Cruise Ship Costa Concordia - MERGED THREADS

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by MacG

@xymotic

Quote

OTOH, it had been done once a week for at least a year. And I guess it was sunset so it must have been to 'oooh and ahhhhh' the passengers.

unquote

You can' t be serious. Where I put the red line, a bit more north the gap is even smaller. You clearly see the rocks below the waterlevel.
A vessel like Concordia you have to keep it away from dangerous obstacles. If you don't, the result lies there in situ.
This is basic seamanship. And captains of Costa have blundered already before.

The Insurance companies will have a say in the future of Costa, the fact is that Concordia is not salvageable, or, if so, only at tremendous cost.
We did not talk about possible environmental effects in relation of oilspills etc.
What sort of risks do captains take? If Costa need a showboat captain, ok but let them have the real one on the bridge. There are some 5000 people on that floating container, don' t forget that.

I think they are going to have to remove it. There is NO way it will be cheaper to leave her there and destroy that town's tourism industry. And once they've done that. I'm betting they will fix her.

I just hope they put that rock on display at Carnival's corporate office to remind them of the consequences of their actions.

[Pelagic]

There is no question that the Master screwed up with his Bridge Management as did the Company’s Management of standing orders re: passage plans.

However, once the hull was compromised it is premature to 2nd guess his actions until the timeline is published.

Once the hull is seriously breached, SOP would be Mayday, immediately launch every boat you can on the high side and get the passengers and crew organized to prevailing conditions for a safe evacuation.

The cynic will say that the Master was more concerned with saving his ship rather than the passengers by steaming to protected waters before beginning evacuation, thus forcing more water ingress. That his early departure from ship was focused on managing damage control to the ship rather than staying with the ship to save lives.

A similar event happened in the 80’s with a northbound cruise ship going thru Seymour narrows (Vancouver Island). The Pilot erred by mistakenly calling 15 degrees Port helm rather than Starboard for making the turn at Ripple Rock. The ship ran hard aground at about 1am.

The Norwegian Captain chose to take his ship off the reef into fast deep waters and luckily managed to crash into a Wood Chip Dock about I mile south before the ship quickly sank. He was hailed a hero but on investigation of the timeline was heavily sanctioned for further endangering the lives of all on board, by focusing on the ship.

The key question I would ask the industry is whether electronic navigation practices which allow E-Charts to replace Paper Charts which are required to have set passage plans with highlighted parallel indexing and danger zones would have prevented the watch keeper from exploring between 2 coastal islands with an electronic system, not designed for such close quarter work?

[PyotrBee]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

"The captain of the Costa Concordia may have been correct in his belief that his ship met its fate off the western Italian coast because of a power failure.
Passengers rescued from the stricken liner reported there had been a power blackout and a large booming noise, which indicated the vessel may have suffered an engine room explosion.
Last night Malcolm Latarche, editor of the global shipping magazine IHS Fairplay Solutions, said the problem may have been caused by a phenomenon known as ‘harmonic interference’.
Mr Latarche said it was possible the cruise liner experienced the same problem that saw the Queen Mary 2 lose power in September 2010 as she was approaching Barcelona. On that occasion, the QM2 was able to carry on into open sea.
The expert said the harmonic interference – a type of power surge – could have caused a malfunction in the generators feeding the ship’s six diesel electric engines with which the back-up systems could not cope.
This would have caused the ship to lose navigational power and steering control and veer off course, he said.
Asked for his assessment of the incident, Mr Latarche said: ‘I would say power failure caused by harmonic interference and then it can’t propel straight or navigate and it hit rocks.’
He added that once a ship experienced problems with the electrical supply to its main propulsion motors, it could lead to a problem with steering.
Mr Latarche said: ‘It seems that this may have happened quite close to land, in shallow water. When you can’t steer you are going to run aground and hit rocks at some point.’
The Costa Concordia, built in 2005, was designed to standards comparable with ocean liners.
Even though it had a rounded hull compared to the stronger V-shaped hull fitted to the Cunard flagship QM2, experts say it was capable of crossing the rough seas of the Atlantic.
Mr Latarche added: ‘Although the damage caused to the ship was severe, there are many safeguards in the design of a state-of-the-art cruise ship to prevent it turning over.
‘There is a second hull within the outer hull. Inside the inner hull there is a steel structure like an ice tray to contain the water and prevent it spreading through the ship.
‘In this case, the Master rightly attempted to return it to the shore, but it seems to have keeled over because it hit shallow water on the coast. An ocean cruise ship is not designed to float in 20ft of water. It needs much more than that to remain upright.’
According to Mr Latarche, the fact that the average tonnage of cruise ships has doubled in the past decade makes a full-scale evacuation while at sea almost impossible.
Under regulations introduced by the International Maritime Organisation in 2010, the very latest ships are now designed to be able to return to port even in the event of a major fire or loss of power on board, in order to make evacuation unnecessary.
The Concordia was commissioned five years prior to the new rules but Mr Latarche said: ‘Even if the most sophisticated ship in the world went into shallow water, the likelihood is it would turn on its side. This was a unique situation in which a number of circumstances all came together.’
Last night, Italian investigators trying to establish the cause of the accident arrested the Captain, Francesco Schettino, and were considering bringing manslaughter charges. The investigators will study repair log books and fault reports for the vessel dating back several years. They will also examine the experience of the officers and crew and examine the roles played by everyone on the day that the liner came to grief.
Since the Eighties the cruise industry has experienced a boom. More than 19 million passengers took a cruise last year and nine or more cruise ships of 100,000 tons or more have been built every year for the past decade.
Although cruise ships appear to be top- heavy, most of their weight is at the bottom, while the structure towards the top is designed to be comparatively light.
Traditionally, the vast majority of cruises have been taken by Americans to the Caribbean islands, but the Mediterranean market is rapidly expanding, with Italy the prime destination. Cruise liners are designed for pleasure voyages, in which the surroundings and the luxurious amenities are the major focus of the experience, rather than the transportation itself.
As an industry, cruising has a safety record generally regarded as excellent. Over the past two decades, an estimated 90 million passengers have enjoyed a cruise without major incident. The overwhelming majority of deaths on cruise ships are from natural causes or suicides. Passenger ships – defined as any ship carrying more than 12 passengers – must comply with International Maritime Organisation regulations, which cover every aspect of the construction and operation."

