Cruise liner sinks off Italy

[ralphchadkirk]

yes, but charts are all electronic these days, and surely a company of that size and wealth should be in possession of the latest updates.

I've made bold the important word.

 

[Schnellzug]

Indeed. I think there's all sorts of things that the italian equivalent of the MCA might look at Costa very carefully with regard to.

 

[WestCoast]

I am sure when recordings from the 'black box' system are recovered, the investigators will have a clearer picture of what happened.

Although, the report that some of the senior crew (the Captain and First Officer) allegedly left before passengers seems suspicious to me. If they knew this fact, then that is really quite damning with regards to their competence.

 

[Greenback]

I am sure when recordings from the 'black box' system are recovered, the investigators will have a clearer picture of what happened.

Indeed. It may take a while though.

Although, the report that some of the senior crew (the Captain and First Officer) allegedly left before passengers seems suspicious to me. If they knew this fact, then that is really quite damning with regards to their competence.

It's interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that the actiosn of the captain have led to a lot of arguments between cruise/ship staff and passengers on a crusing forum I am a member of!

As we often say on this forum, there is no point in speculating and having a slanging match over something that may or may not be true. Much better to wait for the conclusions of the investigation!

In the meantime, I think that the entire industry will suffer from this sinking and the very sad loss of life that ensued.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Dont know how he can blame out of date charts, he headed straight for an island that hasnt moved for thousands of years!!!!

 

[WestCoast]

It's interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that the actiosn of the captain have led to a lot of arguments between cruise/ship staff and passengers on a crusing forum I am a member of!

As we often say on this forum, there is no point in speculating and having a slanging match over something that may or may not be true. Much better to wait for the conclusions of the investigation!

In the meantime, I think that the entire industry will suffer from this sinking and the very sad loss of life that ensued.

Yes, I agree it's far too early to reach any conclusions like that, but the picture being painted doesn't see too good. We shall see.

Of course, this is still ongoing at the moment.

 

[trentside]

I agree that speculation is best avoided, and offer my sympathies to those who have lost their lives.

My grandfather, who passed away last year, spent most of his career at sea. As fascinated as he was with ships, he never approved of these modern cruise liners, commenting that their size and design made them a 'disaster waiting to happen'.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

There's nothing wrong with cruise ships (in general) size and design. They all have passed stringent marine regulations. Whilst they do look top heavy, in actual fact most of the weight is in the hull, stabilising it.

 

[Schnellzug]

Most of them, though, are fairly shallow draught so they can get into those out of the way places. Proper ocean liners of old had deep draught, high freeboard and relatively low superstructure (usually no higher than three decks or so); these great things are exactly the opposite. Shallow draught, low freeboard (sometimes it's hard to tell where the hull begins and ends), and enormous superstructures towering into the heavens. And not only that, they have big windows in the hull only one or two decks above the waterline, which some consider would be another thing that's asking for trouble.

 

[Greenback]

There's nothing wrong with cruise ships (in general) size and design. They all have passed stringent marine regulations. Whilst they do look top heavy, in actual fact most of the weight is in the hull, stabilising it.

Most of them, though, are fairly shallow draught so they can get into those out of the way places. Proper ocean liners of old had deep draught, high freeboard and relatively low superstructure (usually no higher than three decks or so); these great things are exactly the opposite. Shallow draught, low freeboard (sometimes it's hard to tell where the hull begins and ends), and enormous superstructures towering into the heavens. And not only that, they have big windows in the hull only one or two decks above the waterline, which some consider would be another thing that's asking for trouble.

