mudcat.org: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]


BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012

Ed T 24 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM
Greg B 24 Jan 12 - 06:51 PM
Charley Noble 24 Jan 12 - 10:15 PM
Greg B 24 Jan 12 - 10:50 PM
Charley Noble 25 Jan 12 - 08:19 AM
Bernard 25 Jan 12 - 10:26 AM
GUEST,Eliza 25 Jan 12 - 11:27 AM
DMcG 25 Jan 12 - 12:05 PM
gnu 25 Jan 12 - 01:25 PM
GUEST,Eliza 25 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 25 Jan 12 - 02:09 PM
GUEST,Eliza 25 Jan 12 - 02:21 PM
Charley Noble 25 Jan 12 - 03:16 PM
gnu 25 Jan 12 - 03:34 PM
Bernard 25 Jan 12 - 07:36 PM
Charley Noble 25 Jan 12 - 08:12 PM
GUEST,Eliza 26 Jan 12 - 06:05 AM
Brian May 26 Jan 12 - 07:50 AM
Charley Noble 26 Jan 12 - 08:11 AM
GUEST,Peter Laban 26 Jan 12 - 08:24 AM
Ed T 26 Jan 12 - 10:40 AM
Brian May 26 Jan 12 - 11:26 AM
Ed T 26 Jan 12 - 12:42 PM
Ed T 26 Jan 12 - 12:45 PM
Ed T 26 Jan 12 - 01:00 PM
gnu 26 Jan 12 - 01:59 PM
Charley Noble 26 Jan 12 - 04:33 PM
gnu 26 Jan 12 - 04:47 PM
Charley Noble 26 Jan 12 - 04:47 PM
gnu 26 Jan 12 - 06:56 PM
Charley Noble 26 Jan 12 - 07:46 PM
gnu 26 Jan 12 - 10:29 PM
Charley Noble 27 Jan 12 - 08:38 AM
Ed T 27 Jan 12 - 11:11 AM
Brian May 27 Jan 12 - 02:03 PM
Charley Noble 27 Jan 12 - 09:12 PM
Ed T 27 Jan 12 - 10:00 PM
Charley Noble 28 Jan 12 - 08:54 AM
Ed T 28 Jan 12 - 09:29 AM
Charley Noble 28 Jan 12 - 10:40 AM
Ed T 28 Jan 12 - 11:32 AM
Charley Noble 28 Jan 12 - 12:09 PM
Charley Noble 28 Jan 12 - 12:13 PM
kendall 28 Jan 12 - 12:23 PM
Charley Noble 28 Jan 12 - 01:07 PM
Ed T 28 Jan 12 - 01:22 PM
Charley Noble 28 Jan 12 - 01:36 PM
gnu 28 Jan 12 - 01:46 PM
gnu 28 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM
Ed T 28 Jan 12 - 02:07 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM

Interesting read.

Under the Radar?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Greg B
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 06:51 PM

...and then there are the sewage holding tanks to be dealt with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 10:15 PM

Ed T-

I find the concluding statement of interest in your above link:

"The frightening thing is how quickly the ship went on its side. If that had been out to sea there would have been a massive loss of life," the marine insurance underwriter said. "It's very similar to the Titanic disaster. The Titanic hit an iceberg and opened up like a can of sardines ... They will look at the disaster and there may be some changes, presumably vessel design changes."

The speed with which the Costa Concordia filled with water and began to tilt certainly limited the options of what the captain could do after his ship had its initial collision.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Greg B
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 10:50 PM

Very good observation, Charlie. The current "cruise culture" is based upon the notion that modern ships fulfill the "unsinkable" myth that the Titanic (and the Andrea Doria) failed to live up to.

Concordia was, by any estimation, a "mega ship" and one that was supposed to be up to anything the sea (or sea-bottom) could throw at it.

Yet here we have it.

Her bottom ripped open, sunk, and passengers dead.

Worse than Titanic in the sense that her passengers were out for a lark, as opposed to having any "business" reason to be aboard.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 08:19 AM

Here's a link to the latest update of this disaster, allegedly based on police monitoring of Capt. Schettino's cell phone: Click here for update!

Evidently the Italian police are quite willing to share what they harvest with the media before a trial.

In addition divers have recovered a 16th body from the ship and the Dutch salvage crew has begun work preparing to pump out the ship's fuel tanks; they hope to begin pumping on Saturday.

