Cruise liner sinks off Italy

[ralphchadkirk]

I see quite a few of you are spouting stuff without really knowing much at all.

What's your qualification?

 

[junglejames]

What's your qualification?

My CoC always helps.
As does common sense and thinking about it rationally.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

My CoC always helps.

What's CoC? I'm genuinely interested if you're involved with marine design.

 

[junglejames]

What's CoC? I'm genuinely interested if you're involved with marine design.

Im not involved with marine design, but as i currently work at sea, I have a fair idea on some areas.
CoC is Certificate of Competency. ie to be a navigating officer at sea.

 

[Schnellzug]

Is it common sense and rational thinking to envisage that there could have been a rock, big enough to sink a 100,000 ton cruise ship, within a few hundred metres of a populated island, which no one had ever noticed before, or which at any rate they had neglected to put on a chart? I'm really sorry if this is spouting about something about which I know nothing, but it really seems to be stretching plausibility there.

 

[swj99]

There are various allegations flying about, and it's hard to know what to believe. The situation seems to be going from bad to worse, especially with the discovery of more casualties.

 

[junglejames]

Is it common sense and rational thinking to envisage that there could have been a rock, big enough to sink a 100,000 ton cruise ship, within a few hundred metres of a populated island, which no one had ever noticed before, or which at any rate they had neglected to put on a chart? I'm really sorry if this is spouting about something about which I know nothing, but it really seems to be stretching plausibility there.

1- Rock big enough to sink a 100,000 tonne ship? What do you mean by big enough? It only has to be big enough to puncture a hole through steel. If it can do that, then it can bring a ship down.

2- Would you believe me if I said there were some actual islands in the Western Pacific that are apparently charted in the wrong place on the charts? Well there are, and these are very old islands.

As for this rock/ reef that the Concordia has struck. Im not saying its definitely uncharted. Im just saying that so far, all we have heard is the Capt saying it wasnt charted. We dont know anymore than this. Also, looking at the island, and where it was, its probably fair to say that these cruise ships are the deepest drafted vessels that go anywhere near this area. All these yachts that are there would not be deep enough to notice this rock. Its also possible that whenever the surveys of the seabed have been carried out, this rock has been missed. If its just one rock, that is possible, as the QE2 proved a number of years back.
Also, in some places, the last survey was over 100yrs ago. Whether that is the case here or not, I do not know. Oh, and it wouldnt be a case of just not bothering to put it on a chart. If it is known about, it will be put on a chart. There are chart corrections issued every week. Corrections are always taking place. This is taken very seriously.
Perhaps the Concordia on this occasion was 30metres closer or further away from the island than the cruise ships usually pass. All it takes is a few metres, and you find this rock not found before.

Surely its possible to imagine a lone rock thats not been noticed? Dont be fooled by the ships size either. The thickness of the steel will probably be the same.

Also, on a slightly related note, just for information. When it is said that the gross tonnage of a ship is 100,000 tonnes, this doesnt relate to the weight of the vessel. It is the amount of space inside the vessel.

All the news reports I have seen have been going on about a 100,000 tonne ship. They think this is the weight, but in actual fact they are quoting the vessels gross tonnage. 115,000 gross tonnes to be exact isnt it?

 

[kylemore]

I tend to agree that a pinnacle of rock could have gone undetected though not by the locals as inshore fishermen anywhere know their ground like the back of their hands.

 

[YorkshireRider]

Thanks for some insight into the subject junglejames, very intresting and i must agree that the way the captain has been hung out to dry by the company is quite discraceful, especially now it is clear going off course is the norm when passing this island. This is someone that they must of felt highly of to give him the post of captain in the first place.

 

[WestCoast]

Sadly, the confirmed death toll now stands at 11. There's certainly a stir about the captain's alleged actions.

Latest info: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16598232.

 

[junglejames]

Sadly, the confirmed death toll now stands at 11. There's certainly a stir about the captain's alleged actions.

Latest info: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16598232.

Unfortunately the Capt seems to have abandoned ship too soon himself. Very poor actions from him.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Also, on a slightly related note, just for information. When it is said that the gross tonnage of a ship is 100,000 tonnes, this doesnt relate to the weight of the vessel. It is the amount of space inside the vessel.

All the news reports I have seen have been going on about a 100,000 tonne ship. They think this is the weight, but in actual fact they are quoting the vessels gross tonnage. 115,000 gross tonnes to be exact isnt it?