Indeed, thatw as the point that Iw as trying to make earlier in the thread. Although most of the weight is at the bottom of the ship, and the whole thing is stable enough at sea, I am interested in what the investigation might reveal about what happens to these sort of ships when they come to rest on rocks or sand in shallow water. They are not designed to do this, they are designed to 'float'. I am no expert, so I could be completely wrong, but I would not be surprised if the reason the ship listed had something to do with the low draught and high superstructure.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Indeed, thatw as the point that Iw as trying to make earlier in the thread. Although most of the weight is at the bottom of the ship, and the whole thing is stable enough at sea, I am interested in what the investigation might reveal about what happens to these sort of ships when they come to rest on rocks or sand in shallow water. They are not designed to do this, they are designed to 'float'. I am no expert, so I could be completely wrong, but I would not be surprised if the reason the ship listed had something to do with the low draught and high superstructure.

Ah right, I see what you mean. It may be a confounding factor - I believe there was quite a lot of surprise over how quickly it toppled.

 

[Greenback]

Ah right, I see what you mean. It may be a confounding factor - I believe there was quite a lot of surprise over how quickly it toppled.

Yes, there was! I can't recall any other occasion that a modern cruise ship has seemed to run aground, so I don't know whether this has ever been tested for in design simulations or accounted for in maritime safety law.

 

[lincolnshire]

The first thing that I always do when getting on a ship is to read the back of the cabin door to find out where the muster station is in case if an emergency.

As has been said before, you don,t need muster drill at start, but must be done 24 hours after leaving embarkation port.This was common procedure on P & O cruises, but after Herald of Free Enterprise capsizing it was introduced before leaving port to reassure the passengers.

Another thing I always pack ( which some people laugh about) is a torch as you never know when your going to need it, as in this case when the lights went out inside the ship.

Even if stopping at Hotel I always take a torch for same reason , you can always find your way in a strange place with a light, even a cheap LED rechargeable is better than nothing and the batteries are never flat.

 

[deltic1989]

Another thing I always pack ( which some people laugh about) is a torch as you never know when your going to need it, as in this case when the lights went out inside the ship.

Even if stopping at Hotel I always take a torch for same reason , you can always find your way in a strange place with a light, even a cheap LED rechargeable is better than nothing and the batteries are never flat.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one that does this never know when you're going to need one.

Regarding this incident, surely the Captain or Navigator (or at least his Yeoman) should have known exactly where the ship was and given the wrecks proximity to a rather large piece of land if they had been keeping a good watch even if the navigation was off then they should have seen it coming or had warning from the sonar that the depth was reaching the limit of the ships draught. There are measures in place in maritime law to prevent things like this from happening, not saying that the shipping line or this ship in particular were breaching maritime law but this ind of thing should not happen. Ships will never be made to be unsinkable but looking at the pictures, if the hull was thicker or the damage control operation was better then the vessel would have run aground but stayed afloat and upright, take the case of HMS Nottingham the ship ran aground off Australia due to a navigational boo boo, but because the crew were well versed and regerously trained in damage control (i know i had the same training, and one of the crewmembers from Nottingham was my class PO in basic) the ship did'nt sink even though almost 1/4 of the compartments below the waterline were flooded.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

No point in speculating.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Couple of points:

1) I should have said wing tank, not deep tanks, last night.

2) It is becoming interesting on the marine forums; it appears that ships of this line have been making a habit of going past this island like that at speed and sounding their horns as they do so. The reason is apparently that the wife of one of the Captains lives in that port, so it has become a kind of "salute" for them all to do this.

When I posted yesterday I was aware of those rumours ( in 2) above ) but there was nothing at the time to back them up so I did not mention it, but there is now: this is Concordia herself on a previous passage at the exact same location that she sank, and it is chilling just how close in she is at that speed: http://video.corriere.it/nave-concordia-al-giglio-/9dfa5ea6-3e9b-11e1-8b52-5f77182bc574


As to the quick capsize, it is quite possible that the submerged side of her is far more badly damaged that the bit that is sticking out of the water; until the sunken side is inspected we cannot know, of course.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Couple of points:

1) I should have said wing tank, not deep tanks, last night.

2) It is becoming interesting on the marine forums; it appears that ships of this line have been making a habit of going past this island like that at speed and sounding their horns as they do so. The reason is apparently that the wife of one of the Captains lives in that port, so it has become a kind of "salute" for them all to do this.

