some hundred yards off the shore. I still won't dare to imagine what will happen if one of these big cruise liners has an accident on the high sea (let's say like the Andrea Doria incident).:-o
-
German TV just reported that "at least 3 people died" in that tragic event. If Costa Concordia is already really lying on her side by now, I'm really happy that the evacuation of such an amount of passengers and crew seems to have worked very swift and well organized.
But this accident happened only some hundred yards off the shore. I still won't dare to imagine what will happen if one of these big cruise liners has an accident on the high sea (let's say like the Andrea Doria incident).:-o
As the news reports start to become based on fact rather than speculation it seems that the incident actually occurred well out to sea but that the Captain, aware that the ship had sustained serious damage, tried to get as close inshore as he could. This may have inadvertently added to the problems by making Concordia take on more water and increasing the list. It's clear that none of the lifeboats or tenders on the starboard side of the ship could be launched because of this. The last 50 people were lifted off by helicopter. It also seems that one of the dead was a male passenger who suffered a heart attack when he jumped into the water to attempt to swim for shore.
J
-
http://www.giglionews.com/isoladelgiglio_porto.jpg
http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/14/foto/uno_squarcio_di_70_metri-28082517/1/
-
A huge gash is visible on the hull:
(http://static.vg.no/uploaded/image/bilderigg/2012/01/14/1326532420750_665.jpg)
-
Have just seen on TV here that she has capsized. About a third of the hull is above water. But she is on her side.
Shades of the Herald of Free Enterprise...
What an appalling situation to be caught up in.
Is this the biggest passenger ship casualty of all time? Must be.
-
Looking at the photo's on http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/14/foto/uno_squarcio_di_70_metri-28082517/1/ it looks like a large rock stuck in the hull!!!!!
-
I wonder how that could happen for a ship built in 2006.
-
Hi
Am in total shock!! Was this on Friday 13th?? That looks like a boulder
Wedged into the side!! How on earth in this day in age could this happen???
Patryk
-
It was only a matter of time before something like this happened to a large cruise ship - just be thankful it happened close to shore and not mid ocean.
I wouldn't be horrifically surprised to see this caused by too many people putting far too much faith in Bridge electronics - as is scarily common today, almost approaching 'the norm'.
The Carnival empire employ a bridge management system called BTCC which is similar to the way aircraft work in that it has a Pilot/Co-Pilot concept, plus (going into Port) the Old Man, Navigator, Staff Captain and numerous ratings on the bridge, all supposed to be feeding information to each other and cross checking each other. That falls down of course, if you're all staring into the same ECDIS screen which is chucking out an erroneous position and nobody is looking out of the window.
Questions will also be asked about why she rolled over - being a new ship, she will have been designed to the latest (and very strict) damage stability standards - hull subdivision and the ability to cross flood is supposed to minimise the possibility of capsize.
Saying that, I know a Naval Architect who designs Super Yachts for a living but also conducts salvage operations, and his opinion is that if 'Titanic' had been designed with the same subdivision rules as modern ships then she wouldn't have slowly sunk by the head, but would have capsized and sank far quicker than she did.
-
Latest pictures on the BBC are here...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16560050
-
all i hope is that everyone that survived makes a good recovery and that the ship can be repaired and refloated
-
Last news.30 more crew members trapped in the vessel interior and rescue operation is still in progress
-
sadly 50-70 peaople reported missing now
-
I hope they have some air inside the vessel
-
Regarding survivability of damage to her port side. Some reports say that there is a gash of 70 metres in her shell plating below the waterline. That would be consistent with hitting a pinnacle or rock with some speed.
Normally passenger vessels are calculated with a 3 compartment damage scenario, meaning 3 adjacent compartments flooded. However it is almost certain that a 70 metre damage length exceeds the distance between two transverse bulkheads (resulting in 3 compartments flooded). More likely that 4 or 5 adjacent compartments were flooded, beyond survivability of the vessel.
On the bridge this would have been visible with the bilge alarm system, so the captain would have known his ship was doomed and headed inshore.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ownv5cMYDkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55dqD-GJeaE
-
My firts thought tonight when a hear the vessel had 20 list and taking on water was the Sea Diamond accident. Sank of Santorini, Creece april 2007.
It took a long time to evacuate the passangers of Sea Diamond and now with twice the number of passengers.
From the accident investigation report of M/S Estonia you learn it
-
Have just seen on TV here that she has capsized. About a third of the hull is above water. But she is on her side.
Shades of the Herald of Free Enterprise...
What an appalling situation to be caught up in.
