BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 03:50 PM

Eliza... bow doors... exactly the point of my earlier post geragding the bow visor dogs not being fully set before we entered the ice. In the case of the Harold... well, no need to think anymore about that tragedy... terrible! Just tearful.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 03:37 PM

Q-

Cheery news, indeed.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 03:22 PM

Costa Concordia HO !

Won't be long before "salvagers" come to strip the ship of valuables, which include some 6000 works of art belonging to the ship, stocks of champagne and wine, and the jewelry, etc., left behind by passengers.
Even the mafia has divers.

The company legally owns the ship and passengers own their effects, so treasure seekers would be breaking the law but laws have never deterred them.

Associated Press- Feb. 2, 2012, Vanessa Gera.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Feb 12 - 07:19 AM

Speaking of 'grounding' rather than 'holing', I'm reminded of the Herald of Free Enterprise', the ferry on which someone didn't close the bow doors before it set off. It filled with water on the vehicle deck and tipped over in shallow water. Many lives were lost, but the ship wasn't even submerged. I know nothing about marine design, but these passenger vessels look top heavy and unstable to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 Feb 12 - 11:40 AM

Here's the only worthwhile update I've been able to harvest, the story of the last person rescued, the ship's purser: click here for story

"Manrico Giampedroni, the ship's purser, waited 36 hours before being rescued from the belly of the ship. He has been released from hospital in Grosseto, Italy, where he was treated for injuries."

Lucky man!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 07:32 AM

Here's one of the best interviews I've found with rescue workers, the deputy mayor of Giglio Mario Pellegrini who took one of the first lifeboats that made it into the harbor back to the ship and spent 5 hours helping coordinate further rescues: click here for story

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 08:09 PM

The port side damage was the problem, right? So, it's accessible, innit? The damage to the other side shouldn't be too bad although that is conjecture. If so, I don't understand why repairs to the port side would take that long so she can be pumped out and floated. IF SO. So MANY ifs.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:53 PM

Here's the most useful update I could find today: Click here for update!

Experts have said it would take 28 days to remove fuel from 15 tanks accounting for more than 80 per cent of all fuel on board the ship. The next job would be to target the engine room, which contains nearly 350 cubic metres of diesel, fuel and other lubricants, Mr Gabrielli said.
Only once the fuel is removed can work begin on removing the ship, either floating it in one piece or cutting it up and towing it away as a wreck. Costa has begun the process for taking bids for the recovery operation, a process that will take two months.

The oil removal operation is further postponed because of bad weather.

The estimate for how long it might take to remove the ship from its current site is 7-10 months.

Of the bodies recovered from in and around the wreck, only one male body remains unidentified. There is speculation that he might not have been on the crew or passenger lists.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 09:02 PM

Found it again. It's called "Shipwrecks Log" and it's the first of three videos: click here for video!

I suppose this could be a completely unrelated video but it's described as relating to the Costa Concordia.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 08:55 PM

I've recently seen a video floating around that shows the Italian Coast Guard diving in and around the rock that the Costa Concordia sideswiped. There was some curling metal there as well as some other metal structures. Unfortunately there was no narration of text. I'll see if I can find it again under "Costa Concordia Updates."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 07:38 PM

Thanks, Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:04 PM

Gnu

Link to the source:

Costa Concordia

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 05:02 PM

Her sister ship has six of the same engines, so I expect six is accurate:Costa Serena

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:58 PM

Well, together we're beginning to puzzle this out.

"Channel 4" where???

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:57 PM

I stand corrected (error in last source)

I have two different sources, none official that there are six Wärtsilä diesel engines

The specs listed on Wikipedia show straight shafts & fixed pitch props. That data comes from: ^ RINA (2012). "Costa Concordia". Leonardo Info database. RINA Marine. Retrieved 2012-01-20.


Costa Concordia Career
Name: Costa Concordia Owner: Carnival Corporation & plc Operator: Costa Cruises Port of registry: Genoa, Italy Route: Western Mediterranean Ordered: 19 January 2004 Builder: Fincantieri Sestri Ponente, Italy Cost: €450 million (£372 million, US$570 million)[1] Yard number: 6122 Launched: 2 September 2005 Christened: 7 July 2006[2] Acquired: 30 June 2006 Maiden voyage: 14 July 2006 In service: July 2006 Out of service: 13 January 2012 Identification: Call sign: IBHD
IMO number: 9320544
MMSI no.: 247158500

Status: Capsized off Isola del Giglio, Italy Notes: [3][4] General characteristics [5] Class and type: Concordia class cruise ship Tonnage: 114,137 GT Length: LOA 290.20 m (952 ft 1 in)
LBP 247.4 m (811 ft 8 in) Beam: 35.50 m (116 ft 6 in) Draught: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in) Depth: 14.18 m (46 ft 6 in) Decks: 17 Installed power: 6 × Wärtsilä diesel engines, 75,600 kilowatts (101,400 hp) Propulsion: Diesel-electric; two shafts (2 × 21 MW)
Two fixed pitch propellers Speed: service: 21.5 knots (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph)
maximum: 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph) Capacity: 3780 passengers Crew: 1,100 Notes: [6][7]
__________________
        



info

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:36 PM

There ya go, Ed. What I found was woefully inadequate. Ya can't have just one.

Got a link?

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 04:17 PM

""She has six Wärtsilä diesel engine""

Subject: RE: BS: Costa Concordia Sinking-2012
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 28 Jan 12 - 02:33 PM

Channel 4 has documentary scheduled for later this week, promising a minute by minute account of the incident.

more here

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

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?

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.

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

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

Maneuvers

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

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

This just in:

http://vimeo.com/35351659

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

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

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..

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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