Sunk costa - Page 2

Leapy · 15 January 2012, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavelength

No matter what the original cause of the damage it needed parking as upright as possible somewhere shallow and near rescue/land.

Original damage? Like Wilk, I missed that. I'll go take another google...

Anchorhandler · 15 January 2012, 13:11

Yes there does seem to be a bit of confusion here...

I orginaly read that the vessel struck a submerged rock formation further away from the port and ended up where it is deliberately as a means to aid the rescue/evacuation.

Costa Concordia captain Francesco Schettino and first officer Ciro Ambrosio arrested | Mail Online

This does concur with the damage seen on the oposite side of the vessel to where the land lies.

It also explains why such a large vessel looks as if it was attempting to enter such a small port.

Simon

willk · 15 January 2012, 14:46

Looking at her AIS History suggests that she was limping around at under 2 kts for a while, which I guess supports the deliberate beaching scenario.

Alan Priddy · 15 January 2012, 15:25

Does any one who the UKSA trained skipper went to work for after it attempted to become a car? Alan P

wavelength · 15 January 2012, 18:11

anyone gotta linky for the ais history??

willk · 15 January 2012, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavelength

anyone gotta linky for the ais history??

This might work for you.

wavelength · 15 January 2012, 19:00

link works thanks I wonder which bit of that track he hit on. On the final turn or beforehand?

Crusher · 15 January 2012, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJ0KYZ

I'm not entirely sure that will buff out to be honest.

Yeah, think it might be a bit beyond the "T cut" too .........

Sent from my iPhone using Rib.net

Crusher · 15 January 2012, 19:42

Heard some report that they hit an uncharted rock..... Also been told that the area has some active underwater volcanic activity...... All hearsay and gossip, but sounds semi possible... Wadya all think??

Sent from my iPhone using Rib.net

Nos4r2 · 15 January 2012, 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crusher

Heard some report that they hit an uncharted rock..... Also been told that the area has some active underwater volcanic activity...... All hearsay and gossip, but sounds semi possible... Wadya all think??

Sent from my iPhone using Rib.net

Well...that rock sticking out of the hull is rather free of growth-though that doesn't mean a lot as I suspect we're looking at the sheared off side.

willk · 15 January 2012, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crusher

Wadya all think??

Loada hooey.

That rock was only a few meters under the waterline. In this age, it's impossible that it is recently arrived and/or uncharted.

I went diving at the site shown below, not anymore, you NOTICE a volcano...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFrHn...eature=related

Steve_B · 15 January 2012, 20:08

Whilst I can see the "attraction" for running to port/shallow water, surely getting the lifeboats into the water before a sinificant list develops, should be a higher priority?

It would appear that the tear is confined to a small, but significat section of the hull, why was the water not contained within the bulkheads of 1 or 2 sections, rather than what appears to be a classic flooding of the entire deck at the water line (Herald of Free Enterprise).

The last cruise ship we went on had bulk head doors that closed automatically

ribber · 15 January 2012, 21:14

The same plight would have happened to the QE2 on her final sailing out of Southampton if it hadn't been sand!
Accidents happen, despite having all the navigation gizmo's aboard. God knows,the Bramble Bank has been there for quite a long time and is well charted.

QE2 hits a sandbank on way to her big farewell thousands | News

Bigmuz7 · 15 January 2012, 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ribber

The same plight would have happened to the QE2 on her final sailing out of Southampton if it hadn't been sand!
Accidents happen, despite having all the navigation gizmo's aboard. God knows,the Bramble Bank has been there for quite a long time and is well charted.

QE2 hits a sandbank on way to her big farewell thousands | News

I agree with earlier posts about the tower block nature of these vessels these days, because the QE2 looked half sensible ! unlike some ..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

As the underwater section of a cruiseship is carefully subdivided into a number of watertight compartments each sealed from each other by watertight doors I'm curious as to why a 30m gash was enough to create such a loss in bouyancy. Were the doors not closed? ( or did they fail to close?), did the original design of the vessel not include enough watertight compartments to allow for such a grounding?

Like so many things in life though .. what the designers tell you should work, is never what goes wrong in practice ..

Do these vessels go to sea when they've been fitted out totally and the weight specs are in with the design brief ?

I mean .. like building a house .. all the specs change continuously

some times I wonder if they do become top heavy, because all the add ons go beyond the design brief, which the structural engineers have no control over as the client always wants more cabins, per cubic foot

Just a thought

C-NUMB · 16 January 2012, 06:49

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

Pretty unbelievable if this happened only due to "showboating". Much to improve on safety culture.....

m chappelow · 16 January 2012, 09:11

Its things like this that give the boating world a bad name and where having some sort of compulsery training is a good idea

ribrunt · 17 January 2012, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by m chappelow

Its things like this that give the boating world a bad name and where having some sort of compulsery training is a good idea

Training like wot the skipper & F/O got.... riiiiiigggghhhtt........

Steve_B · 18 January 2012, 20:15

A great discussion on BBC Breakfast this morning and a great quote "There are worse things than dying." From Admiral Lord West
http://www.rib.net/forum/f19/sunk-costa-45856-4.html

PeterM · 20 January 2012, 13:25

Was an interesting discussion on Radio 2 yesterday about this & how the captain ( rightly or wrongly) is having trail by media & was getting the full blame from the CG even while he was in a lifeboat.

An interesting ( for me) comaprison was made to airline accidents where its not about ' blame' but understanding reasons and avoiding it again and how on a very complex bit of kit its near impossible for one person to be 100% responsible. As there are, in this case, lots of other bridge crew who have a responsibility to constantly question & challenge actions and decisions it does seem odd that this guy is 'guilty' already.

Dont get me wrong it may well be down to him, but again it may not....

Silverfox · 20 January 2012, 13:50

Well said. Having be around boats for 38 years I want to not believe that the captain was reckless and the he deserted his post.

If the media are to be believed they hit the rock when he was dining, so who was helming?

Also despite CCTV (which blacked out due to a power failure from the engine room flooding) the bridge may not have know they had hit the bottom, despite the jolt. An engine or genny blowing up would have spilt wine too.

The big issue for me though, is how after the titanic, the herald of free enterprise and the ferry in the Baltic that sank, can the vessel be so compromised it capsized?

It appears that a lot of water has been able to move freely from one side of the boat to another, and when the turn to port was made it tipped onto its starboard side!