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by MacG

You may check the proper distance with the help of Google Maps. Otherwise, if you have the proper chart(s) do the same.
What gives you the idea that the rocks were a mile apart? Based on what?

Ever seen a cruiseship in the Minqiers?

I've checked navionics shows the land gap of 75 metres and with 10 metres depth in the centre and shows extending out of either side reducing the gap to about 40 metres at 10 metres there's also a leading shoal at 4.6m on the port side of the " pass between the rocks" I wonder did she hit that.

Anyway with a stated draft of 8.2 metres and a beam of 38 you can scotch the idea that this was an intended route. No the question remains what caused her to be there and it looks like someone thought the only way out was to run between them. There's no way as stated by Pelagic that this was an attempt to use electronics to pilot through that so called pass. No way, the navigation error was made several miles previously and whatever happened someone misjudged the escape route. ( and misjudged it badly)

As for running for the shore, as I said this is accepted industry practice beach the ship to allow in effect a shore aided rescue. Removing over 4000 people at sea using only lifeboats is regarded as un doable in any short timescale. Unfortunately what the captain wanted was a gradually sloping sandbar , what he got was more abrupt, but you have to say it was a better call them a full sea evacuation.

Dave

[xymotic]

Well, and are we even sure that's where they hit? I've seen major discrepancies between the AIS course and the charted ones. if you believe AIS it seems like they hit a rock in the middle of nowhere, which probably was uncharted.

Then there's the red line course drawn between the rocks, but no real explanation where that data came from.

[xymotic]

sorry forgot the link. Cruise Ship Costa Concordia Sinks off Italian Coast [VIDEO, AIS Track] | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore

[MacG]

Pelagic you hit the nail on the head, so to speak!

Point is, I know the environment of Giglio, because it played a role in my novel EPISODEN, therefore I scrutinized the bays and outer profiles and seabeds.
GBN is correct when he states that the timeline is the reference to establish where and about the first collision happened. If there was a first collision on a to be precised (or determined) other place, it is an acceptable idea that the captain wanted to kill the two birds: save the vessel and the passengers as well.
If this scenario is the case, it might take ages to get a proper picture of the whole situation.
The question is now: where did the ship hit that reef that must be on the waterlevel as the damage goes till the wind/waterline. An aerial survey must clear up this question.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by xymotic

Well, and are we even sure that's where they hit? I've seen major discrepancies between the AIS course and the charted ones. if you believe AIS it seems like they hit a rock in the middle of nowhere, which probably was uncharted.

Then there's the red line course drawn between the rocks, but no real explanation where that data came from.

Yes I agree I'm not sure how gemitrakkic got that the one in marine traffic shows an approach from out to sea and then a collision with the coast north of the harbour. In fact my navionics chart now shows the wreck location !! But that can't account for the damage and the fact that people heard the grounding some time before the ship stopped, in fact they were told it was a generator fault.

Strange one I don't beleive marine traffic .com track is right.

[xymotic]

The part I don't get is the delay in calling a mayday. The coast guard is reporting they didn't hear from the ship til they were near the town.

One would think they would have reported a major power problem, very early on at the very least. And one would think that the below decks areas would have pretty good video to the bridge? no? They had to know they were taking on water fairly quickly after the initial impact.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by MacG

Which understanding? The SOP has been totally forgotten but please tell me what sort of navigation brings a ship right here?

The picture might self explanatory ......

One report I've seen suggested that the captain deliberately ran the boat aground so that it would not sink. If that is true, I think it was a good idea. However, having just seen those charts I still don't understand why the ship hit those rocks to begin with.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by xymotic

I agree, I'd think twice before taking my 7' draft boat there at all let alone at speed.

OTOH, it had been done once a week for at least a year. And I guess it was sunset so it must have been to 'oooh and ahhhhh' the passengers.

