britishtrident
|
| posted on 15/1/12 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
Costa Concordia ---- good link
For anybody interested in the Costa Concordia disaster this link and the pages linked from it are worth exploring.
http://www.oldsaltblog.com/
Also
costa-cruise-ship-co
mpany-has-long-record-of-accidents
This type of incident involving a large modern cruise ship has been on the cards for years it was just luck it occurred in reasonably warm waters in
an area with well organised rescue services had it happened in the icy waters off Alaska or Norway we could have been looking at 100 times the body
count.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
|
|
ruskino80
|
| posted on 15/1/12 at 09:34 PM |
|
|
booked our first cruise 2 months ago for a trip this may around the med and italy! wife is now quite worried as we are taking our two year old with
us.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 15/1/12 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
I wouldnt worry myself. I said to swimbo when it first happened that those who died would be those who panicked and jumped in (or were unfortunate and
fell in) and the elderly on lower decks who couldnt get off.
Had the water been deep enough for the vessel to sink fully, then there would have been nothing to hit that would cause so much damage ( a shipping
container wouldnt have done half that damage).
I suspect fire is the biggest risk.
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 15/1/12 at 11:39 PM |
|
|
I feel a little sorry for the captain..
The ships owners are, before any evidence has been heard or facts analysed, stating that the captain made a gross human error...... That might be
the case, but you have to feel for the guy...his employers are REALLY out to get him!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 07:51 AM |
|
|
Based on the news and web reports available at this moment any human error would appear to extend way beyond the Captain alone.
Other issues are the stability of such ships once they have sustained damage, the ability of rescue services to cope with a disaster of this scale
involving 4000 souls on board, the use of crews that lack lacked basic language skills to communicate with the bulk of the passengers
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
Phil.J
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 09:04 AM |
|
|
It surprises me in this day and age that the captain, or whoever is resonsible for steering, has such a free hand to steer the vessel wherever they
fancied.
I assumed that such routinely run routes would be handled by pre-programmed autopilot mechanisms, just like aircraft, with the catain only taking over
control to avoid collisions and for entering harbours etc.
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 09:08 AM |
|
|
This is one of the reasons (as an Ex-RN person) I don't go cruising. Ships are dangerous places and without proper emergency training any
incident can escalate very quickly. It appears that this ship hit an 'unmarked' reef/rock and sustained damage below the waterline. With
a well trained crew this should not have resulted in the capsizing of the vessel as the water tight bulkheads should have prevented the spread of the
flooding.
|
|
|
A1
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
i think its early days yet to judge... with more than 4200 people onboard they did well to get as many of them off. Drills work well when theres no
emergency and no panic. to be honest with a gash that big in the side, water tight bulkheads would do little to slow the spread of water. I wouldnt
worry about going on a cruise...for the number that are on very few incidents happen.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 12:41 PM |
|
|
I would never allow any of my family on similar ships and have been warning friends of the dangers for at least 10 years.
Leaving aside crew training and slack procedures (always a problem on costal shipping, ferries and ships regular routes) a large part of the problem
is the way these ship are built. Cruise ships have diesel-electric propulsion, looking at the damage to the ship and comparing with a cutaway of
the ship the damage occurred at main engine room space which contains multiple diesel generators that supply electricity for both propulsion and
general supply.
From the cutaway engine room is a fairly vast undivided space that spans the full width of the ship without any bulkheads sub-dividing it. As soon
as any substantial volume of water entering this space the ship was lost as would have instantly lost all power to pumps and you have a
stability problem not unlike that which took down the Herald of Free Enterprise. Even if power had still been available to the pumps with a gash
of Titanic like proportions the ship was doomed.
Some years back (1976) a laden BP tanker sank when the main seawater inlet pipe completely failed (due to corrosion and old age) resulting a
very large in-rush of sea water but relatively small compared to the vast hole in the Costa Concordia> The story recounted by me by one of the
tankers engineers was from the time the engineers alarm was raised to the Chief Engineer reaching the engine room the water level in the engine room
had risen 30 feet, the CE told the Old Man it was life boat time. 20 minutes later the ship was on its way to the bottom of the Pacific.
[Edited on 16/1/12 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 01:33 PM |
|
|
The accident was human error, plain and simple. And I'll bet the Captain wasn't anywhere near the bridge when it happened. He was asleep
or pissed, as is not uncommon on cruise or merchant ships, and the jr's were in charge of navigation.
I've sailed that coast a few times, and any 'rock' shallow enough to cause that damage would definitely be marked on a chart. At
least a British chart. Some of the latest on screen chart plotters aren't as up to date as the charts of ten years ago as well. Same as satnavs,
the makers don't want to pay the mapmakers for the latest info. Then you have to keep them up to date as well. Something that may not have been
a priority.