Is this the biggest passenger ship casualty of all time? Must be.
The biggest passenger ship casualty is the sinking of Wilhelm Gustloff on January 30, 1945. Over 9,000 dead...
-
Have just seen on TV here that she has capsized. About a third of the hull is above water. But she is on her side.
Shades of the Herald of Free Enterprise...
What an appalling situation to be caught up in.
Is this the biggest passenger ship casualty of all time? Must be.
The biggest passenger ship casualty is the sinking of Wilhelm Gustloff on January 30, 1945. Over 9,000 dead...
I think he may have been referring to ship size, in which case, this is likely the largest passenger ship so far to "sink."
-
Ah, ok, thanks Kyle. My fault then, I misunderstood!
-
Concordia has a rock the size a of a house embedded in her starboard (upper) side. Unbelievable!
Also, as the damage is to the starboard side, why has she settled on the port side?
Holedriller
-
Hi,
That
-
She's actually on her starboard side as the pictures clearly show.
The last position plots on the AIS show her approaching Giglio island at more than 15 knots which she would have to pass either on the west or east side in order to proceed to Savona, her destination. This seems like a navigational error.
The track and position relative to the island seems consistent with a gash on the port side.
Passenger vessels are normally designed in such a way that any water entering a compartment is equally distributed over the width of the vessel so that it doesn't develop any list (this would prevent life boat deployment). The design should allow for sufficient damage stability for a 2 or 3 compartment flooding.
However, damage over such a multitude of compartments exceeds the ships stability capacity.
-
Hi, again,
I read that some passegers felt "the ship hitting something" at dinner time.
Is that consistent with the AIS snapshot posted by djvdschoot?
AC
-
this is the second incident involving a Concordia-class vessel in fourteen months.
I can only imagine that Carnival will try refloat her asap and get her out if the direct view out the public. I can only assume she'd go to back to her builders yard since it's just across the Ligurian Sea. having a vessel sink with loss of life is bad enough. having it happen right where the public can watch must be a nightmare.
im sure Mickey Arison won't be sleeping for a while.
-
Have just seen on TV here that she has capsized. About a third of the hull is above water. But she is on her side.
Shades of the Herald of Free Enterprise...
What an appalling situation to be caught up in.
Is this the biggest passenger ship casualty of all time? Must be.
The biggest passenger ship casualty is the sinking of Wilhelm Gustloff on January 30, 1945. Over 9,000 dead...
I think he may have been referring to ship size, in which case, this is likely the largest passenger ship so far to "sink."
That's indeed what I meant, size of ship as opposed to numbers of fatalities.
-
As for refloating her, this is going to be interesting. At least they can mend the hole, which is fortuitously above water! They will have to take the large rock out first.
Then there must be hundreds of holes to seal in the deck which would normally be above water level.
She is a bit big to parbuckle, and what would they tie the lines to on the offshore side. Lots of blxxxy big anchors? We have yet to hear the paranoid cries of fouling of the environment and wildlife with hundreds of tons of fuel and lubricating oil, they will probably start tomorrow. What odds her being broken up on the spot?
I watch with fascination.
Holedriller
-
12 Canadians onboard. 12 Canadiens
-
according to german media, the Master of the Vessel and the 1st Deck Officer got arrested with the suspicion of negligent homicide, also one fact came out that he and the 1st Officer left the stricken vessel before the last passenger.
It will be intersting to find the cause for the tragedy.
link unfortunatly only in german
http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/27/0,3672,8449147,00.html
-
Hi
Captain and first officer held on multiple manslaughter charges and abandon
Ship while other passengers were on danger!!
Patryk
-
Hey
Ur thread was processing same time as mine so sorry to repeat
Same news!! I didn't see ur thread so that's why u posted. I just read
On BBC.co.uk. Regards the ship I think she be broken up were she is??
Patryk
-
Was there a Pilot on this ship at the time she hit the reef? Any cruise ship I've been on had a Pilot when coming into port.
-
Hi,
The wasn't heading to port (in that island).
The accident happened north (4 miles?) of Giglio Port. After hitting the bottom, the captain try to get close of the harbour in order to facilitate the evacution.
AC
-
Hey
I deffo wanna hear a recording from the black box!!
This should be broadcast public and give people a better
Understanding to what's happened!! To many conflicting
Story's and we have a right to know! do u agree?
Patryk
-
this is the second incident involving a Concordia-class vessel in fourteen months.