I still find it surprising that the Captain claims he was unaware of the rocks his ship collided with; he had navigated this passage several times before. They are plainly marked on even tourist maps of the Island of Giglio, maritime charts, and appear above the surface of the waves during the day. Of course it was night at the time of the collision but that's why such ships have instruments to detect underwater hazards.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Bernard
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 10:26 AM

Putting someone under 'house arrest' doesn't necessarily mean they believe he is guilty of anything. It is standard practice under such circumstances to avoid the possibility of any evidence being tampered with.

Would the Police leak sensitive information? Sounds odd to me.

As for the sewage tanks, I doubt that they would make that a high priority...!! Assuming they do have such tanks and don't already dump (!!) it straight into the sea...

I've heard it said they don't swim off the coast of Italy, they just go through the motions!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 11:27 AM

I wonder if this tragedy ia affecting bookings for cruises generally? I've seen several adverts on TV and in the newspaper for all types of cruise. Do you think people will avoid them now? I was sitting in a large jaccuzzi full of pensioners at the local gym, and a straw poll indicated that they were going ahead, on the basis that only 'that' company was poor and all the others (P&O etc) were wonderful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 12:05 PM

I wonder if this tragedy is affecting bookings for cruises generally?
For a long time I've thought the cruise sector was heading for trouble in a business sense. A new 4,000-passenger ship represents round about a 100,000 passengers per annum expansion of the cruise market, and the rate these ships are being built is probably expanding the market around 1m passengers a year. That's potentially a problem, and anything could burst the bubble, including a simple change of fashion, never mind an accident. When that happens, not only will the cruise lines themselves be affected, but many of the ports of call will get a big shock to their economy. Bergen in Norway, for example, has a population of 230,948 at the last count, but regularly has three or four cruise ships in dock, so may have 12-16,000 tourists. Losing those would be a a big hit, and Norway is hardly a poor country. Some of the small islands in the Carribean, for example, could be badly affected by the loss of tourists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 01:25 PM

Warning. I repeat, warning. VERY poor VERY PI VERY dark joke coming. Seriously, if you read it and then put the piss to me over it... I don't care. You have been warned.

"She had an inauspicious launch at Sestri Ponente on 2 September 2005, when the champagne bottle failed to break." Wiki.

Soooo... are the French being investigated?

Told yas.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM

Yes, the ports of call will suffer if the whole thing grinds to a halt. Also, what will all the pensioners do instead? Turkey-and-Tinsel weekends don't hit the spot somehow!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 02:09 PM

Guest Eliza, the P&0 liners, Costa, Holland America, and others, are all owned by the same company, Carnival, as posted previously.
I don't know if different quidelines exist for the different lines operated by this giant cruise liner company. But hearsay about conduct of the lines is suspect, if they are all under the same umbrella corporation.

New tankers (the better ones, anyhow) are double-hulled. Should cruise liners be built with this safety specification? What do you think, Charley?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 02:21 PM

I don't reckon the old folk would realise it's all the same umbrella corporation. I would never go on a cruise, so I've not got a clue about the different lines etc. No matter how well-built and provided with all the latest technology, as we see, a ship relies ultimately on the Captain's attention to duty. The Titanic was whizzing along in the dark (on Captain's orders), much too fast to avoid a 'berg', in order to do the trip in record time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 03:16 PM

"New tankers (the better ones, anyhow) are double-hulled. Should cruise liners be built with this safety specification? "

Certainly! It's clear that whatever watertight bulkhead system the Costa Concordia had proved inadequate. She was reported in the media as speeding along at 15 knots when her side struck the reef as the ship was turning back out to the main channel. The Captain has acknowledged that he was "late" in making his turn.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 03:34 PM

Well... double hull... I mean, would that have really done any good? If you gash her for 50m of one hull or both, what good would the double hull do? Are tankers not double hulled to avoid the problem of sulfuric acid? If you run agound, you run aground. Three hulls ain't gonna save ya. Am I talkin out my... ?

I am keen on the time line. I am keen on the forensic engineering anaylses of the time line wrt bulkhead closures and WHO had (?) to be sacrificed or were sacrificed by automatic systems to save so many lives. We don't know WHO died why they were in a position to die. This investigation will be a LONG one. And, it's still all conjecture herein our insignificant thread at The Café.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Bernard
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 07:36 PM

Sorry for a bit of thread creep, but to be fair, it has been widely known that the iceberg didn't take out the Titanic after all - it was dodgy metallurgy. Had the correct grade of steel been used, the hull would probably have withstood the impact sustaining little or no damage.