Someone didn't know exactly where they were, obviously. Human error. The ship may have been pushed off course by currents, tides, or wind. And
yes, there are some hefty currents in the Med, particularly after summer and big winds.
This one was the first for a newish style cruise ship, and unfortunately, I'd say it's not the last. These ships are far too high for
what's in the water, and stability is quickly lost. If the engine room is as BT reported, then poor design has had a hand also. The Titanic
seems to have been forgotten.
Cheers,
Nev.
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 01:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by A1
water tight bulkheads would do little to slow the spread of water. I wouldnt worry about going on a cruise...for the number that are on very few
incidents happen.
Have you ever done Damage Control on a ship?
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 02:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
From the cutaway engine room is a fairly vast undivided space that spans the full width of the ship without any bulkheads sub-dividing it. As soon
as any substantial volume of water entering this space the ship was lost as would have instantly lost all power to pumps and you have a
stability problem not unlike that which took down the Herald of Free Enterprise. Even if power had still been available to the pumps with a gash
of Titanic like proportions the ship was doomed.
[Edited on 16/1/12 by britishtrident]
The Herald was a very different set of circumstances, a free flood on a car deck is always going to cause a capsize, even 1" of water spread
across a car deck above the water line would cause a ship to rapidly become unstable and capsize which is not what happened here. Looking at the
images on the TV the ship appears to have settled onto the bottom while listing to one side rather an a catastrophic free flood roll.
[Edited on 16/1/12 by jeffw]
|
|
|
Minicooper
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 05:44 PM |
|
|
Britishtrident
What are you going on about, there is no particular problem with these types of ships, the problem is a massive hole in the side.
You don't subdivide port to starboard as this will guarantee listing and probable capsize. Waterproof bulkheads are good and work well as long
as there isn't a massive hole. Any ships stability will be compromised with that much damage
Herald of Free Enterprise, completely different not worth mentioning in this context
David
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 05:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tegwin
I feel a little sorry for the captain..
The ships owners are, before any evidence has been heard or facts analysed, stating that the captain made a gross human error...... That might be
the case, but you have to feel for the guy...his employers are REALLY out to get him!
it appears his course was through a path meant for ships 10 times as small - did he set the course, who knows only time will tell.
but when your in charge you take the blame for people lower down the ranks
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 08:08 PM |
|
|
i was thinking itr amusing how they blamed the captain, maybe that will help in a criminal court but its still completely on the companies toes,
because they employ the captain!
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 09:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
i was thinking itr amusing how they blamed the captain, maybe that will help in a criminal court but its still completely on the companies toes,
because they employ the captain!
since my previous post it has emerged the captain took a route that he was allowed to take once previously for some celebration day (or a previous
captain was).
he had no authorisation to take that route again and wasnt supposed to.
its like you taking a works vehicle and going rallying in it and killing some spectators - its not the companies fault but they will foot the bill for
the insurance
this is of course if the information coming out is correct
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeFellows
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
i was thinking itr amusing how they blamed the captain, maybe that will help in a criminal court but its still completely on the companies toes,
because they employ the captain!
since my previous post it has emerged the captain took a route that he was allowed to take once previously for some celebration day (or a previous
captain was).
he had no authorisation to take that route again and wasnt supposed to.
its like you taking a works vehicle and going rallying in it and killing some spectators - its not the companies fault but they will foot the bill for
the insurance
this is of course if the information coming out is correct
Thats what i mean, the captain might end up in jail but they still have a huge bill coming!
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 16/1/12 at 09:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by MikeFellows
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
i was thinking itr amusing how they blamed the captain, maybe that will help in a criminal court but its still completely on the companies toes,
because they employ the captain!
since my previous post it has emerged the captain took a route that he was allowed to take once previously for some celebration day (or a previous
captain was).
he had no authorisation to take that route again and wasnt supposed to.
its like you taking a works vehicle and going rallying in it and killing some spectators - its not the companies fault but they will foot the bill for
the insurance
this is of course if the information coming out is correct
Thats what i mean, the captain might end up in jail but they still have a huge bill coming!
ahh sorry misunderstood, thought you meant the company would take the blame, which it doesnt currently look like it will, but yeah its got a hefty
bill I would imagine
[Edited on 16/1/12 by MikeFellows]
|
|
|
A1
|
| posted on 17/1/12 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
quote:
Originally posted by A1
water tight bulkheads would do little to slow the spread of water. I wouldnt worry about going on a cruise...for the number that are on very few
incidents happen.
Have you ever done Damage Control on a ship?
yes, I happen to know ships rather well. the watertight bulkheads wouldnt really do much with a 50m hole in the side. I think the fact it went down
kinda shows it.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 17/1/12 at 06:42 PM |
|
|
Conversation between the Coastguard (De Falco) and the Ferry's Captain (Schettino)...