I can only imagine that Carnival will try refloat her asap and get her out if the direct view out the public. I can only assume she'd go to back to her builders yard since it's just across the Ligurian Sea. having a vessel sink with loss of life is bad enough. having it happen right where the public can watch must be a nightmare.
im sure Mickey Arison won't be sleeping for a while.
Yes i agree imagine having the advertisement for your shipping line, what happens to all the passengers with no passports no money no nothing with them.. This is a logistical nightmare for this company..This will cost the company a fortune and a long long time to settle the many lawsuits coming there way..
Cheers Peter
-
Sad and dramatic scenes:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daBOOwTpYg8
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqXkN0gVFbI
-
The unbelievable became reality, sad reality!
The unique thing to try to stop the fear of potential passengers is to underline that the human stupidity instead of the human error was at the base of this tragedy! Costa Cruises (part of Carnival as we know) is now in trouble because it is almost clear that the emergency was not managed in a good way and that evacuation was caothic! The position where is now laying the ship is not the rock stranding one but a volunteer one to avoid the ship sinking! At the end of the story this was unavoidable! It's a shame for every Italian seafarer to be associated to this accident! In Giglio Island is living the retired Commodore of Costa Cruises and public opinion now knows that on his suggestion to promote the island tourism Costa ships were passing close to shore using the whistle to salute the population of the island and promote the beauty! There are night movies from shore which are amazing but also unbelievable! Ship was passing in a hole between the main island and a rock maybe width 300 meters and with no water below! That is the point for which the absurd happened!
Mickey Arison and his pretorians are onboard his yacht in front of the stranded ship, while an epocal change in Costa Cruises fleet is on the horizion! All Fortuna and Serena Class ships will be transferred 99% to Carnival, registered in Panama and taking 2013-2014 booked passengers in the Caribbean destinations (on passengers volunteer adhesion)! Whale-tail funnel are supposed to be already at building stage! Costa already booked pax will be rescheduled on same itineraries on smaller Costa ships!
Unbeliavable!
-
NOT ANYONE REALLY WONDERING ABOUT THIS,,RIGHT ?
For me is just a chain of things going to happen. There is no way of evacuating 1000,s of passengers in a normal manner when disaster strikes. Even in calm situation a competent and
good crew will have a problem to evacuate them. A bad crew, i.e. all perfect on paper but nothing else works, and panic sets in, things like this are the norm. I had a incident a/b in 2009, and all crew performed good, (smoke out of the engine room, but not a fire) and all were calm,,the only one paniked was the CHIEF OFFICER !!!
What you thing will happen on a passenger ship,,1000s of untrained passengers and only a few
crew which may panik and CHAOS in SQUAE will set in !!!!
On top of that in this case, seemingly STUPIDITY in SQUARE by the Master and Chief officer
most probably under intense pressure giving paxe a show for commercial gain.
I bet, nobody from COSTA LINES top managers will step up and say,,we wanted the Master to get close to such matters to give the passengers something special.
The result is more regulations and rules,,but those don,t eliminate stupidity !!
-
Friends, i believe there are a lot of members in this site that are expert in ships and could help us and specially me to understand some simple but very important issues;
First...Why in hell a ship with this much tech on board would hit a submerged reef (rock) that it was said to be not in the charts ?? As far as i understand..these ships should have several security systems that take over if one malfunctions. Like in planes that have all double..i heard modern ships have even triple !! If even my modest gps unit in a rubber zodiac can tell me precisely the situation under..i cannot understand what happened here !!!
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 only way she is still there and recoverable (maybe) is that it is touching the bottom in shallow waters, otherwise........ I think these issues should be taken very seriously after this tragedy and people should be more responsible when launching these giants to sea.
-
Any safety system is as good as the crew which has to work with it. You can disable almost every of this systems for several reasons (for maintenance or even if you approach to narrow ports, where it makes no sense to get alerted almost every second due to the close shore or ground). I can't believe, that the whole crew were set into panic, otherwise it would be impossible to slip a number of life rafts and boats. There is almost none of the passenger competent to do so. And in contrast to the "Titanic" desaster, the overwhelming majority of passengers and crew got rescued, that even counts for the crew or at least for the majority of them.
At the other hand we should keep in mind, that a tragedy allways can happen and even the best trained crew couldn't forecast every possible situation. Now, every death is far too much, but as reported from ShipPax Information, within the last 25 years more than 300 Million people did a cruise, which equals almost 2,1 Billion passengerdays on board - and 13 (in words: thirteen) passengers died for damage reasons in that period. To cruise is still the safest way of travelling.
Guess all cruise operators have to do their homework now, but there is no reason for any panic at all.
