mjkerr Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 With great respect to all those involved Went to the promoters website, and they really should update it... http://www.costacruise.com/usa/costa_concordia.html http://www.costacruises.co.uk/gb/costa_concordia.html Noted that they have removed the ship from the main listing The webcam time and date says it all Although they could also have removed this section of text : a thousand different experiences on a unique holiday await you on board Costa Concordia MarineTraffic.com shows it as in the English Channel, or more precisely on the A288 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted January 15, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 15, 2012 I am intrigued by that rock that is visible inside the ship. Is that part of the topography of that exact spot? or has it been carried by the ship from elsewhere? If the latter, it must have been some force that caused it to dislodge, unless it was alreay a separate piece of rock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted January 15, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 15, 2012 There is a lot of seismic activity in the area and it was suggested on the BBC news that a rock may have been dislodged and then struck by the ship. On earlier news reports it was stated that after the grounding the captain made for the shore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16570281 seems suprising that the operators of the ship at this early stage have gone someway to admitting liability, in blaming (some of) the ships crew. However obvious that may or may not be to an outside viewer it seems strange if there is a lot of seismic activity you would think they would want to rule that out before starting to point fingers? - as the liability & litigation costs would surely be huge for them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 seems suprising that the operators of the ship at this early stage have gone someway to admitting liability, in blaming (some of) the ships crew. However obvious that may or may not be to an outside viewer it seems strange if there is a lot of seismic activity you would think they would want to rule that out before starting to point fingers? - as the liability & litigation costs would surely be huge for them? Costa is part of the Carnival Cruise co, they also own the names/brands, Cunard, P&O, Holland America, Aida,Princess cruises as well as Yachts of seabourn. Even though any litigation will be in astronomical figures I imagine this company will weather it. What is a greater loss to them is the revenue from this ship. With some of the other wreck recovery seen in recent years I would not be suprised to see her back in the water or an order placed for another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 16, 2012 Carnival are saying that they expect this to cost them 80 - 90 million dollars including the excess on the ships insurance which is 30 million. Interestingly they are suggesting that it might be salvageable, I bet that will take some imagination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Lifeboat davits are gravity fall; beyond a certain degree of list they will not deploy. Regulations for passenger ship's [iIRC] require sufficient lifeboats on each side of the ship for the full complement of the ship. Not any more they don't! On the new behemoths, e.g. the likes of QM2, Carnival Vista class and RCCL there isn't enough space in the lifeboats for all onboard - the shortfall is covered by liferafts. Proper ships, i.e. those without a livestock cargo, are still required to have 100% survivability for the crew on each side of the ship - usually boat(s) and rafts, and indeed in most cases its 200%. As you might know, freefalls colour the matter somewhat, but even with the boat down the back end, there is still the requirement for liferafts on either side, one set of which has to be davit launched. Bon Accord aka 'Harry Tate' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 There is a lot of seismic activity in the area and it was suggested on the BBC news that a rock may have been dislodged and then struck by the ship. On earlier news reports it was stated that after the grounding the captain made for the shore. It seems the ship was beached deliberately after the severity of the situation became apparent - in that case bravo, as that decision undoubtably saved many lives. However regardless of any seismic activity, deliberately taking a 115000 GRT ship with over 4200 souls onboard within 300 metres of the coast, at night, for the purposes of 'showboating' (and which it seems, has been done many times before) is not what is usually considered to be good seamanship! Costa seem to be making moves to hang their man out to dry, so in that respect I have some sympathy for him - his career is over, and possible criminal sanctions await. It's interesting to note how the public and the authorities are reacting to this being a maritime incident, as opposed to say, an airline one. How many Pilots, having made a forced landing with a few dead/injured are arrested immediately on suspicion of Manslaughter, even before any evidence is collated? Not many I'd wager. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