Yes; Costa Concordia's displacement ( true weight ) is 51,387 tonnes - though I am not sure if that is the tare weight or the fully loaded weight.

 

[junglejames]

Yes; Costa Concordia's displacement ( true weight ) is 51,387 tonnes - though I am not sure if that is the tare weight or the fully loaded weight.

I would assume unless otherwise stated, its the tare weight, but dont quote me on that!
Peter, you can back me up on the QE2 and the uncharted rock/ reef cant you?!!!

 

[kylemore]

My sympathy for the Master is growing after hearing the disgraceful radio exchange between him and the shore based official, who cannot see what is going on and even if it is possible for him to re-board the vessel. Bullying, hectoring, more interested in "Grandstanding" than helping the people on the scene, the official is a disgrace.
Some crew members are now starting to post on shipping forums and are very angry at the portrayal of the evacuation. One in particular claims to have been on the boat the Master got into and said he was the last to board from that area. The fact remains that nearly 4000 people, many of them panicking, many of them elderly were evacuated from a rapidly tilting ship, in the dark in the space of two hours - has this even been done before?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I tend to agree that a pinnacle of rock could have gone undetected though not by the locals as inshore fishermen anywhere know their ground like the back of their hands.

I did hear it being quoted that underwater seismic activity in a very active area as that region could have caused a minor sea floor deforrmation around the Italian coast where the accident occurred which could have caused large boulders to be uplifted into the mapped area without being noticed.

What are the draught requirements of this particular vessel ?

 

[junglejames]

My sympathy for the Master is growing after hearing the disgraceful radio exchange between him and the shore based official, who cannot see what is going on and even if it is possible for him to re-board the vessel. Bullying, hectoring, more interested in "Grandstanding" than helping the people on the scene, the official is a disgrace.
Some crew members are now starting to post on shipping forums and are very angry at the portrayal of the evacuation. One in particular claims to have been on the boat the Master got into and said he was the last to board from that area. The fact remains that nearly 4000 people, many of them panicking, many of them elderly were evacuated from a rapidly tilting ship, in the dark in the space of two hours - has this even been done before?

The Capt got off too early i believe. The Coastguard wasnt bullying. More letting the Captain know he has done wrong and needs to be onboard. The Capt should have been onboard and coordinating with the coastguard.

As for claiming the coastguard was more interested in grandstanding than helping passengers. That is unfair. Somebody needs to be coordinating the rescue from shore side. By the looks of it, he was the person doing this, or at least one of the people. So he was helping. You cant have everybody onboard. Somebody needs to stand back and take charge. As part of helping the passengers, the coastguard needed the Capt back onboard the ship. That is very fair.

As long as there are passengers onboard actively trying to escape, the Capt should himself have been there helping. He wasnt.

As for the rescue/ abandon ship itself. No problems there. The Crew have obviously done a fantastic job to evacuate so many people, and they are a credit to the industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I did hear it being quoted that underwater seismic activity in a very active area as that region could have caused a minor sea floor deforrmation around the Italian coast where the accident occurred which could have caused large boulders to be uplifted into the mapped area without being noticed.

What are the draught requirements of this particular vessel ?

You mean what are the UKC (Under Keel Clearance) requirements? Not sure. At least 10 metres or so Id have thought when underway like that.
The VDR (black box) will hopefully tell us what the UKC was prior to the grounding. That will give us an idea as to whether the Capt was negligent in being where he was. As well as looking at the charts for the area.

 

[Oswyntail]

I find it amusing that so many are commenting here, quoting a variety of news sources - god, healthy opinion sharing. Had this been a crash at a level crossing, there would have been a sizeable body of railwaymen telling people to abstain, not to comment on individuals, to reserve judgement until the results of the enquiry are published etc.

 

[junglejames]

I find it amusing that so many are commenting here, quoting a variety of news sources - god, healthy opinion sharing. Had this been a crash at a level crossing, there would have been a sizeable body of railwaymen telling people to abstain, not to comment on individuals, to reserve judgement until the results of the enquiry are published etc.

That is sort of what im saying on some points. Just in a few more words!!

 

[kylemore]

The Capt got off too early i believe. The Coastguard wasnt bullying. More letting the Captain know he has done wrong and needs to be onboard. The Capt should have been onboard and coordinating with the coastguard.