The dodgy steel, coupled with freezing conditions, meant the hull was brittle - and the rivets were also faulty. The problem wasn't understood at the time, so blame isn't appropriate. However, it does explain why the Titanic sank so quickly - that and the inadequate bulkheads.

They discovered the same metallurgy problem with the earlier wartime 'Liberty Ships'...

As for the Costa Concordia... only time will tell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Jan 12 - 08:12 PM

gnu-

The Costa Concordia wasn't run aground until the port side assumed an alarming tilt after she grazed the reef. That was about an hour after the initial collision. A double bottom might have helped her survive long enough to limp into port.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 06:05 AM

I seemed to have developed a double bottom over the years!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Brian May
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:50 AM

Hmmm, 114500 tons moving at 15 knots, that's a colossal amount of inertia.

Twin skinned or not, it is almost certainly a 'very testing' configuration.

Anyone know what the double bottom config is 'supposed' to be able to withstand?

In terms of Gross Tonnage and speed especially, because I was under the impression that double skinning was more about containment of internal leaks rather than impact protection.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 08:11 AM

Brian-

When it comes to this level of marine engineering, I'm beyond my depth.

Maybe such ships need to be fitted with rubber bumpers.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 08:24 AM

I'm beyond my depth.

Speaking of suitable imagery...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 10:40 AM

""I was under the impression that double skinning was more about containment of internal leaks rather than impact protection.""

I believe double skinning was first introduced for bulk oil carriers, as an added safety measure to minimize spilled oil from collisions and other incidents. I believe this has expanded to include some other bulk carrier ships, where environmental issues are not as big a concern. The link below has some historic infomation.


Double skin

""Anyone know what the double bottom config is 'supposed' to be able to withstand?""

I suspect this question has a highly technical answer, and would depend on matters such as vessel design/construction and use, the material used, the type of stress/incident. Below is some very technical information, that I am unsure adds much, but will link anyway)

Some tech info

bulk carriers


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Brian May
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 11:26 AM

Thanks - fascinating.

One of the features that jumped out was that the double hulls were separated by over a metre! Can you imagine trying to 'sell' that idea to a cruise line company - that would mean that portholes would need to be through a tube over a yard long. A complete non-starter.

When you consider that we are able to buy GPS off the shelf which gives position, in real time, up to about 10 feet in accuracy - with a battery back up, there was no excuse for this vessel to be where it was. God only knows what a vessel of that displacement requires below the surface. Risk assessment is also predicated on not losing the vehicle (ship, aircraft or whatever) for a single failure. Frankly I don't believe it was caused by a power interrupt to the steering, the vessel couldn't get a licence to operate with no redundancy in-built.

They can only 'park' in the largest of harbours too. Personally, I think this disaster and the points it highlights (not least, the insurance claim to come) will find a radical re-think of this whole industry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 12:42 PM

I suspect extra fuel consumption, because of the added weight may be a major factor they would likely consider.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 12:45 PM

I suspect cruise ships still use the cheaper, but higher poluting, high sulphur, Bunker C oil. Here is an interesting site. Can't vouch for the accuracy, but it looks credible, from other figures I have seen.

cruise ships


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:00 PM

I checked out the use of fuel. I believe that low cost high-sulfur fuel (Bunker C) is still allowed in the Caribbean. But, Canada, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and some parts of the Mediterranean, require the ships burn cleaner marine diesel fuels, when in their coastal waters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 01:59 PM

The ship ran aground twice. My statement was regarding the first time.

"But, Canada, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and some parts of the Mediterranean, require the ships burn cleaner marine diesel fuels, when in their coastal waters."

It's good that they have changed. As of my last day at Marine Atlanic they were still using Bunker C and I was inside some of the shore tanks and they were a mess... you gotta get inside to do a proper inspection and the pitting was shocking. I also walked across the deck of a tanker and got a little freaked out that a 145 pound man walking in front of me could depress the deck in spots and make a "thung" sound. (That was the time I met Cap'n Redeye and his hairless cat Fluffy, who like gin as well.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 04:33 PM

Brian-

I don't think the "portholes" would be involved in the double bottom design, unless for some reason, which I can't begin to fathom, there were portholes in the bottom of the hull.

gnu-

I want to hear more about Cap's Redeye and his hairless cat Fluffy; maybe there's a song just waiting to be born.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 04:47 PM

Charley, THAT was an experience. 40 a Beefeater gin and a glass on the desk. Cat in his lap. It wasn't hairless... I make up those kinda jokes all the time. But there was a bowl with gin in it and the cat looked as good as he did. Never drink alone, eh? He had to pump for three hours, leave, return after the ferry cycled and pump again. He agreed and said, "Tell mate. He's in charge." Good thing. It was 70kph and raining. 70 can get nasty in that harbour due to funneling between the two sets of cliffs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 04:47 PM

A sixteenth victim, an elderly woman, has been recovered today from the Costa Concordia wreck.