Gregorio De Falco: "Hello. Hello."
Francesco Schettino: "Good evening, captain."
De Falco: "Hello, I'm de Falco, from Livorno. I am speaking with the commander?"
Schettino: "I'm Commander Schettino."
De Falco: "Listen Schettino, there are people trapped aboard, you go with your lifeboat under the prow of the ship on the port side and you go
aboard the ship using the rope ladder. You go aboard and you tell me how many people there are. Is it clear? I'm recording this conversation,
Commander Schettino."
Schettino: "So, I'll tell you something..."
De Falco: "Speak louder."
Schettino: "Now, I'm in front of..."
De Falco: "Commander, speak louder, take the microphone and speak loud. Is that clear?"
Schettino: "Commander, right now the ship is skewed."
De Falco: "Understood. Listen there are people going down from the prow using the rope ladder; you take that rope ladder on the opposite side,
you go aboard and you tell me the number of people and what they have on board. Is that clear? You tell me whether there are children, women or people
needing assistance. And you tell me the number of each of these categories. Is that clear? Schettino, maybe you saved yourself from the sea, but
I'll make you pay for sure. Go aboard."
Schettino: "Commander, please?"
De Falco: "Please, now you go aboard."
Schettino: "I am on the life boat, under the ship, I haven't gone anywhere, I'm here."
De Falco: "What are you doing, commander?"
Schettino: "I'm here to coordinate rescues."
De Falco: "What are you coordinating there? Go on board and coordinate rescues from on board. Do you refuse?"
Schettino: "No, no I'm not refusing."
De Falco: "You're refusing to go aboard, commander, tell me why you're not going."
Schettino: "I'm not going because there is another lifeboat stopped there."
De Falco: "Go aboard: it's an order. You have no evaluation to make, you declared abandon ship, now I give orders: go aboard. Is it
clear?"
Schettino: "Commander I'm going aboard."
De Falco: "Call me from aboard, my rescuer is there at the prow of the ship. There are already dead bodies, Schettino."
Schettino: "How many dead bodies?"
De Falco: "I do not know. One for sure. You have to tell me how many."
Schettino: "Do you realise that it's dark here and we can't see a thing?"
De Falco: "And what, do you want to go home, Schettino? It's dark, so you want to go home...? Go on the prow of the ship, using the rope
ladder and tell me what can be done, how many people there are and what are their needs. Do it now."
Schettino: "Here there is also the vice commander. I'm together with him."
De Falco: "Then go aboard together. Together. What's his name?"
Schettino: "Dimitri."
De Falco: "Dimitri what? You and your vice go aboard. Now, is it clear?"
Schettino: "Commander, I want to go aboard, but here there is the other lifeboat, there are other rescuers who stopped. Now I called other
rescuers."
De Falco: "You've been telling me this for one hour. Go aboard. Go aboard. And you tell me right away how many people there are."
Schettino: "Ok commander."
De Falco: "Go, quickly."
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 17/1/12 at 06:53 PM |
|
|
And when you listen to this conversation on the TV, you will hear that De Falco is massively p*ssed off with the captain, and being VERY forceful with
his orders - he is clearly very, very angry.
[Edited on 17/1/12 by David Jenkins]
|
|
|
karlak
|
| posted on 17/1/12 at 07:09 PM |
|
|
He is a Coward plain and Simple.
I am sure many Captains would have been below decks searching for Passengers. The last thing on their minds would have been saving their own skin.
Especially, if they had directly caused the ships demise in the first place.
MK Indy - 2litre Duratec - Omex 600 - Jenvey throttle bodies - ETB DigiDash2
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 17/1/12 at 08:47 PM |
|
|
http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=247158500&zoom=10&olddate=1/13/2012%209:02:00%20PM
Have a look at that link . It shows the course that the ship was steering prior to the crash. Completely bewildering to me.
It's aiming directly at the island, then veers off and hits the rocks.
Someone definitely wasn't watching what was going on.
Cheers,
nev.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 17/1/12 at 11:33 PM |
|
|
Apparently they were sailing nearer to the island to wave to some relatives of the crew and show off the ship, allegedly. 
[Edited on 17/1/12 by Peteff]
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 18/1/12 at 09:59 AM |
|
|
According to the Coastguard the Captain sailed within 1/2 Cable (50 Fathoms or 300ft) of rocks. 114K ton ship inshore that close will lead to very
large hole in the ships side.....
Also there is a recording of the Coastguard arguing with the Captain about him having left the vessel and not being in charge of the abandon ship.
They order him back on-board and he refuses.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16599655
|
|
|