As for claiming the coastguard was more interested in grandstanding than helping passengers. That is unfair. Somebody needs to be coordinating the rescue from shore side. By the looks of it, he was the person doing this, or at least one of the people. So he was helping. You cant have everybody onboard. Somebody needs to stand back and take charge. As part of helping the passengers, the coastguard needed the Capt back onboard the ship. That is very fair.

As long as there are passengers onboard actively trying to escape, the Capt should himself have been there helping. He wasnt.

As for the rescue/ abandon ship itself. No problems there. The Crew have obviously done a fantastic job to evacuate so many people, and they are a credit to the industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You mean what are the UKC (Under Keel Clearance) requirements? Not sure. At least 10 metres or so Id have thought when underway like that.
The VDR (black box) will hopefully tell us what the UKC was prior to the grounding. That will give us an idea as to whether the Capt was negligent in being where he was. As well as looking at the charts for the area.

Well here is a scenario which may explain his actions. According to a female crew member who posted on the "Maritime Matters" website the Master was the last to board the boat she was in, now this presumably was the area inset into the hull where the boats are stowed. If this was the area on the Starboard side (the side rapidly slipping below the sea), by staying there after all persons from that area had evacuated he would have effectively been committing suicide to no purpose whatsoever.
By the time the shoreside rescue person was shouting, bawling and swearing at him over the radio he may have been staring up at the sheer sides of once horizontal decks with little way of getting up to those still aboard - mainly now standing on the now near horizontal Starboard side of the ship.
OK most of this is conjecture based on one crew eye-witness account but it may be what happened more or less.

 

[Greenback]

I find it amusing that so many are commenting here, quoting a variety of news sources - god, healthy opinion sharing. Had this been a crash at a level crossing, there would have been a sizeable body of railwaymen telling people to abstain, not to comment on individuals, to reserve judgement until the results of the enquiry are published etc.

There have been many posts that have referred to waiting for the results of the investigation, and trying to avoid speculation.

As I would have expected, the online forums related to cruising and shipping have had far more arguments like we have on here about railway matters, with a high level of posts from ship's staff which, while not necessarily defending the alelged actions of the captain, have requested that judgement be reserved until all the details are known!

Well here is a scenario which may explain his actions. According to a female crew member who posted on the "Maritime Matters" website the Master was the last to board the boat she was in, now this presumably was the area inset into the hull where the boats are stowed. If this was the area on the Starboard side (the side rapidly slipping below the sea), by staying there after all persons from that area had evacuated he would have effectively been committing suicide to no purpose whatsoever.
By the time the shoreside rescue person was shouting, bawling and swearing at him over the radio he may have been staring up at the sheer sides of once horizontal decks with little way of getting up to those still aboard - mainly now standing on the now near horizontal Starboard side of the ship.
OK most of this is conjecture based on one crew eye-witness account but it may be what happened more or less.

This is the sort of thing that is probably best avoided - by that I mean taking an unverified posting on another website and then adding further suppositions which may or may not be true!

 

[kylemore]

There have been many posts that have referred to waiting for the results of the investigation, and trying to avoid speculation.

As I would have expected, the online forums related to cruising and shipping have had far more arguments like we have on here about railway matters, with a high level of posts from ship's staff which, while not necessarily defending the alelged actions of the captain, have requested that judgement be reserved until all the details are known!



This is the sort of thing that is probably best avoided - by that I mean taking an unverified posting on another website and then adding further suppositions which may or may not be true!

Maybe so Greenback but I don't think we're in a position say to unduly influence any Judicial process for instance. I don't think discussion and even conjecture about this terrible event (which save the actions of those on the Bridge after she struck would have been infinately worse) is harmful as long as we stay within the bounds of taste.
With every media report the unremitting demolition of Capt Schettino continues, the famous recording is played incessently and is portrayed without exception as an justifiably angry coastguard official dealing with a cowardly, incompetent buffoon, well when I listen to it thats not really what I hear, so I'm just putting forward an alternative view.
I accept I might be wrong - the clue is in my last sentence.

 

[Greenback]

Maybe so Greenback but I don't think we're in a position say to unduly influence any Judicial process for instance. I don't think discussion and even conjecture about this terrible event (which save the actions of those on the Bridge after she struck would have been infinately worse) is harmful as long as we stay within the bounds of taste.
With every media report the unremitting demolition of Capt Schettino continues, the famous recording is played incessently and is portrayed without exception as an justifiably angry coastguard official dealing with a cowardly, incompetent buffoon, well when I listen to it thats not really what I hear, so I'm just putting forward an alternative view.
I accept I might be wrong - the clue is in my last sentence.

