Cruise Ship Costa Concordia - MERGED THREADS

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by MacG

Pivotting on the anchor provoked a massive loadshift of water in the hull and brought the ship on it's starboard flank. That possible?
You said yourself that those vessels are designed to sink upright. So it should have landed maximum a meter above the waterline, if we take the local depth
for real.

I do not believe in the sink upright theory. One cannot choose the circumstances of a disaster and a disaster is always a result of cumulation of coinciding calamities.

I would have to see some evidence that they were "designed to sink level." I can't imagine being sure to control that, given the terrific forces involved with shifting water inside a hull.

Putting it in shallow water kept it from sinking. It gave trapped people a chance to find a way out. I'm sure many people were killed by shifting furniture, etc., but a boat that doesn't sink after a disaster seems like a very good thing to me.

I'm just not ready to credit the captain with that decision and maneuver.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by St. Elsewhere

Fox News

A credible news source

[MacG]

Similar to the German floozy mag called "Bild" - today's journalisme goes for the cheapish. What is real, what is not. We are not there. We are looking for facts. A jounalist not per se. He/she looks for the human interest - as long as there is any.
Fact is that it takes only one stupid to bring a ship down. For a country, a little bit more is needed ....... In the process, the press is of little help ......

[deckofficer]

Couldn't agree more MacG. At the US Maritime Academies stability is such an important subject that we have to take 2 semesters of stability classes. Our instructors would always use cruise ships as an example of the most tender in stability of any vessel out there. This is of course for passenger comfort. The entire topic of this thread is the danger to a cruise ship if holed by the sail-by stunts that cruise ship companies have condoned over the years. It raises interest in cruising and is a festive occasion for both the passengers and all on land as this large ship steams past at sea speed less than 500 meters off shore. Our instructors have always considered this a form of Russian Roulette, due to the fact that holing a cruise ship that already has the lowest positive stability of any vessel, will result in a capsize depending on the speed of water egress, that would out pace the ability to fully abandon the ship. I believe the outcome from this tragic event will be speed restrictions based on distance from shore and other navigational hazards. I'm sure this saddens cruise ship patrons, as it is visually exciting to be speeding past a quaint port in a large ship, but you have to consider that ship is the least stable of anything afloat.

[MacG]

I have always been dreaming of operating a small cruise vessel. Let' s say no more than 20-40 pax; boatlength about 40-50 mtrs. 10-15 double cabins.
The boat I wanted to have was one of the most seaworthy ever designed and had an autonomy of 10.000 nm.
A French diving Coy overbid me and gone all dreams.
In good faith I could offer pax and crew a safe ship. Such ships do still exist but it is hardly worthwhile to operate one. Of course the costs of cruising were considerably higher than sailing with a tramp like Concordia.
And correct your teachers at the academy were. Look at the numerous incidents provoked by whatever handling done by the equipage of mentioned vessels. My favorite cruiseship therefore will be the Lady Astor from Hapag Lloyd. They have a Bridgecaptain and a Showcaptain. Captain Bridge and Captain Showboat.
The fourbander Captain Showboat dines and wines with his pax while captain bridge remains silent on the background.
Now, Lady Astor takes about and in general 700 pax. That is a shrill difference with the 4000 of Concordia. Where do you want to be?

This is just something to unleash my ideas .......

[atoll]

Originally Posted by MacG

I have always been dreaming of operating a small cruise vessel. Let' s say no more than 20-40 pax; boatlength about 40-50 mtrs. 10-15 double cabins.
The boat I wanted to have was one of the most seaworthy ever designed and had an autonomy of 10.000 nm.
A French diving Coy overbid me and gone all dreams.
In good faith I could offer pax and crew a safe ship. Such ships do still exist but it is hardly worthwhile to operate one. Of course the costs of cruising were considerably higher than sailing with a tramp like Concordia.
And correct your teachers at the academy were. Look at the numerous incidents provoked by whatever handling done by the equipage of mentioned vessels. My favorite cruiseship therefore will be the Lady Astor from Hapag Lloyd. They have a Bridgecaptain and a Showcaptain. Captain Bridge and Captain Showboat.
The fourbander Captain Showboat dines and wines with his pax while captain bridge remains silent on the background.
Now, Lady Astor takes about and in general 700 pax. That is a shrill difference with the 4000 of Concordia. Where do you want to be?

