Cruise ship 'Costa Concordia' aground - merged threads - Page 27 - Ships Nostalgia
22:18

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Cruise ship 'Costa Concordia' aground - merged threads

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #651  
Old 21st January 2012, 13:19
CAPTAIN JEREMY CAPTAIN JEREMY is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcg View Post
Derek #625

It is equally very sad indeed if any crew member (from whatever department) persished in this awful tragedy. However, is there any possibility that no engineers were down below at the time she foundered. In this day of UMERs she may have been under bridge control. Possible but unlikely.

I'm not aware of any bulletins from Costa indicating the fate of Concordia's crew - at least I have not read any.

Yes, spare a thought and say a prayer to your God for all of those lost in this tragedy.

BW

J
Class 1 passenger ships, although they usually have to capability to run with unmanned machinery spaces are required to keep them manned. At sea, the ships remain on "bridge control". However with all modern cruise ships, everything is automated, and there is an "Engine Control Room" which may be within the machinery spaces, or it may be outside on an upper deck with quick access. There are watchkeepers, both officers and ratings, but whether or not they make rounds or are actually working in the machinery spaces can not guaranteed. It is necessary to keep the Contol Room manned, to respond to the alarms, many of which if not acknowleged will result in slow downs, shut downs or the sounding of the engineer's alarm. I do know of a cruise ship a couple of years ago which had a fire in the machinery spaces, and it was determined that the duty engineer had decided to visit his cabin at the time it occurred.
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 21st January 2012, 13:21
Piero43 Piero43 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Active: 1972 - 2002
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco View Post
While I don't have 15 years seatime as master of a VLCC I think I can safely say that it gets to 50 metres within about 100 metres from the shore so it drops away pretty quick but not as extreme as in the Chilean channels frinstance....
Concordia is laying on the edge of a step at the depth of abt, 10-15 metres; after the edge the sea bottom drops on a second and larger step to abt. 80 meters, and after on a depth of 100-150 meters.
Piero
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 21st January 2012, 13:32
Piero43 Piero43 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Active: 1972 - 2002
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickyboy View Post
Total loss would be my bet, there will be an aweful lot of water damage, and structural as well of course, after this time I should think. As for the depth under her, I think it will always be zero. Like a Tenants can, strong as hell until it's opened, then it can be very easily bent, which is what's happened to this ship.
Just my 'umble opinion of course.
I agree. The structural damage would be not a proble, but part of the machinery, electronics and outfitting, expecially furnture repalcement, would be too expensive.
Beside that: wouldn't be easy find crewmen and passenger acceptingto sail on her. I don''t know of ships named again TITANIC, LUSITANIA or ANDREA DORIA after the originals went down...
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 21st January 2012, 13:38
callpor callpor is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1962 - Present
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkie2182 View Post
It wasn't "Bully"........was it??

It may have been!!

If I recall correctly we ended up with the anchor stuck over the bulbous (torpedo shaped) bow and had to steam down off Coney Island and shake it free.
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 21st January 2012, 13:46
Piero43 Piero43 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Active: 1972 - 2002
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iangb View Post
Yes.....but I'm finding the ongoing public release of damning evidence (eg. radio/phone calls from the ship) by the Italian authorities a bit...er...irregular.
It's a practice not unusual in Italy. And it' a big shame.
Piero
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 21st January 2012, 14:08
rcraig rcraig is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar06 View Post
Frankly, I'm getting rather tired of your snide personal comments about my journalism background practically a lifetime back. But to the point, saying I don't think even a very capable lawyer will take his case has nothing to do with my personal feelings about his right to a defense and a good one. Your prejudice against journalists makes you believe I would feel that way. It's projection of your own prejudice and inappropriate.
As a journalist you should be aware that a very capable lawyer would be highly likely to take his case if:
1) he is asked
2) someone is capable of paying for his services
3) he is not otherwise committed to some other case including and expecially other parties to the sinking,
and furthermore, despite and unlike many of those on this site who are quick to criticise lawyers, he will not have reached any conclusion in the absence of evidence which allows him to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 21st January 2012, 14:10
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nav View Post
Thanks CJ. I understood that it was used by shippers to estimate what volume of cargo a vessel could take relative to the cargo's specific density eg grain versus iron ore? Is that true? There are variations for use by the Panama Canal for instance which is equally honourous, it must be a nightmare to keep track of.

Seems strange that cruise liners are measured this way as I can't see the cabins being filled with iron ore or grain but I suppose in a level playing field it gives a constant of measurement.
It's only used for paying bills. A bulk carrier's capacity is given in terms of her deadweight at "x" draft together with her "grain" (inro the corners made by the frames, so to speak, and "bale" (not into the corners) hold capacity.
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 21st January 2012, 14:30
jmcg's Avatar
jmcg jmcg is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1966 - 1983
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,898
Capt. Jeremy # 651

Thanking you for the informative posting in reply to my query.