Here's a link to a newly released set of 24 photos of the ship beginning when she first grounded off the lighthouse at Giglio Harbor: click here for PIXS

You can see the lifeboats being loaded and some of them being deployed. When she initially grounded the list was about 30 degrees; she later rolled all the way over onto her starboard side.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 06:56 PM

That bothers me, Charley. If all the bulkheads were sealed, why would that happen? Again, as I said earlier, without knowing the details of when and why bulkheads were or were not sealed (and the configuration of bulkheads) it's all conjecture at this point. And, yes, I know the intentional grounding may have caused further damage.

In any case, as Megan said so early in this thread, a witch hunt is just not right. My focus here is simply an interest in what happened after the initial contact. What's done is done re the initial contact and is of NO concern to me. It happened and I am sure the authorities will sort that out and learn from it. My interest is, again, the rest of the story.

And that is strictly from an engineering point of view although it's obvious that separating the human reaction component is almost impossible... but it can be learned from so the human component is essential to future safety. At this point, conjecture warning, it may seem the Cappy did well after the the initial collision in his decisions re attempting to mitigate the problem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 07:46 PM

gnu-

I think I'm made the point several times above that the Captain's decision to ground the ship on the point by the lighthouse was probably his best option at the time for minimizing loss of life for passengers and crew. Some have argued that if the lifeboats had been ordered away earlier, it would have been easier to deploy them given that the ship wasn't listed as badly then. But I'm willing to await the judgment of the maritime investigation on that question.

I'm also interested in the technical details of what failed and what worked. And I still find it frustrating that no one has produced a reliable timeline. Was it an hour between the initial collision and the final grounding or two hours? That's a major difference.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 12 - 10:29 PM

Certainly so, Charley. Once again, ALL conjecture at this point.

The ONLY thing I think we can all agree on at this moment is the sadness over the lives lost.

Even tho I find this terrible accident disturbing because of the loss of life I find it compelling from a forensic engineering and human reaction point of view. I assume many others do as well becuase... deep down... we all want to see such accidents never happen again.

Me an armchair expert? Monday morning quarterback? Yeah, I suppose. I call it concern even tho my two cents is worth less than no cents in the end. I am NO expert. I wasn't there and if I was I woulda been at the life boats before anyone else... WTF was that noise? Where are the life boats? I woulda been walkin before I got the answer. Survival of the scaredest? I'd like to think not, but I wasn't there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 08:38 AM

Here's a link to a major story focused on the salvage options for the ship: Click here for report!

The search will continue for bodies while the salvage work is on-going.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 11:11 AM

Interesting how the media (at least Time in the link below) points a spin to Italy's slack attention to safety at this time (some of the examples uses are the same in most countries). As if that was the cause of the disaster? Typical of a frequent media approach in time of disaster.


Time



Common sense stuff


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Brian May
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 02:03 PM

Ah, Charley you're talking about the double bottom, I did a fair bit of reading (all your fault) and they were talking about double hulls which included the sides too, quite low down the hull (above the waterline of course)

I wasn't talking about taking the place of a glass-bottomed boat with an 114500 ton liner (honest).

Anyway, that's me out of here. What a tragedy and RIP to the dead and comfort to those affected at all levels.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 09:12 PM

Here's another link to a technical discussion raising questions of what happened after the initial collision: Click here for story

Experts are evidently confounded that the ship wouldn't have been designed to survive the initial collision. Were the water tight bulkheads secured when required? How many compartments were compromised by the impact?

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jan 12 - 10:00 PM

From my understanding, big ships are constructed to survive collisions, even with a rock. But, because of their size (weight) and construction, they are poorly suited to survive groundings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 08:54 AM

Ed T-

The rocks embedded on the port side of the Concordia suggest that she "sideswiped" some rocks or ledge. This "contact" created a long gash which would compromise more than one watertight compartment; at this point we don't even know if the watertight doors were ever closed.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 09:29 AM

Charley Noble, Yes, I realize that.

