Cruise Ship Costa Concordia - MERGED THREADS

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

Dockhead- As I noted, he could have been using the raster versions of the electronic charts instead of paper charts. In that case he may not have zoomed in far enough to load the large-scale chart. It is just speculation at this point, but it would explain the captain's comment about not seeing the rocks on the chart. Only time will tell ... this is an unfolding story.

Also, I recently picked up that the captain's testimony to the CG included an admission that he had begun the turn too late. Clearly eyeballing a turn with that large a ship approaching hazards nearby is a pretty macho (& foolish) stunt.

In time the truth about this will be known. Seemingly the captain made mistakes of navigation and judgement, that we can all understand, that caused this accident. The behavior afterwards is more problematic. It makes me wish that the captains of cruise ships were 100% captains and 0% entertainers of guests...

Yes, I made that mistake and ran aground -- in waters I was somewhat familiar with. Rather embarrassing! But if I'd really used what the chart plotter had to offer me I would not have ended up in shallow water.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

So now it is reported that the Captain admitted navigating by eye only because he was very familiar with the area and did this several times before, and ordering the turn too late.

Now let's see what all the CF members that always write that eyeball nav is best and proven, think about that.

Estimating the ROT (rate of turn) on ships in close quarters is proven to be very difficult, too difficult for humans. On rivers they have computer guided systems to make the turns for barges that are mini compared to this collosal ship.

If the captain would have been a plotter-jockey they would most probably have made it.

cheers,
Nick.

OUCH!

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

It was one of these guys. Ship Docking Game ~ Online Ship Docking Game

In Martinique I hit that catamaran to see what it would do and it SANK. Didn't even flip over - just disappeared.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by jdanel

Photos: Costa Concordia Disaster

This url links to a picture of what looks like a hole in the starboard side in the white paint area above the waterline.

My conjecture is that the ship was listing as it drifted toward the shore and hit that small rock that you can see sticking out of the water about 30 m off the starboard side. That would account for the "sudden lurch" that several have mentioned and it may or may not have thrown the captain off the ship.

Leakage at that point would also seem likely to increase the careening to starboard.

Thoughts?

Save up to 75%
on Last-Minute Cruises




This link is pretty cool too, thanks.

[MC2019]

I really doubt the grounding it to save people part ....... if he had grounded it intentionally to save people why did he jump ship ......

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

and he seems to have screwed up so many other things.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

... A year or two ago I went to Cancun with a girl friend. The first two hours were spent explaining to my friend what a death trap the stairwells were, or how that tall vase on the narrow table could easily kill someone. They didn't even have the TV bolted down in our room. You can imagine how fun i was to listen to, my poor landlubber friend grew more and more anxious as I looked over the beast. ...

Even more risky/dangerous is transiting the oceans in a pleasure boat which most participants of this forum seem to either do or dream about.

[DJBrookster]

Look, quite rightly the skipper is saying little. Especially in the light of the Italian prosecutor throwing everything he can at him. Let's not be judgemental right now and grieve for the dead and hope for the missing. We can only hope that a proper and thorough investigation is carried out getting to the truth!

[downunder]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Even more risky/dangerous is transiting the oceans in a pleasure boat which most participants of this forum seem to either do or dream about.

OUCH !

[SabreKai]

Getting that pig out of there is going to take some pretty fancy salvage work. I just read that the company contracted to remove the fuel oil is stating it will take up to 3 weeks to do that job. I expect they will either bring in a coastal tanker or a barge with tank and secure it along side (weather permitting).

Once they have the fuel out then they have to decide how to right her. To dewater her, they have to plug the holes along the port side aft, plus all the holes being ground into the hull on the stbd side as she bounces off the rocks. There is a good bit of damage already to the stbd side, that much is evident from photos. Then they will have to seal off every port and balcony door on that side.

Attaching airbags will require the welding of attachment points at intervals along the hull. They may pass some cables under the hull but with it grinding on rock that may not be possible. So the bags will have to attached on the stbd side, as low as possible and pumped up. Probably they will build a compressor plant on the rocks alongside, and run the hoses to the bags from there. As they pump the air in, they will have to attach a second row of bags to the hull as she rolls, because the first set will have reached the surface. If they decide to roll her using cables and winches, they would have to build a firm footing on the shore side, erect sheerlegs so the lift would be vertical and then lift from the stbd side while counter ballasting on the port side. The simplest way to ballast on the port side would be to hang tanks on the outer skin and fill them with hoses. This way the weight would be even further out from the center and require less water ballast.