BW

J
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 21st January 2012, 14:36
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1970 - Present
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,601
Cossack, the photos you posted in the above # 640 post brings me to a few more questions.

1. The starboard profile shot shows all of the life boats and tenders in place and yet the ship has a starboard list. The major damage that we know about at present is on the port side. Would it be safe to assume that once damaged the ship would list to port.

What would make it list to starboard, was there little forward and aft flooding on the port-side but it flooded over to the starboard side and then flooded forward & aft on that side only.

If the vessel came alongside the rocks on the starbaord side with deep water on the port-side why would it go to starboard.

2. The last photo in your set of four is another interesting one, the stabilizer is deployed but appears relatively un-damaged.

The stabilizers I am familiar with on cruise ships store in a recessed area on the side of the hull and yet these ones appear as if they are fully recessed into a tube likew structure in the hull.

My point with this is if you look a little further aft of that deployed stabilizer you will see the massive damage which I think we will agree by the vessel travelling at a good cruise speed.

Does this indicate the stabilizers were deployed after the grounding or does it mean the ship was turning hard to starboard and the rocks missed the stabilizer but struck the hull.
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 21st January 2012, 14:45
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1970 - Present
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,601
lawyers

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcraig View Post
As a journalist you should be aware that a very capable lawyer would be highly likely to take his case if:
1) he is asked
2) someone is capable of paying for his services
3) he is not otherwise committed to some other case including and expecially other parties to the sinking,
and furthermore, despite and unlike many of those on this site who are quick to criticise lawyers, he will not have reached any conclusion in the absence of evidence which allows him to do so.
You are definately showing a prejudice towards journalists and are being quick to criticise them. I am sure there are good attorneys and good journalists it is just a pity there appears to be two decent very EX journalists and I have not read anything good from any good attorneys on here.

and you are definately living in cuckoo land if you think an attorney will not take this case or parts of it before he knows anything about the evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #661  
Old 21st January 2012, 14:47
John Rogers's Avatar
John Rogers John Rogers is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1947 - 1954
 
Join Date: May 2004
My location
Posts: 11,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamH View Post
I've got another question, are the crew members on passenger ships allowed to consume alcohol?
I have noticed ships officers in the crows-nest having a drink on HA line.
Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 21st January 2012, 14:50
John Rogers's Avatar
John Rogers John Rogers is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1947 - 1954
 
Join Date: May 2004
My location
Posts: 11,275
Great photos of the rock. Can anyone tell me what type of vehicle that orange machine is. It looks like it crawled up the side with the rescue workers.

John.
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 21st January 2012, 14:55
howardws howardws is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1961 - 2002
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARINEJOCKY View Post
The stabilizers I am familiar with on cruise ships store in a recessed area on the side of the hull and yet these ones appear as if they are fully recessed into a tube likew structure in the hull.
If you look at photo 2 you will see the recess, I think photo 4 makes the recess look short because of the angle of the camera.
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 21st January 2012, 15:19
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1970 - Present
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,601
I see what you mean in photo 2 but if you look at the photo four again and see the size of the sea water inlet grills and then look at that "recessed" area it does seem that the recess is very short relative to the size of the stabilizer fin. just another question that we (I) are guessing at.

John, I think you are referring to the inflated life raft on the side of the hull. ?
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 21st January 2012, 15:26
John Rogers's Avatar
John Rogers John Rogers is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1947 - 1954
 
Join Date: May 2004
My location
Posts: 11,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARINEJOCKY View Post
I see what you mean in photo 2 but if you look at the photo four again and see the size of the sea water inlet grills and then look at that "recessed" area it does seem that the recess is very short relative to the size of the stabilizer fin. just another question that we (I) are guessing at.

John, I think you are referring to the inflated life raft on the side of the hull. ?
Thanks MJ, I enlarged the photo and I can get a better look at it now,at first it looked to me like a mini air-cushion vehicle,but can now see it more clearly.

John.
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 21st January 2012, 15:41
callpor callpor is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1962 - Present
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 769
Quoting Gollywobbler in his 629:- "It amazes me nowadays that everyone is so quick to institute legal proceedings long before any sort of proper Inquiry has determined exactly what happened, how and why.

