BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

Interesting read.

Under the Radar?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 04:55 PM

Removing the oil-
Dutch company, Smit, crew of 55.
Fuel in 13 double-bottomed tanks and 10 single bottomed tanks.
Actual pumping to begin Saturday.
Removal time 4 to 6 weeks (if the creek (er) sea don't rise ....).

Also oil stocks for lubrication and for generators.
Reports from SKY and Christian Science Monitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Greg B
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 04:54 PM

Brian the ship isn't lying where it was holed. The captain apparently used what little time he had available to head to shallower water in the hopes that the "bottom" she went to wouldn't be too far away.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 04:11 PM

I'm now also concerned about the pollution aspect. There are thousands of gallons of fuel aboard the vessel and they're planning to remove it by pumping it into large containers. Hope they can do it effectively without causing a great big oil slick.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 04:08 PM

Yes, I did catch some flack for initiating this thread, being admonished not to start "another witch hunt." Things have gotten better since then.

Most of the posters have had serious questions, or have shared some nautical insights. Almost everyone has expressed some relief that so many passengers and crew members survived, and sadness that a couple of dozen did not.

Capt. Schettino seems clearly at fault and is being dealt with appropriately by the Italian authorities. No doubt there are others who should share some of the blame but Schettino was in command.

I'd still like to see a more detailed timeline. What I've seen has huge gaps and doesn't correlate between sources.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Brian May
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 03:52 PM

I find it most irritating the instances when there is an incident and, quite reasonably we talk about it.

Fact, the ship was VERY close to the coastline.

Fact, the skipper was ashore before the last passengers.

The responsibility for the safe running of the ship rests with the captain - maritime law.

Since he is under house arrest, it is fair to assume the authorities have reason to believe that he did not carry that responsibility adequately.

The fact that nearly 20 people are dead and there is a bloody great big ship laying on its side 100 m from the shore with a bloody great big rock embedded in the SEAWARD side rather supports the authoritie's view.

So all the sanctimonious souls saying 'don't discuss it' ought to STFU. This is why we have this site . . . so we can.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 02:38 PM

Curious, so I looked it up.
Comparison with Queen Elizabeth II, the largest Carnival ship, and their Holland America Nieuw Amsterdam-

QE II
Weight- 151,400 T
Length- 345m (1132 feet)
Passengers- 3056
Crew- 1253

Costa Concordia
Weight- 114,137 T
Length- 290.2m (952 feet)
Passengers- 3780
Crew- 1100

Nieuw Amsterdam
Weight- 86,700 T
Length- 285m (935 feet)
Passengers- 2104
Crew- 929

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 12:13 PM

He may not have done anything wrong by sailing so close to shore but that conversation between the cap' and the coasties was telling - it's too *dark* for him not to abandon ship ahead of the passengers? I mean, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 08:00 AM

The suggestion was that some passengers were not on the manifest, so more could be missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 07:39 AM

I did hear on the News that it wasn't entirely clear whether their passenger lists were complete or accurate. Let's hope that this is in fact the case, and some of the 'missing' weren't even on board. But of course, if their relatives are still waitng to hear of them, it seems that at least some really are lost at sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 04:29 PM

I assume all of them and that they won't have to go to court. Dumb move if they don't pay up quick.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 03:40 PM

The remaining 17, of course, must be presumed dead. Most will probably be found in their cabins, and some who jumped may have drowned and been swept out to sea.

I wonder how many relatives will succeed in collecting any of the $70,000 allowed for a death.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 Jan 12 - 02:32 PM

Sadly, there were two more bodies reported recovered today form the Costa Concordia:

Giglio, Italy (CNN) -- Two more bodies have been recovered from the wreck of the cruise ship Costa Concordia, Italian officials announced Monday, bringing the number of confirmed victims of the accident to 15.

The two women were found on Bridge 4, near the ship's Internet cafe, said Franco Gabrielli, the official in charge of the operation.

About 17 people remain missing after the ship collided with rocks January 13 off the coast of Tuscany, according to a CNN count.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 04:58 PM

Bill-

I agree with both your points.

It's not clear who was on the bridge navigating the ship when it had it's initial collision.

Oh, Captain Schettino, where was thou?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 04:19 PM

What I glean from all the reports is that the captain was very clever and capable in maneuvering the ship to the best possible place for rescue....AFTER discovering he had made a stupid mistake and hit the rocks.

   I doubt the families of the dead & missing will use 'hero' in their opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 12:01 PM

There's a new tape which just surfaced of a conversation between the Coast Guard and Capt. Schittano in which the captain vows that he will stay aboard the ship. At the time of that conversation the captain estimated that about 300 crew and passengers were still aboard.

Another update this morning confirms that a 12th body of a woman was discovered and recovered from a narrow underwater passageway by divers.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Bert
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 08:29 AM

That was awful Kendall. Now I can't stop laughing.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 06:47 AM

> The current plight of the Costa Concordia reminds me of a comment
> made by Churchill. After his retirement he was cruising the
> Mediterranean on an Italian cruise liner. Some Italian journalists
> asked why an ex British Prime Minister should chose an Italian ship.
>
> "There are three things I like about being on an Italian cruise ship"
> said Churchill:
>
> 1.First their cuisine is unsurpassed.
>
> 2.Second their service is superb.
>
> 3.And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense
> about women and children first.
>

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 02:51 PM

"[Capt. Schettino] is one of the best captains in the company."