Michael
-
Good day Michael
I absolutely agree there is no reason to panic. The main problem is actually very simple,,why in the hell a ship like that is in a place like that !!!!
Any Master should have said,,no way,,going that close,,does not matter how big the ship. But then, he has to show the passengers and the owners that he is the "Master" who can perform as needed.
Safety systems can be overrided,,de-activated,,but the worst case actually is when people think they know and in reality they don,t know where they are. that,s called simply "safety awardness" . I noticed it very often that officers standing in front of ECDIS (Eletronic Charts) and when you ask them look out of the window,,they have no clue where they are !!!
The main reason for that is,,that nowadays naut officers are teached by people who never sailed. In Germany for example is to my knowledge not one teacher left in the nautical academies who sailed as Master by himself. 30 years ago when I made my license all of our teachers were ex-captains. Nowadays they are professors in their line of teachings, mathematics for example, but if you ask them what is a ship,,they look at you like you are from another planet.
Secondly, all are teached first nowadays how to operate electronic systems and how to push this and that buttom, but almost nothing about that why this or that buttom is pushed and what the results, then viewable, are good for. Nautical schools have 8 semester generally, 6 for theoretical and 2 for praxis, Now the push is on for 7 in schools. More praxis is needed not more school.
Youg nautical officers nowadays have programs to determine from where the wind comes. The wind comes from 271.9 degrees,,not from WEST !!!!!!!
Ever since ECDIS was invented and "forced" onto the ships accidents increased, now is the talk to send all back to school to understand ECDIS,, First one has to understand how a ship is functioning and how it gets from A to B and then I can get the gadgets which may make life easier,,not the other way around.
But then I guess, I am an old guy who does not know what he is talking about
-
If (... if! ...)the information and AIS plot on the following web page is correct, the whole bridge crew is going to have a LOT of questions to answer.
If (if!) the plot is correct, the vessel has passed through a narrow sound between a small rock and the island og Giglio. According to my Google Earth measuring tool, the sound is merely 80 meters wide! From the translation from Turkish, it would seem there is no shallow water between Civitaveccia and the narrow sound, and as we all see from the damage to the hull, the vessel must have been in really shallow waters, with the damage stretching almost to the waterline and the big rock wedged in the hull.
See the purported AIS plot here (Google Translate from Turkish):
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=tr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denizhaber.com%2FHABER%2F27951%2F1%2Fcosta-concordia-kaza-giglio-toskana.html
See also the following video, which I believe shows the Costa Concordia doing a close "sail-by" (as in "fly-by") on Giglio Island in august 2011. Obviously, she is showing off and seems to be passing dangerously close to the island:
http://video.corriere.it/nave-concordia-al-giglio-/9dfa5ea6-3e9b-11e1-8b52-5f77182bc574
The story also seems to be supported by the following Italian web page (via Google Translate):
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.savonanews.it%2F2012%2F01%2F14%2Fleggi-notizia%2Fargomenti%2Fcronaca-2%2Farticolo%2Fcosta-concordia-si-incaglia-allisola-del-giglio-3-morti-e-14-feriti.html
Here's a picture of the island, with the rock and the narrow sound in the background (via hotlink):
(http://www.sailreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/isola-del-giglio_13.jpg)
-
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.
-
the AIS shows the vessel navigating through the narrow sound yet the captain claims he was 300m away from any rocks. it will be interesting to hear the official outcome
-
Cruise captain 'committed errors'
The company operating a cruise ship that capsized after hitting rocks off western Italy on Friday says the captain may have "committed errors".
He appears to have ignored the firm's emergency procedures "which are in line with international standards", Costa Crociere said in a statement.
Capt Francesco Schettino is suspected of manslaughter, but denies wrongdoing.
At least five people have died but about 15 remain unaccounted for. Divers are trying to find more survivors.
"It seems that the commander made errors of judgement that had serious consequences," the statement by Costa Crociere said.
The Costa Concordia is lying on its side just off the Tuscan island of Giglio, where it ran aground.
Capt Schettino has been detained on suspicion of manslaughter. The chief prosecutor said the vessel had "very ineptly got close to Giglio".
But Capt Schettino has said that the rock it hit was not marked on his nautical chart.
"We should have had deep water beneath us... We were about 300 metres (1,000ft) from the rocks more or less. We shouldn't have hit anything."
He also also denied claims by prosecutors that he left the Costa Concordia before evacuation was complete. "We were the last to leave the ship," he told Italian TV.
Capt Schettino, 52, has worked for Costa Cruises for 11 years. First officer Ciro Ambrosio has also been detained.