Cheers

Gill"

Many correspondents within this thread refer to awaiting the results of an official investigation before reaching conclusions.With all the hyp and media speculation, have I missed something? To date there has been little mention of an official investigation. Bob Couttie in the LinkedIn Marine Accident Investigation group stated earlier that Italy do not have a functioning maritime investigation system in place? The EMSA website refers to " the adoption of Directive 2009/18/EC establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector implies new obligations for Member States, namely: to ensure proper safety-focused investigation systems, to investigate very serious marine casualties and decide on the investigation of others, as well as to send commonly structured investigation reports and to populate the European Marine Casualty Information Database (EMCIP)". EMSA lists the Italian CG as responsible for official investigations. Is there an official investigation being conducted to methodically and objectively fully establish the facts and determine the root causes - without apportioning blame! Is this in fact happening?
Bob responded as follows:- "I don't think you've missed anything. I would argue that a coast guard is not an independent agency - its job is law enforcement and to determine whether a law has been broken and, if so, prosecute/punish the law breaker. So far there has been no mention of a root cause investigation and no no-liability investigation. My guess is that any IMO compliant investigation is on hold until there has been a successful prosecution of the master of the Costa Concordia.

At this point I don't see an independent investigation nor do I think it politically possible. I may be wrong but it doesn't seem to be happening".

Prehaps some of SN members can enlighten us.
Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 21st January 2012, 15:46
Ron Stringer's Avatar
Ron Stringer Ron Stringer is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Radio Officer
Active: 1960 - 1966
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
My location
Posts: 6,351
Has anyone been engaged to try and salvage the vessel? It seems that a lot of time, with fairly good weather, is slipping by without any action to try and secure her. Even in Italy, winter storms are not unknown.
__________________
Ron
_____________________________________________

Never regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many. Don't worry about old age - it doesn't last.
Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 21st January 2012, 16:03
rcraig rcraig is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARINEJOCKY View Post
You are definately showing a prejudice towards journalists and are being quick to criticise them. I am sure there are good attorneys and good journalists it is just a pity there appears to be two decent very EX journalists and I have not read anything good from any good attorneys on here.

and you are definately living in cuckoo land if you think an attorney will not take this case or parts of it before he knows anything about the evidence.
Simply reminding a journalist that he should be aware of the actual rather than the perceived position vis-a-vis lawyers taking on a case. Is that a criticism? No doubt both the ex-journalists are decent. I am not in a position to judge, not having any personal knowledge about them. Perhaps you have that benefit.
Not only have I not read anything good from any good attorneys on this thread, I cannot remember anything at all from any attorneys.
And on your last point..you appear to be a self acknowledged expert on cuckoos..what is the connection between what I actually said and what you appear to think I said?
Oh, and what is your experience of how attorneys take on cases?

Last edited by rcraig; 21st January 2012 at 16:20..
Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 21st January 2012, 16:03
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,250
Ron - I don't think this is attactive on a Lloyd's Form basis - the extent of damage means that the salved fund would be very low so the chances of making a loss on the job are very high.

I suspect that the owners are going to claim for a Constructive Total Loss and once that has been agreed the task of wreck removal will fall on the P&I Club or clubs (this one may be joint between Standard and Steamship) who will almost certainly engage Smit and an Italian company.
Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 21st January 2012, 16:06
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rogers View Post
Great photos of the rock. Can anyone tell me what type of vehicle that orange machine is. It looks like it crawled up the side with the rescue workers.

John.
Liferaft, stuck halfway down, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #671  
Old 21st January 2012, 16:29
Cossack's Avatar
Cossack Cossack is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 125
01-pg-horizontal.jpg

s_c07_14119080.jpg

s_c08_RTR2W9J6.jpg

Last edited by Cossack; 21st January 2012 at 22:04..
Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 21st January 2012, 16:39
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piero43 View Post
Concordia is laying on the edge of a step at the depth of abt, 10-15 metres; after the edge the sea bottom drops on a second and larger step to abt. 80 meters, and after on a depth of 100-150 meters.
Piero
Hi Piero

Thanks for this information, which I had been wondering about.

According to the UK media reports today, the lasers etc are showing that the ship is slipping by a few millimetres every hour. Someone on here in the last 48 hours said that he had seen a report saying that the bottom of the ship is about 8 feet from the edge of the rocky ledge on which she is lying.

It seems that at the moment, they are trying to work out whether the ship is trying to move closer to the edge of the ledge or whether she is merely moving a little in order to wedge herself onto the ledge more firmly.

It appears that, so far, it has not been possible to get divers to examine the parts of the stbd hull and superstructure that are in direct contact with the ground. This would be too dangerous because the divers are having too many problems trying to get around inside the sunken parts of the ship and there are no easy (nor, I suspect, even any real) escape routes for them if she suddenly tries to fall off the edge of the ledge.

Unless they can get divers into the areas where the stbd side of the hull and superstructure are in direct contact with the ground, I guess it is impossible to work out whether the ship is impaling herself on bits of rock or whatver.