It seems hard to jump to fault the captain, this is starting to look like a stupid company. Much like Exxon Valdez, was that accident the result of an off-duty captain having a few too many? Or of a tired crew that had been cut to half size and the remaining half work much longer hours, and had a broken radar for a year?

The Company has said the ship was not off course, so you gotta ask why the hell would they want to take a ship there?

It may well be that the captain was derelict to the point that he should be charged with murder, but it seems to me quite a rush to judgment when they really don't know what happened yet. I suspect ships of this size have the equivalent of the "black box" systems on commercial airliners.

I hope we can trust the Italian judicial system. It didn't work very well for Amanda Knox.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

It may well be that the captain was derelict to the point that he should be charged with murder, but it seems to me quite a rush to judgment when they really don't know what happened yet. I suspect ships of this size have the equivalent of the "black box" systems on commercial airliners.

I hope we can trust the Italian judicial system. It didn't work very well for Amanda Knox.

They do, and the Italian's have already retrieved them.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I suspect ships of this size have the equivalent of the "black box" systems on commercial airliners.

They are called "Voyage Data Recorders", and yes she will have one....

<B>

Voyage Data Recorders
Passenger ships and ships other than passenger ships of 3000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 2002 must carry voyage data recorders (VDRs) to assist in accident investigations, under regulations adopted in 2000, which entered into force on 1 July 2002.
The mandatory regulations are contained in chapter V on Safety of Navigation of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS).
Like the black boxes carried on aircraft, VDRs enable accident investigators to review procedures and instructions in the moments before an incident and help to identify the cause of any accident.
VDR requirements
Under regulation 20 of SOLAS chapter V on Voyage data recorders (VDR), the following ships are required to carry VDRs:
· passenger ships constructed on or after 1 July 2002;
· ro-ro passenger ships constructed before 1 July 2002 not later than the first survey on or after 1 July 2002;
· passenger ships other than ro-ro passenger ships constructed before 1 July 2002 not later than 1 January 2004; and
· ships, other than passenger ships, of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed on or after 1 July 2002.
VDRs are required to meet performance standards "not inferior to those adopted by the Organization".
Performance standards for VDRs were adopted in 1997 and give details on data to be recorded and VDR specifications. They state that the VDR should continuously maintain sequential records of preselected data items relating to status and output of the ship's equipment and command and control of the ship. The VDR should be installed in a protective capsule that is brightly coloured and fitted with an appropriate device to aid location. It should be entirely automatic in normal operation.
Administrations may exempt ships, other than ro-ro passenger ships, constructed before 1 July 2002, from being fitted with a VDR where it can be demonstrated that interfacing a VDR with the existing equipment on the ship is unreasonable and impracticable.



Regulation18 of SOLAS chapter V on Approval, surveys and performance standards of navigational systems and equipment and voyage data recorder states that:

The voyage data recorder (VDR) system, including all sensors, shall be subjected to an annual performance test. The test shall be conducted by an approved testing or servicing facility to verify the accuracy, duration and recoverability of the recorded data. In addition, tests and inspections shall be conducted to determine the serviceability of all protective enclosures and devices fitted to aid location. A copy of a the certificate of compliance issued by the testing facility, stating the date of compliance and the applicable performance standards, shall be retained on board the ship.

Simplified VDRs
The MSC at its 79th session in December 2004 adopted amendments to regulation 20 of SOLAS chapter V (Safety of Navigation) on a phased-in carriage requirement for a shipborne simplified voyage data recorder (S-VDR). The amendment entered into force on 1 July 2006.
The regulation requires a VDR, which may be an S-VDR, to be fitted on existing cargo ships of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards, phasing in the requirement for cargo ships of 20,000 gross tonnage and upwards first, to be followed by cargo ships of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards.
The S-VDR is not required to store the same level of detailed data as a standard VDR, but nonetheless should maintain a store, in a secure and retrievable form, of information concerning the position, movement, physical status, command and control of a vessel over the period leading up to and following an incident.
The phase-in is as follows:

To assist in casualty investigations, cargo ships, when engaged on international voyages, shall be fitted with a VDR which may be a simplified voyage data recorder (S VDR) as follows:

• in the case of cargo ships of 20,000 gross tonnage and upwards constructed before 1 July 2002, at the first scheduled dry-docking after 1 July 2006 but not later than 1 July 2009;
• in the case of cargo ships of 3,000 gross tonnage and upwards but less than 20,000 gross tonnage constructed before 1 July 2002, at the first scheduled dry-docking after 1 July 2007 but not later than 1 July 2010; and
• Administrations may exempt cargo ships from the application of the requirements when such ships will be taken permanently out of service within two years after the implementation date specified above.
  

</B>

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

It may well be that the captain was derelict to the point that he should be charged with murder, but it seems to me quite a rush to judgment when they really don't know what happened yet. I suspect ships of this size have the equivalent of the "black box" systems on commercial airliners.

I hope we can trust the Italian judicial system. It didn't work very well for Amanda Knox.

Or Meredith kercker

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Or Meredith kercker

Not too sure about that. They did get the guy after all. I just don't know how they could convict two sets of people for the exact same crime using an entirely different set of facts.