-
.........
If (if!) the plot is correct, the vessel has passed through a narrow sound between a small rock and the island og Giglio. According to my Google Earth measuring tool, the sound is merely 80 meters wide! ........
Here's a picture of the island, with the rock and the narrow sound in the background (via hotlink):
(http://www.sailreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/isola-del-giglio_13.jpg)
here is the view going in... narrow sound seems an optimistic description ?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6704227801_eb30e10684_z.jpg)
Pete
-
the guardian newspaper reports a different course:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/jan/15/costa-concordia-italian-cruise-ship-interactive?newsfeed=true
-
but they say the ship hit rocks as it tried to turn back towards the port. yet the damage is on port side..
-
That so called information from the Guardian is absurd. No power and course to Giglio island at 15,3 knots.See the real track in Marinetraffic,15.3 knots at 20,37 hours
-
Hi,
The marinetraffic plot explains wants happened!
Tks victor radio74.
After 2037, at 15kts, they turned NW and hit the NE corner of the island. The VDR will explain how the autopilot (what settings) and the offset from the planned course took the ship to run aground. That's my guess...
AC
-
If they really had it in autopilot then the Capt is really "dumb in square"
-
The captain has been dumb as he is. Complacency is the least what can be said about his attitude. There is no way of planning a track 300 metres off the rocks.
Even allowing for cruise-vessels' way of giving a thrill to passengers, by showing them landscapes at close distance-there was nothing to display there after 2100 hours and with most passengers seated for welcome-dinner.
-
There are allegations on some websites that this maneouver (passing very close to the east coast of Giglio) was regularly performed by Costa ships to 'show off' the ship to the Island and the Island to the ship.
Can anyone access any historic AIS tracks for the Concordia or other Costa ships to prove whether this has indeed happened before?
If it has, then it is not just the Captain and bridge crew of the Concordia who must take the blame, in my view.
Regards
Graham
-
I agree completely. The video from August 2011 is one piece of evidence showing it has happened before, although obviously not so close as to hit the rocks.
I see some of the mainstream media are now picking up on the "sail-by" part of the story, see e.g.:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9016769/Cruise-disaster-Captain-neared-Italian-rocks-to-greet-friend-on-shore.html
It is tragic - and deeply ironic - if this is true in the year of the 100th anniversary of the "Titanic", where the captain chose a more dangerous route through iceberg infested waters. If it is true, "Costa Concordia" and several lives has been lost because of a master willfully choosing to take the vessel dangerously close to shore to greet someone and/or just show off, and then ending up running her into the rocks at high speed. If it is true, the sheer recklessness and stupidity is mind-boggling.
-
I read somewhere that a retired Commodore Captain of Costa lives on the Island and is trying to promote Tourism to the island,could that be a reason for the 'Sail by' . . .the video of the August 'Sail By' looks pretty impressive but 'Crazy'
-
Hi
I hear the ship is slipping further underwater. News conference held
In genoa by owners of costa cruises. The say the ship wil remain were it is
And is defending the safety of there vessels and send apologies to all onboard.
Patryk
-
As for refloating her, this is going to be interesting. At least they can mend the hole, which is fortuitously above water! They will have to take the large rock out first.
Then there must be hundreds of holes to seal in the deck which would normally be above water level.
She is a bit big to parbuckle, and what would they tie the lines to on the offshore side. Lots of blxxxy big anchors? We have yet to hear the paranoid cries of fouling of the environment and wildlife with hundreds of tons of fuel and lubricating oil, they will probably start tomorrow. What odds her being broken up on the spot?
I watch with fascination.
Holedriller
Already started with the press here. Still searching for survivors and the lead concern on the news item was the amount of fuel that could spill from the ship.
-
Costa Cruises CEO: "He [the captain] decided to change the course of the ship"
The captain of a cruise ship that ran aground off Italy made an "unapproved, unauthorised" deviation in course, the liner's owners say.
Costa Cruises boss Pier Luigi Foschi accused Capt Francesco Schettino of sailing too close to a nearby island in order to show the ship to locals.
The captain says the rocks the ship hit were not on his chart.
Six people were killed and 16 are still missing after the Costa Concordia's hull was torn open on Friday.
Rescue crews restarted the search for survivors on Monday afternoon, three hours after work had been suspended because bad weather had caused the ship to move.
At an emotional news conference in Genoa, Mr Foschi fought back tears as he apologised for the accident.
"The company will be close to the captain and will provide him with all the necessary assistance, but we need to acknowledge the facts and we cannot deny human error," he said.