10800 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I think the Italian legal process and associated media involvement move in a somewhat different way to ours. Again, beyond what 'facts' are evident we shouldn't be starting to engage in speculation - and especially when searches are continuing for those unfortunates still unaccounted for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 I think the Italian legal process and associated media involvement move in a somewhat different way to ours. I believe so. For years after Jochen Rindt died in his Lotus at Monza in 1970, Lotus chief Colin Chapman risked arrest every time he entered the country, although you and I might think every racing driver knows he may find the limits of his machine, as appeared to be the case there, sadly. At the other end of the telescope, the admission of liability by the owners - rather than "the rock came out and hit our ship" type of response famous in car accident reports - stops one level of media speculation in its tracks. I think the Kings Cross Underground fire in the late '80s, where LU attempted to deny responsibility and met with huge opprobrium, taught UK operators the value of holding the Corporate hand up when evidence points in your direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
10800 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 For years after Jochen Rindt died in his Lotus at Monza in 1970, Lotus chief Colin Chapman risked arrest every time he entered the country, I'd forgotten that one - I had more Ayrton Senna/Frank Williams in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 I wouldn't want to go on one of these large ships nowadays. The only kind of waterborne travel that I would want to make is in a boat (motor or sail) where either I or someone that I know and trust is at the helm. I went on honeymoon on RMS Canberra, a ship much smaller than this one, in the seventies and the first thing that was drilled into all was emergency evacuation, muster stations and everyone had to know where to find life preservers and all had to practice putting them on, all before setting sail. FWIW this procedure appeared not to have been done in this case before the disaster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 There's enough idle speculation coming from the general Italian press to cover everybody else's! I can imagine Costa guys sitting around in a Cafe sipping espresso saying: " Bu@@er "La Republica", what are they saying on RMWeb?" Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 There's enough idle speculation coming from the general Italian press to cover everybody else's! I can imagine Costa guys sitting around in a Cafe sipping espresso saying: " Bu@@er "La Republica", what are they saying on RMWeb?" Quite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The Cruise ship operators have now appeared in a very long and comprehensive press conference They've gone into long detail about the ship Next was some general operating procedures including that the course is loaded and known in advance, when veering off it alarms will sound both on the ship and with their operations centre They then went into details of the circumstances of Friday 13 January, leading up to the initial alarms, communication with the ship from their operations centre, and subsequent actions taken Finally they confirmed they had noted that the course plotted was incorrect and unauthorised, but it was only when the ship entered the known restricted channel that the alarm was raised and communication with the ship was required They have basically pointed the finger at the "team operating the ship" One of the questions raised was about the lifeboats A specialist from their company had to answer this and it was a most bizarre answer Yes, the ship had the minimum number installed as per requirements Equally, a safety drill should have taken place shortly after departure However they have identified that with the ship already listing by the time the decision was made to load the lifeboats their deployment was difficult The following question was related to failed lifeboat deployments However neither party wanted to answer this question, and understandable too as the cause of this has to be confirmed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 16, 2012 One of the questions raised was about the lifeboats A specialist from their company had to answer this and it was a most bizarre answer Yes, the ship had the minimum number installed as per requirements I seem to remember that the same excuse was used by the White Star line in 1912 and yes, their ship did have the required number of lifeboats. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 I seem to remember that the same excuse was used by the White Star line in 1912 and yes, their ship did have the required number of lifeboats. Jamie As a pedantic matter of historical fact the 'Ttanic' did in fact have far more than the required number of lifeboats. On the Tonnage Scale then in force the ship was legally required to provide lifeboat capacity for 830 persons. In fact she carried sufficient 'Lifeboats' for 910 persons plus 2 'emergency boats' and the 4 Engelhardt ('collapsible') boats giving a grand total capacity of 1,178 persons. (source Lord Mersey's Report of the British Inquiry into the loss of the S.S.'Titanic'). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 Neither was the Titanic listing. It was sinking bow first and the effect of this on launching lifeboats would not have been the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 We have used the modern cruise ships some 17 times now, the procedure for SoLaS has not changed. After embarking the ship and when all passengers are on board a "safety briefing" is carried out, (or as it was known before "lifeboat drill") your room has details of your muster station, you have to go to your muster station which will be either adjascent to your lifeboat or a nearby lounge, you have to put on your lifejacket which is inspected by crew and when done you are "ticked off" a pax list. There are lifevests in your cabin as well as on the boat deck, the only difference we found with the last briefing (Oct 2011) was that you were not required to take the vest from your cabin as it was demonstrated by the crew, this is to avoid a mass exodus of lifevest wearing passengers at the end of drill and so the vests are not removed from your cabin. I know of several that thought it wsn't worth doing drill and so "bunked off", in fact one was bragging about it later that evening, all were woken at 5am and made to do it then. In the caribean in 2004/5 1 passenger refused and was put off at the first port, leaving his new bride on board ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Neither was the Titanic listing. It was sinking bow first and the effect of this on launching lifeboats would not have been the same. Indeed, and if Titanic had been built to modern contruction standards with longitudnal subdivision extending to maindeck level then she would probably have capsized and sank quicker with potentially far greater loss of life! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I haven't seen it written anywhere in the reports I have read, but I assume that the Costa Concordia, in it's present position "listing to starboard" is not afloat, but lying on the sea floor. EDIT: Evident here on the BBC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 As a ship's engineer I will not speculate on the actual causes, but I will make a few comments on others comments! ... The laws of stability apply to any ship modern or otherwise. If the machinery spaces are flooded then free surface effect may take charge and as the 'Herald of Free Enterpise' disaster showed that can totally destroy a ships stability. A ships stability is determined by the the metacentric height. I'll not try to explain it all, but if people are interested then http://en.wikipedia....acentric_height. The superstructure height of modern ships continues to amaze me - despite the fundamental principles of naval architecture, I think we are at the design limits. The current attitude of the Costa Concordia (disregarding for a moment the all too salient details of underwater topography and the vessel's evident proximity to shore) put me in mind of other "loss of stability" incidents. A "local" one involves the MV Cougar Ace which rolled over onto it's port side in the North Pacific carrying a load of brand new Mazdas. No rock outcrops were involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 There are lifevests in your cabin as well as on the boat deck, the only difference we found with the last briefing (Oct 2011) was that you were not required to take the vest from your cabin as it was demonstrated by the crew, this is to avoid a mass exodus of lifevest wearing passengers at the end of drill and so the vests are not removed from your cabin. I recall when Royal Caribbean started doing just that a year or two ago and there was some disquiet amongst the maritime industry about it - especially considering that ALL passenger ships are supposed to be capable of being fully abandoned within 30 minutes. RCCL operate the worlds largest passenger ships which have over 8500 souls onboard, yet can anyone really imagine the crew being able to check the lifejackets of 6300 passengers AND launching all the boats and rafts successfully within 30 minutes? I'm not alone when I say seriously doubt it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted January 16, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2012 I recall when Royal Caribbean started doing just that a year or two ago and there was some disquiet amongst the maritime industry about it - especially considering that ALL passenger ships are supposed to be capable of being fully abandoned within 30 minutes. RCCL operate the worlds largest passenger ships which have over 8500 souls onboard, yet can anyone really imagine the crew being able to check the lifejackets of 6300 passengers AND launching all the boats and rafts successfully within 30 minutes? I'm not alone when I say seriously doubt it. In an abandon ship your jacket would be down to you, in the same way your water lifevest would be when your plane crashes into a mountain. The crew would handle the launch and loading of the lifeboat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 In an abandon ship your jacket would be down to you, in the same way your water lifevest would be when your plane crashes into a mountain. The crew would handle the launch and loading of the lifeboat. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that on ships; in an emergency scenario the crew are responsible for ensuring passengers wear their lifejackets correctly - they would be held responsible should an accident befall a passenger during an abandonment. As an aside, would a lifejacket really be much use if your plane flew into a mountain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.