When I posted yesterday I was aware of those rumours ( in 2) above ) but there was nothing at the time to back them up so I did not mention it, but there is now: this is Concordia herself on a previous passage at the exact same location that she sank, and it is chilling just how close in she is at that speed: http://video.corriere.it/nave-concordia-al-giglio-/9dfa5ea6-3e9b-11e1-8b52-5f77182bc574


As to the quick capsize, it is quite possible that the submerged side of her is far more badly damaged that the bit that is sticking out of the water; until the sunken side is inspected we cannot know, of course.

Shhhhhhhh******* that doesnt sound good. That was very close very fast. No wonder it went wrong one time.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The point is the video proves it wasn't a one off navigational error this weekend; and it's all over the internet now. You can bet the IMO inspectors and every other relevant authority will have seen it by now.

Just to put this video into context, if any of you have ever watched a large ship pass Fort Victoria on the Isle of Wight, the video shows about twice as much speed at roughly the same distance offshore but in shallower water with a lot more rocks around. And at Fort Victoria it's only narrow for a very short distance ( measure it on Google Maps between there and Hurst Castle ) at one point whereas the video clip clearly shows running parallel to the shore.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yes and i personally think that is worse than it being a one off. I personally think what they have done is most probably dangerous and if so how can they do that with 4000 peoples lives in their care?

 

[jon0844]

It doesn't look good, as people on the island are saying it was a lot closer than normal - but pretty much admitting that it regularly sailed off course to sail by.

The Telegraph is going with it on the front page and online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ail-past-put-ship-on-course-for-disaster.html

 

[Schnellzug]

The company seem very keen to put all the blame on the captain; who in turn is saying that his charts weren't up to date. Is that very likely? Is that the reason for the company's being so keen to blame him? is it very likely that unexpected hazards could spring up in an area they apparently regularly frequent since the last update?

 

[alanf]

Glad to see the company have got their priorities right and have already worked out it wil cost them $85-$95million this year in lost earnings.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The company seem very keen to put all the blame on the captain; who in turn is saying that his charts weren't up to date. Is that very likely? Is that the reason for the company's being so keen to blame him? is it very likely that unexpected hazards could spring up in an area they apparently regularly frequent since the last update?

Possibly. Sand banks regularly move. In any case, this is all speculation.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Schnellzug]

of course it's all speculation, but if we wait for the Official Enquiry, knowing how these things are like in Italy, it'll probably be about 8 years until anything comes out.

 

[kylemore]

That film changes everything, it shows that the manouver was carried out as routine and could not have been unknown to management who if they condoned it are just as much to blame as the Master.
Large ships do have to come close to shore for very good reasons such as entering or leaving port or navigating a restricted passage, but to stand such a huge vessel with 4000 souls aboard in danger for the frivolous purpose of putting on a show is unbelievable.
That said, it may well turn out that the quick actions of those on the Bridge in turning and beaching her may mean we are reckoning those lost in the tens and not the thousands.

 

[mbonwick]

The company seem very keen to put all the blame on the captain; who in turn is saying that his charts weren't up to date. Is that very likely? Is that the reason for the company's being so keen to blame him? is it very likely that unexpected hazards could spring up in an area they apparently regularly frequent since the last update?

Perfectly possible. I remember in 2004 there was an incident in turkey where a tanker grounded on a pinnacle in an anchoring area. Despite the charts being as up-to-date as possible, the pinnacle was uncharted.

I suspect we'll find that this incident was a combination of poorly charted/uncharted rocks, possibly coupled with the Captain using the wrong scale charts and definitely sailing off the planned course.

 

[Trog]

The captain is apparently blaming out of date charts (which does have some substance to it in that sandbanks do move) for hitting the rock.

Sandbanks may move, but large rocks don't.

 

[Schnellzug]

Perfectly possible. I remember in 2004 there was an incident in turkey where a tanker grounded on a pinnacle in an anchoring area. Despite the charts being as up-to-date as possible, the pinnacle was uncharted.