"This route was put in correctly. The fact that it left from this course is due solely to a manoeuvre by the commander that was unapproved, unauthorised and unknown to Costa.
"He wanted to show the ship, to [go] nearby this island of Giglio, so he decided to change the course of the ship to go closer to the island."
He said Costa's ships have their routes programmed and alarms sound when they go off course.
Some of the passengers on board the ship described hearing a horrendous noise as the ship struck rocks at about 21:30 (20:30 GMT) on Friday.
There were scenes of panic as alarms sounded soon after and the ship began to list. Capt Schettino steered the vessel closer to land to where it now lies on its side just metres off Giglio island.
Some of the passengers and crew were forced to swim for land as the angle of the ship made boarding life boats impossible.
The 4,200 passengers and crew on board had not conducted an emergency drill after leaving on its cruise several hours earlier.
Oil spill fears
Rescue crews found a sixth body, that of a male passenger, early on Monday.
The BBC's Matthew Price says the ship has visibly sunk lower in the water during the course of the day.
He says divers have told him that it is dark and difficult to see inside the ship, and that it is disorientating swimming along corridors that have been turned on their side.
Environment Minister Corrado Clini said there was an extremely high risk of a damaging spill of fuel from the ship's tanks.
"The vessel has reservoirs full of fuel, it is a heavy diesel which could sink down to the seabed, that would be a disaster," he told La Stampa newspaper.
"As soon as possible, the fuel will be removed from the vessel. But we have to take into account the precarious state of the ship."
Mr Foschi said so far there were no signs of any leakage. He said 2,300 tonnes of fuel oil were contained in 17 double-hulled tanks and more oil was in another four reservoirs.
Capt Schettino, 52, has worked for Costa Cruises for 11 years. The company said he joined the firm in 2002 as an official in charge of security.
He was made captain in 2006, after serving as second-in-command.
Like all captains in the fleet he took part in a continuous programme of training and passed all the required checks, Costa Cruises said.
Capt Schettino has denied any wrongdoing, saying the rocks his ship hit were not marked on his nautical chart.
"We should have had deep water beneath us," he told Italian TV. "We were about 300m (1,000ft) from the rocks more or less. We shouldn't have hit anything."
He also denied claims by prosecutors that he left the Costa Concordia before evacuation was complete. "We were the last to leave the ship," Capt Schettino said.
First officer Ciro Ambrosio has also been detained.
-
There is rumour that the vessel could be declared
A total loss. To salvage such a huge vessel could be impossible.
Costa say they will lose
-
it will take a lot longer if they have to build a new Concordia.
-
Friends working for Carnival Cruise Line as Senior Officers and Arison counsellors are reporting me that nobody knows how to refloat her and move away, somebody is hopeing that Concordia will slip and sink definetely! CCL stocks went down 23% in London, tomorrow they will see what will happen in NYSE and probably 5 sisterships + 2 still to be delivered will be transferred to Carnival Cruise Line and reflagged in Panama. New names under decision!
-
Watched the interview with the captain on TV yesterday with interest, not speaking Italian had to rely on the translation. He is supposed to have said the ship moved sideways to hit the rock. Strange. Could it be that a panic change of course to starboard swung the stern in to the rocks? Also the shape of the hole looks as if it gets deeper as it goes aft, implying the ship had to stop to extricate itself. Then it carried on, turned hard to port when he realised the ship was doomed and had to be beached, and ended up where it is. But why has it sunk listing to starboard? Is there another, bigger, hole on that side?
One thing is certain, it would have been a tight fit in the Port of Giglio if he had made it!
Holedriller
-
Friends working for Carnival Cruise Line as Senior Officers and Arison counsellors are reporting me that nobody knows how to refloat her and move away, somebody is hopeing that Concordia will slip and sink definetely! CCL stocks went down 23% in London, tomorrow they will see what will happen in NYSE and probably 5 sisterships + 2 still to be delivered will be transferred to Carnival Cruise Line and reflagged in Panama. New names under decision!
Why would the sister ships + 2 on order be transferred to CCL?
-
This accident reminds me the one happened on 1971 to the SS ANTILLES wrecked off Mustique, Grenadines, in 1971. She caught fire, but hopefully passengers and crew were rescued. I read some time ago that the vessel also passed very close to the shore of this tiny island (nobody knows why, but, in fact, there are nice villas and is a common destination for famous people) and hit the rocks with her keel remaining there forever.
-
The evidence that she was doing hard to starboard when she grounded is that the stab-fin is intact, and that the damage is starting quite far aft and getting deeper further aft.