It's not about influencing any judicial inquiry, there's just little point in it. I'm not criticising you by the way, I'm just pointing out that there may well be a few people who are saying on the web that they were there and this or that happened, who are in fact maiing it up.

When it comes to the recording of the coastguard and the captain, it doesn't mean a lot without hearing the whole exchange - we only hear selected snippets, which someone, somewhere, has chosen to release to the media in that form.

I'll keep an open mind.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I would assume unless otherwise stated, its the tare weight, but dont quote me on that!
Peter, you can back me up on the QE2 and the uncharted rock/ reef cant you?!!!

You must be thinking of the Martha's Vineyard grounding? Even that isn't as straightforward as it looks - that situation was exacerbated by the speed of QE2 at the time causing an effect where, in shallow water, the water depth is actually reduced as a result of the speed; had QE2 been crawling along she would have ( just! ) cleared that rock!

There are lots of details about this incident on the QE2 forum.

Had QE2 been a cruise ship and not a liner she probably would not have survived that grounding - a whole third of her hull was damaged but because she has much thicker plating than most ships there was less penetration than would have otherwise occured, and most of the penetration was confined to the deep tanks.

 

[kylemore]

It's not about influencing any judicial inquiry, there's just little point in it. I'm not criticising you by the way, I'm just pointing out that there may well be a few people who are saying on the web that they were there and this or that happened, who are in fact maiing it up.

When it comes to the recording of the coastguard and the captain, it doesn't mean a lot without hearing the whole exchange - we only hear selected snippets, which someone, somewhere, has chosen to release to the media in that form.

I'll keep an open mind.

So do I but I felt the barrage of ordure was just a wee bit too one-sided, he may well be all he is accused of.
However one thing I'm pretty sure of is that many of those passengers now alive owe their lives to some fast thinking on that bridge after the event.

 

[Schnellzug]

Meanwhile, Costa are doing themselves some big favours from a PR point of view ... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=92821



I'm wondering whether Carnival Corp might not want to start thinking about dropping Costa from their portfolio ...

 

[jon0844]

Even though I bet a lot of what they've said is completely true (we regularly speak on here about silly things the public do on trains), it's rather bad timing!!

What did I say in the Tesco thread about the 'Gerald Ratner moment'?

 

[junglejames]

So do I but I felt the barrage of ordure was just a wee bit too one-sided, he may well be all he is accused of.
However one thing I'm pretty sure of is that many of those passengers now alive owe their lives to some fast thinking on that bridge after the event.

Oh thats a definite. The Capt has saved a lot of lives by heading to shallow water.
The point about the Capt being one of the last off the Stbd side is a good point. He probably was. But the clip of the telephone conversation (whilst unfortunately being taken the wrong way), was just the coastguard telling the Capt he needed him back onboard. If the translation is correct, them some of the comments from the coastguard do sound very immature, but I put that down to the situation he found himself in.

 

[YorkshireBear]

If i just survived that i would of probably been a bit sensational too... they will calm down with what they say as time goes by

 

[junglejames]

You must be thinking of the Martha's Vineyard grounding? Even that isn't as straightforward as it looks - that situation was exacerbated by the speed og QE2 at the time causing an effect where, in shallow water, the water depth is actually reduced as a result of the speed; had QE2 been crawling along she would have ( just! ) cleared that rock!

But the rock wasnt charted. Yes squat obviously played a part, but if you kept thinking there may be uncharted rocks, and that going fast could leave you more open to hitting them, then you wouldnt actually go anywhere.
At the end of the day, according to the chart, the QE2 had plenty of water beneath her. There shouldnt have been a problem. So going fast wasnt a problem. Seen by the fact that the Capt was cleared of all wrong doing.
Squat itself can be seen in deep water as well as shallow water. Just not to the same effect.

Had QE2 been a cruise ship and not a liner she probably would not have survived that grounding - a whole third of her hull was damaged but because she has much thicker plating than most ships there was less penetration than would have otherwise occured, and most of the penetration was confined to the deep tanks.

Well the QE2 was a well built and well designed vessel. The last great vessel we shall see.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes, that is true - you cannot crawl along everywhere "just in case"; in a railway analogy to this you have to trust the signalling system.

You are right that the QE2 was the last great vessel, though she is not the last liner - QM2 was built to full Atlantic liner specifications, although unfortunately she does look like a floating block of flats! At least she does not look totally awful like a lot of the modern builds do.