My question is (and, we don't know the details), could a grounding potentially make a evacuation situation worse with a large passenger vessel(more rapid and greater capsizing, thus less access to the life boats, rather than better the situation?

If the water tight compoartments were not sealed, I suspect the captain did not know this, or he would have odered corrective action. One would suspect some significant effort to analyse the situation and consult with shore experts (if needed), if there was time, before a decision to come near shore (thus a risk to ground) was made. In airplane situations, we mostly see good communications with ground experts.

It seems odd that some type of automatic sealing of the compartments would not have been triggered in a relatively modern vessel?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 10:40 AM

"could a grounding potentially make a evacuation situation worse with a large passenger vessel"?

The short answer is "yes" but if the ship was already listing at an extreme angle she might have capsized in deep water. The question is whether it might have been better to have deployed the lifeboats while the list wasn't quite as extreme in deeper water. While in deep water Capt. Schettino decided that it was better to ground the ship on the point, and swung the ship around 180 degrees to do so.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 11:32 AM

"" if the ship was already listing at an extreme angle she might have capsized in deep water"".

Do we know that to be the case when the desision was made by someone to ground? While we can see the result, it seems just as likely that the trip near the coast could have just as easily had different results.

It seems very odd that a captain, who seems to have had time to assess and react, would not consult shore authorities/ship experts who may have presented other options. If he sought advice from his company, I suspect those people may be very nervious about the inquiry.

From passenger reports, the time frame and communication with passengers would lead one to believe that this was not a well-thought out (and coordinated) response by the captain or crew.

While, with ample information, it is wise not to demonize the captain. But, it is just as logical to credit him with heroic actions either, considering what is in the public domain at this point..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 12:09 PM

Ed-

What seems well documented are the contacts between the Captain and the Italian Coast Guard after the initial collision in which he denies twice that there is a major problem, describing the incident as merely "an electrical blackout."

The next set of communications with the Coast Guard took place after the ship had been grounded on the lighthouse point adjacent to Giglio Harbor.

Other communications with the ship owners or anyone else have not, I believe, been disclosed.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 12:13 PM

Meanwhile back at the wreck site:

"On Saturday morning divers searching submerged parts of the wreck found the body of a woman, wearing the ship's uniform, on deck number six. No further details of her identity or nationality have been released."

That raises the number of confirmed dead to 17.

The weather has taken a turn for the worse and attempts by the salvage company to pump out the oil have been postponed.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: kendall
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 12:23 PM

This just in:

http://vimeo.com/35351659


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 01:07 PM

Kendall-

Thanks! That video link narrated by John Konrad, CEO gCaptain.com and USCG Licensed Master Mariner Unlimited, certainly is the best reconstruction of the path the Costa Concordia took before and after striking the rocky point: click here for video!

Evidently the main engines were not operational after the initial collision. However, the bow trusters were still operational which permitted the ship to later turn around clockwise and make its way to its final grounding. The sharp turn itself helps explain why the list shifted from the damaged port side to the starboard side, slosh, slosh!

I still can't make out the time-line between the initial collision and the final grounding. The initial collision was at 20:45:18 GMT. Anyone else have sharper yeyes?

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 01:22 PM

Maneuvers


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 01:36 PM

Ed-

Same link, I believe.

I think the final estimated time from the video for the ship's ultimate grounding was 21:42:45 GMT. That's about an hour from the initial collision.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 01:46 PM

Very interesting, Kendall. Thanks.

Many of the points/topics/questions recently raised were posted earlier but have now just rasied a question in my mind... the level and width of the gash.

Also, re the animation... I assume the ship had stern thrusters as well on accounta ya can't hold a ship against the wind without at least two thrusters.

It all gives me the willies and minds me a layin in the bunk listening to the ice screech along hull and the walls and ceilings of my quarters shudder and rattle while the ship sometimes would pitch a bit or slow in speed. I was never scared but when I could even hear a drinking glass rattling in it's holder in the can with the door shut, well, I was, shall we say, at a heightened state of awareness. I cannot imagine how those people felt when they heard and felt the impact. Like I said, that really gives me the willies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 02:02 PM

I can only find sketchy specs. One engine (Engine: Wartsila, 12-cylinder).

Maybe I erred... perhaps the stern thuster was damaged or non-supplied and US as well?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 02:07 PM

Charley Noble
Sorry< it was the same link


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 28 February 2:24 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.