If you stand at the bridge wing of a ship and look aft when she is starting a hard turn, you will see that it is the aft that does all the turning at first, going sideways before the bow picks up.
Imagine the master's feeling after it happened:
-
Off course the captain has the fault of this desaster of the "Costa Concordia".He made several big mistakes. But after the vessel hit the rock "Le Scole" in the south of the little port he did a good job to bring the vessel back to the other rock north of the little port of Giglio,which is to small for a vessel of this size.If the vessel would capsize in open sea we would see a lot more dead people.
The question is,if he did this for purpose to ground the ship on the northerly rock close to the harbour entrance.
The vessel probably capsized due to free surfaces from the incoming water.
What i don't understand is the AIS track on Marine Traffic.According to this track the vessel never could hit a rock.
All people can be happy to come safe ashore,except the dead or the missing people,because the weather was good and the port very close.
-
[quote author=Heinu Sch
-
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.
-
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 !
-
I wonder if the sudden evasive maneuver carried out by the Capt after hitting the rock could have caused it to keel over?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
agreed.
thanks Tuomas for shedding some light on the design.
please keep the facts coming. i love when discussions get technical.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 ?
-
Perhaps not, but it could have sunk.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
I hear that the Captain tripped and fell into a life boat... How does that sound Hey ???
-
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
-
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 :-))
-
You may find the below track reconstruction quite interesting:
(http://www.navsim.pl/upload/image/Costa_Concordia/Costa_Concordia_accident_possible_track_trajectory_simulation_50.jpg)
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
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
Capt: If there was power, why not beach her bow in?
-
The captain has stated in 'judicial documents' that when he saw foam ahead (the old fashioned method of telling that your end is nigh) he put the helm hard to the right but the ship still hit the Le Scole rocks. Crew sent to the engine room reported that water was rushing in. and passenger reports state that a complete power failure occurred at the time of impact. The animated sequence that follows shown so dramatically on the AIS plot on another thread shows the ship progressively loosing speed from that moment (20.44) on until coming to a stop at 21.03 some 2 km on. This surely indicates that there was no propulsion power from the time of the impact and she was moving solely under the influence of inertia.
The plot on reply no 100 shows a 12kn NNE wind, which, acting on the higher front of the ship, would explain the turn to starboard with no further forward movement. The ship then moves largely sideways towards the shore at a knot or less, exactly as you would expect such a large windage vessel to do, and exactly in line with the wind direction, until impact with the shore at 21.54. The videos taken from the shore after grounding show a lot of lighting working, a list of no more than 20 degrees, and all the starboard lifeboats on their davits, but it is not too clear how much the ship had sunk by then. The captain had meanwhile called for tugs assistance, implying he had no propulsion power. He presumably had assessed that the ship was sinking, otherwise he would have simply dropped the anchor and waited for assistance. I cannot believe that the crew drove the ship sideways on to the shore using side thrusters.
After grounding, and before daybreak, the ship increased the list from 20 to 70 degrees, where she has been ever since. The charts spot depth closest to the ship suggest a water depth of 62, presumably metres, which would be enough for the ship to almost totally disappear, so the worries about her slipping off the rocks seem very real and will complicate salvage/ dismantling. Can anyone confirm the depth of the sand and mud bottom in that area?
So it seems to me that 4200 persons lives were saved, not by any action of the crew, but by the fortunate existence of a 12 knot NNE wind. Without that, we might have been looking at headlines stating 'LOSS OF LIFE EXCEEDS THAT OF THE TITANIC'.
Holedriller
-
Your assumption is underlined by the following very interesting live plot.
Brgds,
Rob.
http://www.qps.nl/download/attachments/6718686/Grounding+Costa+Concordia.wmv?version=2&modificationDate=1326885071126
-
Thses two reconstructions are pretty interesting too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpjy5fvTqpI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpjy5fvTqpI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxrEEpIs2iM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxrEEpIs2iM)
-
Hi,does anybody know if Costa Concordia was equipped with MES (Maritime Evacuation System-kind of glide, as installed on all passenger planes)? No picture of her indicates it to be deployed.
-
I cannot believe that the crew drove the ship sideways on to the shore using side thrusters.
After grounding, and before daybreak, the ship increased the list from 20 to 70 degrees, where she has been ever since.
I completely agree with your assessment. Two additional facts fit in:
To my knowledge, the emergency generators wouldn`t even supply enough electricity to feed the thrusters. They are energy consuming monsters. So it was just current and wind moving the ship to shore.