Well, that's confidence-inspiring.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 02:11 PM

A4... that was in very poor taste. I loved it.

Ebbie... I am Cappy in my truck. I have flown and sailed many miles for work. Had some very close calls. In one three week trip on the coast of Labrador, I was close to death in float planes and boats 5 times. Gave that up. I now drive my truck lower than the speed limit only in good driving conditions unless it's an emergency. Works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Acorn4
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 01:56 PM

An unfortunate reminder of that Fiat advert:- "Driven by Italians!".

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 01:48 PM

4000+ people traveling by car have a much higher rate of probable death than traveling together on a ship.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 01:39 PM

This is only one reason that I would never take one of those cruises.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 12:11 PM

In any case, the death toll is very saddening.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Jan 12 - 10:44 AM

There is now posted a GPS plotting of the course of the Costa Concordia from the time of the initial collision to when she was run aground adjacent to Giglio Harbor: click her for GPS plotted Route

There is a video to click on for the GPS animation of "The Fatal Route" at the bottom of the page.

In summary the ship can be seen striking rocks off a prominent point, continuing on past Giglio Harbor and then circling clockwise so as to ground on ledges adjacent to the harbor lighthouse, a short distance from the inner harbor.

I'm still trying to put together a timeline from various reports.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 07:47 PM

Who ran her aground? the passengers? the crew? the Captain? the company who hired him?
Step right up folks, plenty of brown sandwiches to go around.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 07:43 PM

Costa Crociere Liabilities.
-Not liable unless written notice received within 185 days,action must be filed within one year. Notice of claim must be delivered to carrier within 30 days after the passenger landed. [Further intertwined restrictions]
-All claims shall be instituted only in courts of Genoa, Italy. Italian law shall apply. The carrier, however, may invoke U. S laws
-Jury trial or pre-arbitration discovery is not permitted.
-All defenses, limitations and exemptions relating to the Carrier are fully extended and may be invoked by persons or entities acting on behalf of the Carrier.
-Liability for death or injury limited to $70,000.
-No liability for mental injury or suffering.
-Class action suits or procedures barred.
-Passenger waives right to arrest or detain vessel.

And a lot more.

http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/USA/Support/contract/contract.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Bernard
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 05:59 PM

The real issue, it seems, is that modern sonar is more dependant upon GPS and digital maps than what can actually be detected in real time. The extraordinary number of false positives it throws up results in a 'crying wolf' attitude amongst mariners.

Apparently the 'uncharted rocks' that gouged a hole in the ship could have been seen by a sailor's MKI eyeball had he taken the trouble to look over the side...

As for the Company's liabilities, the expression 'joint responsibility' springs to mind. I would expect the law of any country to be somewhat similar in that respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 05:31 PM

I beg to differ. Costa is still liable. Costa employed the captain. Costa has a duty of care to it's passengers who paid for safe passage. Those passengers have a right to justice with Costa, no matter what happened... they were not saved harmless. Costa can sue the captain if he can be found negligent. But the passengers cannot sue the captain. They have no contract with the captain.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 04:51 PM

Vicarious liability might not attach under English law for the Captain's negligence if the Captian was "on a frolic of his own". There is a difference between doing what one was not within one's function and doing badly what was.

Contract law differs again.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 04:30 PM

Q... "The Costa management wants to deflect suits, but immediately throwing blame onto the captain also seems wrong to me."

But, that "deflection" means nothing is a court of law. The passengers had a contract with Costa. Costa emplyed the captain. Costa is liable, no matter what. No?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 03:56 PM

Until an official report is issued, it is hard to establish any sort of time line, or determine actions taken on the bridge. Lots of talk from people who want their two minutes of exposure in the media, but nothing (as it should be) from those in the chain of command. Crew members who have talked were not in the chain of command (only a couple at the bottom end dealing with the lifeboats).

The Costa management wants to deflect suits, but immediately throwing blame onto the captain also seems wrong to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Bernard
Date: 20 Jan 12 - 03:10 PM

Here's what I posted on the 'Limerick' thread... I do realise I'm repeating some of what has already been said, but I've only just read this thread...

It's a complete mystery to me how so much damning 'evidence' has been allowed to leak before any official enquiry has begun.

The transcript of the conversation between the captain and the coastguard reads more to me like two people who couldn't quite understand what the other was saying, for instance.

The speed at which the owners distanced themselves from the captain's actions is deplorable - as far as I can see they are claiming they knew nothing about the deviation from the 'planned route', yet the BBC have published graphics showing that it was the third such similar 'deviation' in recent trips...

Someone is telling lies, perhaps?

Surely the ship had sonar which would have warned of the danger? Or is that what the owners are trying to cover up?