I suspect we'll find that this incident was a combination of poorly charted/uncharted rocks, possibly coupled with the Captain using the wrong scale charts and definitely sailing off the planned course.

Within a few hundred metres of an island, frequented by boats coming & going all day? No one had ever noticed that rock before, which had presumably been there for several millenia?

 

[kylemore]

Within a few hundred metres of an island, frequented by boats coming & going all day? No one had ever noticed that rock before, which had presumably been there for several millenia?

It does seem unlikely however stranger things have happened.
Yes the locals knew about it but did that neccessarily mean that the relevent authorities knew about it?
If known about one would expect such a dangerous object to be marked by a bouy.

 

[junglejames]

The points i was raising were the fact that the ship was designed for this not to happen... and people are getting complacent maybe with their attitude towards it.

Can you point me to where it is said this ship was designed never to sink?
It is not possible to design such a ship. Everything is sinkable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

OKay i will rephrase, It was designed that if the hull was breached it should not capsize. The hull was breached, in calm seas and had ran aground why did it then capsize, it makes no sense. They are designed to stay upright in more harsh conditions. Maybe not unsinkable thats not what i meant.

Capsize, sinking, not far off the same thing. I will try and explain how it isnt possible to design such a ship though, and why it is the Concordia has probably foundered.
Ships have full height water tight doors in all areas underneath the waterline. If 1 compartment is holed, all that can happen is that 1 compartment being filled with water. Ships are designed to withstand a certain number of compartments being holed and flooded. If only one or two compartments were holed on the Concordia, then it would have probably survived. However in this case, whatever has holed the ship, has, probably due to the ships speed, punctured the ship for quite a long length along its hull. This has left quite a few compartments open to flooding. More compartments than the ship is designed to survive. It obviously is not possible to design a ship that can survive all compartments being flooded. Unfortunately, the Concordia has had too many compartments flooded. It is rare for so many to be holed, but it is always possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I see quite a few of you are spouting stuff without really knowing much at all.
Lets start with what we know, and what seems to have been the problem.
The vessel altered off of her usual course to pass close to the island. This itself is nothing new, and is not in itself dangerous. On this occasion it was without the say so of the company, but Costa have admitted it often happens on their say so for festivals and celebrations.
As long as a safe course is plotted, passing this close to an island is not dangerous in the slightest.

Unfortunately on this occasion the vessel has hit a submerged rock or reef. The Capt is claiming it wasnt on the navigational charts. This is very possible. To say the ship was heading straight for an island that had been there for thousands of years is incorrect, and doesnt help. Its not the island that is the problem, and it wasnt heading straight for the island at the time of the grounding.

It is quite possible to have a rock or reef that was not charted. You cant expect every single thing to be charted, and in fact, it isnt. The QE2 once ran aground on a rock that was shown not to be charted. The Capt was totally in the clear once this was shown.
If it is shown that the rock/ reef the Concordia ran aground on was not charted, then you can hardly blame the Capt for this. It is a freak accident.
So people saying rocks cannot move are not fully appreciating that they dont need to move. It could be something that has never been charted. It may be pure luck that on previous occasions the ships have sailed passed uneventfully.

As for those saying it should have been obvious the ship was so close to land. Remember, where the ship finally came to rest is not where she ran aground initially. The Capt, once he realised the ship was going over, came even closer to land to leave the ship in shallow waters. This has helped the evacation no end. Otherwise the ship by now would not be visible above the water. The vessel did not run aground that close to the land.

It now seems likely, going by recordings from the coastguard, that the Capt has personally left the ship, or attempted to leave the ship too soon. This is a big no no. The Capt stays on the ship and goes with the last lifeboat. However, so far, this is the only thing we can safely say the Capt has done wrong. There is very little else we can safely say.
The company themselves have hung the Capt out to dry, and this is very poor from the company. Especially as it has now come out passing this close to the island is common practice, and the company frequently tell the ships to do it.