The infrared-videos show the Costa Concordia lying completely on her side, in a 90 degree angle. Later she must have slipped and come to rest in her current 60 - 70 degree angle.
Regards
Kai
-
Have a read
UPDATE 1.15pm: THE captain of the stricken Costa Concordia liner told a friend shortly after the disaster that he sailed too close to shore because a manager from the cruise company pressured him to do so.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/costa-concordia-captain-claims-he-was-pressured-by-boss/story-fn7x8me2-1226253144825
-
guys
if you read my post entire and not in snippets
I said """ I dont, quite understand "" and ""If there was power"""
now it is stated that the power was totally gone,, that leaves the question, why that,, beside the emergency generator they do not have only one auxillery engine and to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) those auxillery engines are not all in the main engine room,,just for such cases.
so somehow it is all a kind of murky. that the Master (and all other masters on passenger ships) was under extreme pressure to give the Passengers a show,,that is nothing new.
-
Have a read
UPDATE 1.15pm: THE captain of the stricken Costa Concordia liner told a friend shortly after the disaster that he sailed too close to shore because a manager from the cruise company pressured him to do so.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/costa-concordia-captain-claims-he-was-pressured-by-boss/story-fn7x8me2-1226253144825
So what?....The captain is anyway responsible for the accident,the people on board and the vessel.But I'm sure,the company knew about this and will be responsible too,even in Italy!
-
Have a read
UPDATE 1.15pm: THE captain of the stricken Costa Concordia liner told a friend shortly after the disaster that he sailed too close to shore because a manager from the cruise company pressured him to do so.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/costa-concordia-captain-claims-he-was-pressured-by-boss/story-fn7x8me2-1226253144825
So what?....The captain is anyway responsible for the accident,the people on board and the vessel.But I'm sure,the company knew about this and will be responsible too,even in Italy!
I was just stating that this seemed normal procedure as no one seemed to Question the route, at least no one on the bridge questioned the move...
-
There is nowadays a magic solution (thats what IMO and pencil pushers think) It,s called bridge management team
It supposed to work that way, that the master consults his officers on the route, everyone gives his input and than decide as a TEAM,, but when it goes wrong they hang the MASTER anyhow.
Question really is in this accident, where and who and what did the other officers on the bridge do. did they voice concerns or just as normal,,the MASTER says therefore all ok. I for one in my carriere, now 28 years master, never had an officer who said,,wait a moment Mr Captain,, Bridge Team Management therefore is a joke,, but of course that does not explain why that happened. also not when it is true (where I would not wonder) that Costa line and also other pax-lines push Masters to give their paxe a show.
It is as usual,,you can do everything as long nothing goes wrong, the moment that is,,you are dead meat,,and that from all sides.
Thats the sad truth in this matters
-
Hi Peterred, I just find it very difficult to believe that, at 9.41 some Manager calls a Captain , Hey steer your ship close to the shore give the Passengers a treat, any one that cruises Knows that the 2nd meal is under way and the 1st dinner seating is at the Show.Not many sight seeing over the side.
I realise you are only reporting what the press says. Schettino is trying to cover his tracks. Nobody is reporting who was on the bridge.our news has the cook making Supper for him and abroad at 10.30 pm go figure.Sad situation for a lot of families.
-
beside the emergency generator they do not have only one auxillery engine and to my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong) those auxillery engines are not all in the main engine room,,just for such cases.
The ship has six main generators, but the RINA database entry states that there are seven generators. Does anyone here know if the seventh is the emergency diesel generator, or a smaller auxiliary generator for harbour use? I would assume that, with a ship as big as that, one main generator could run at sufficient power level (i.e. not too low) when the ship is at port without passengers.
As for the layout, I think the ship had two engine rooms (3+3 generators). However, as she was not built to the latest standards (safe return to port), they might have been side-by-side with no watertight bulkhead in between.
-
New pictures of the vessel listing before tipping over have emerged:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/26/costa-concordia-cruise-liner-pictures-lifeboast_n_1233035.html
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/478357/thumbs/a-COSTA-CONCORDIA-640x468.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/478360/thumbs/a-COSTA-CONCORDIA-640x468.jpg)
-
How close is too close?
Take a look at these pictures:
http://www.napolidavivere.it/2012/01/20/navi-da-crociera-inchino-faraglioni-capri/ (http://www.napolidavivere.it/2012/01/20/navi-da-crociera-inchino-faraglioni-capri/)
of the Seven Seas Voyager on the south coast of the Isle of Capri.
I understand they are from a video taken in 2006.
greetings
Uwe