Some of the techniques used at Pearl might work. However do consider that USS California grossed 40K tons. This pig is almost 3x that heavy, and I'll wager not built nearly as strong. Warship vs Passenger liner. Where welding a lift point to armor would be very strong, putting the same lift point on a thin skin ship would require a larger pad first welded over a large area, then the lift point. Doing that underwater with the hull shifting even a tiny bit would not be fun. Looking at that bottom contour from the spiegel illustration, you can see that the hull side is just about flat on the bottom so getting the lift points deep down is going to be a joy.

I look forward to seeing how they do this.

[Silverado6x6]

Modern day cruise ship hull and a warship hull are probably at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. warships are designed with the ultimate in water tight compartments, plus they have more thicker steel.

This cruise boat could be salvaged to some degree but only in smaller sections, massive shore based chain cutters dice the ship into workable sections, that is my guess as to waht will have to be done.

I have read every single comment on a thread over at Cruise Reviews, Cruise Deals and Cruises - Cruise Critic about the Costa Concordia, the most common replies is those ardent fans supporting the cruise industry and of course their signatures show all of their cruises worldwide. Some people are so fortunate I guess to have the funding to cruise the world continuously while some can barely achieve to do it singly with a vessel of their own.

Back to salvage, if its going to take three weeks just to pump fuel off I seriously doubt the ship will stay where its at, if anything I would be willing to say some people are probably hoping that after the fuels are pumped off that it does indeed slide into deeper water, and then becomes another future tourist attraction.

Maritime law is often signed by blood appears to be the theme, now I could say we will see a much more aggressive stance about Captain competency and passenger muster training.

[avb3]

Maybe I am naive, but if it was in deeper water, would it not be easier to raise? If it is resting on rocks (as it is), how the heck are they going to get it to float?

If it was in deeper water, those air bladders get a chance to do their stuff, seems to me.

But then again, what do I know?

[deckofficer]

Originally Posted by Silverado6x6

Modern day cruise ship hull and a warship hull are probably at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. warships are designed with the ultimate in water tight compartments, plus they have more thicker steel.

Not to mention positive stability is at opposite ends of the spectrum. Nothing is more tender than a cruise ship, not even a RORO. Can't allow the cruise ship patrons to get sea sick from a vessel that has good positive stability, hence a more spirited righting moment.

[Silverado6x6]

That forum Cruise critic has some real nasty Forum nazis, they don't particularly like to hear the truth don't they?

I could honestly say that if the Captain was of a different ethnic background this may not have happened. He thought this cruise ship was his personal Lamborghini or a Ferrari Testarossa.

But heck I am Italian as well.

[deckofficer]

I'll admit to getting flamed pretty good at the critic, my britches are still smoldering. And to think, I even wore my dress whites for my avatar. lol

[Silverado6x6]

You know I have about half a dozen forums I frequent on any given day and a lot cached over the years, from political forums to motorcycle forums as I have three bikes, I used to work on a cruise boat myself though I consider it a gross exaggeration at times, it was just a sternwheeler at Lake Tahoe for two years, I was the chief engineer but in reality a simple mechanic, but my duties did include over that course of times many adventures some worthy to write a book about.

But most of all when I had to organize 500 passengers per trip for several cruises per day and the occasional weekend ski cruises that traveled the length of Lake Tahoe in the winter I usually see one consistent factor, the passengers board with trust that the crew is trained to assist them in almost any situation.

So I believe the crew must have done an outstanding job considering there must have been a break in the chain of command, just the fact that the vessel even still had some maneuvering power is a credit to those that were probably up to their necks in water trying to keep the mains online.

I have been there when I lost not one or two but both the stb and port engines AND the main generator due to a faulty fuel line valve. Which makes me wonder if the emergency generator up at the wheelhouse was gimballed, I would think if not it should be a design worth looking into.

Over at CruiseCritic I noticed that the sailing history signatures are not as big or fancy, I think people are sobering up a bit, personally I think almost all of those floating condos are a waste of money, when things go bad they go bad in a big hurry. Too big to control, too big for a single Captain, that there could be the flaw and the answer. I bet in the future they will start treating these vessels like aircraft, locked down bridges, armed guards and remote operators standing by to take over in case of a rogue situation from happening, that includes fly-bys and pirates.

Back around 1977 I took a tour on the Queen Mary, now that was a ship! INever been on one of these super ships and I have no plans on doing so, I was at one time on a Disney Cruise forums years ago a very hated person, they thought Disney could never do any harm.

And they still do in part of forum moderators getting tough with those that disagree with the "happy happy" agenda.