This is just something to unleash my ideas .......

if you can do that and still sell berths for $40 a night,and make a profit show us the way!

[MacG]

One zero missing. 1988 figures.

[deckofficer]

Just give me a vessel with more positive stability, after the first day my stomach will adjust.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by MacG

One zero missing. 1988 figures.

look on Cruise Reviews, Cruise Deals and Cruises - Cruise Critic, lots of berths advertised a $40 a night!

[red_sky]

''Nothing more awful than to watch a man who has been found out, not in a crime but in a more than criminal weakness. … from weakness that may lie hidden, watched or unwatched, prayed against or manfully scorned, repressed or maybe ignored more than half a lifetime, not one of us is safe.''

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/courage-untested-until-ship-goes-down-20120119-1q8cn.html

[David M]

Originally Posted by deckofficer

Just give me a vessel with more positive stability, after the first day my stomach will adjust.

The other problem with increasing the metacentric height is that cruise ships have so many loose things to fall onto the deck or to go sliding around. This includes people in wheel chairs.

I don't think that having a higher metacentric height would have helped with the evacuation, the ship was doomed to capsize. More stability would have only delayed the capsize by only a little bit of time.

A ship with a snap roll is actually more dangerous to people, especially the elderly who would be more prone to fall with possible subsequent injuries. If you have ever been on a ship with a snap roll it is much harder to balance yourself in any kind of seas.

The compromise comes down to comfort versus ultimate stability.

[deckofficer]

Originally Posted by David M

The other problem with increasing the metacentric height is that cruise ships have so many loose things to fall onto the deck or to go sliding around. This includes people in wheel chairs.

I don't think that having a higher metacentric height would have helped with the evacuation, the ship was doomed to capsize. More stability would have only delayed the capsize by only a little bit of time.

A ship with a snap roll is actually more dangerous to people, especially the elderly who would be more prone to fall with possible subsequent injuries. If you have ever been on a ship with a snap roll it is much harder to balance yourself in any kind of seas.

The compromise comes down to comfort versus ultimate stability.

I accept the limitations of a cruise ship, I would just prefer being on any other vessel.

[Wand]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Well I have heard enough about the capitan and the course of the ship etc. on the news.

What I what to hear more about is .................. The Rock!

And I want to hear from the head waiter

[justwaiting]

Lesson number one from most threads in CF , boats are all about compromises. lesson number two, egos and water lead to some strange decisions.
Compromise 1, IMHO boats make bad hotels and hotels make bad boats. Modern cruise ships are all about economic with the least possible regard for the realities of the sea, passengers demand that their dreams be meet at the lowest possible price and the companies demand the highest possible return on their investment. While nothing goes wrong every thing is fine but it takes only one bad decision for every thing to go pear shape.

Compromise 2, Captain as the manager of the ship, or a host to feed the egos' of passengers. The suggestion has been made to separate the two roles out and in principle it would make sense. But if we look at the reports that have come out so far relating to the captain !!!! and the purser with a far greater role in passenger interaction one would have to question if this would have made any difference in THIS case.

Stability issues, further to what has bee said before. One of the problems faced at sea is shifting cargoes and 4000 plus people constitute a potential shifting cargo which will more according to the laws of fear unless restrained by order and discipline. According to the reports and statements so far the role of the captain and some of the crew leaves a lot of questions. Most people would tend to move away from the water, higher in the boat. This may have assisted in the early stages because the side that they would have moved away from would have been the one with the greater damage, helping to balance the boat. The second shifting cargo would have been the seawater which would have moved strictly according to the laws of physics. Then add the turn of the boat back toward the port and you may have the explanation of why the boat ended up on the side that it did.

Ego, the most probable reason for the captains decision to be that close to the shore.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by justwaiting

Lesson number one from most threads in CF , boats are all about compromises. lesson number two, egos and water lead to some strange decisions.

Compromise 3 Those who judge commercial ventures and adventures should consider the often loud and opinionated mentality of racing sailors as a case in point ....