It seems that the divers cannot blast too many holes in the side of the ship or the superstructure for fear of flooding any areas where there might (everyone hopes) be a few air pockets and, hopefully, some survivors. There is tons of evidence from yachtsmen etc that although drinking seawater isn't brilliant, it will keep people alive for longer than one might expect.

The other worry at the moment is that they are concerned that if the ship does slip off the edge of the rocky ledge, she might rupture her fuel tanks on the way down. She is carrying about 2,500 tonnes of different types of fuel according to the reports. Even if only the stbd fuel tanks ruptured, it would still be too many, obviously.

Is the rocky ledge fairly flat, do you know? I've seen one drawing that I don't believe: in that (which is a bit like a cartoon) the ship comes to "rest" some distance from the shore but still afloat. In the next drawing, the stbd side of the ship fills with water, causing her hull to settle on the bottom and to keel over to stbd. In both drawings, the bottom is shown as being fairly flat and then it rises steeply - at nearly 90 degrees - so as to create the hillside that one can see in the photos.

I don't believe the drawings because the ship would not have stopped where she did unless she had already taken the ground, so I am doubtful about whether the ledge really is flat or whether it slopes in a continuation of the adjacent hillside? The latter idea seems more logical to me but I would guess that large scale charts and/or locally-based fishermen and scuba divers will know exactly what the shape is of the rocky ledge?

Many thanks

Gill

Last edited by Gollywobbler; 21st January 2012 at 16:42..
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 21st January 2012, 16:44
rcraig rcraig is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by callpor View Post
Quoting Gollywobbler in his 629:- "It amazes me nowadays that everyone is so quick to institute legal proceedings long before any sort of proper Inquiry has determined exactly what happened, how and why.

Cheers

Gill"

Many correspondents within this thread refer to awaiting the results of an official investigation before reaching conclusions.With all the hyp and media speculation, have I missed something? To date there has been little mention of an official investigation. Bob Couttie in the LinkedIn Marine Accident Investigation group stated earlier that Italy do not have a functioning maritime investigation system in place? The EMSA website refers to " the adoption of Directive 2009/18/EC establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector implies new obligations for Member States, namely: to ensure proper safety-focused investigation systems, to investigate very serious marine casualties and decide on the investigation of others, as well as to send commonly structured investigation reports and to populate the European Marine Casualty Information Database (EMCIP)". EMSA lists the Italian CG as responsible for official investigations. Is there an official investigation being conducted to methodically and objectively fully establish the facts and determine the root causes - without apportioning blame! Is this in fact happening?
Bob responded as follows:- "I don't think you've missed anything. I would argue that a coast guard is not an independent agency - its job is law enforcement and to determine whether a law has been broken and, if so, prosecute/punish the law breaker. So far there has been no mention of a root cause investigation and no no-liability investigation. My guess is that any IMO compliant investigation is on hold until there has been a successful prosecution of the master of the Costa Concordia.

At this point I don't see an independent investigation nor do I think it politically possible. I may be wrong but it doesn't seem to be happening".

Prehaps some of SN members can enlighten us.
The process will differ in Italy. In the UK the Maritime Coasguard Agency (MCA) has within it an enforcement element. It would be involved in investigating a case for consideration of prosecution. The Maritime Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) would separately investigate the cause of an incident. It would not make any sense for the MAIB to hold back from publication of it's findings pending a prosecution which might take years to commence, where the findings are say, of such an urgency, that failure to produce them might endanger other lives or vessels. Their findings are not designed to allocate blame. The legal processes for prosecution differ between Scotland and England, but in either political processes would not be involved.
Whether a coast guard agency is part of the prosecution system will depend on the country involved.
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 21st January 2012, 16:54
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Stringer View Post
Has anyone been engaged to try and salvage the vessel? It seems that a lot of time, with fairly good weather, is slipping by without any action to try and secure her. Even in Italy, winter storms are not unknown.
Hi Ron

I read one media report claiming that they are trying to work out whether it is possible to chain the ship to the rocky ledge on which she is lying. This was said in one of the newspapers but I can't remember which one. The idea seems to be to put strong points onto the rocky ledge and then to try to "truss up the ship" using heavy chain, as far as I could gather. I have no idea whether such an idea would work but I can understand why they are considering whether it would be do-able.

I gather that one company/maritime expert has said that it would be possible to parbuckle the ship, using a combination of air bags, expandable polystyrene and traditional parbuckling. If they can get her upright then they could pump her out and patch her enough to tow her away to be repaired, he said. However someone on here said that that idea would stand no chance of working.

I read that there have been suggestions of cutting up the ship where she is but that Costa Cruises (and, I would guess, the hull insurers) have not yet made any firm decisions about what is possible and what to do.

Cheers

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 21st January 2012, 17:04
Anchorman Anchorman is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 754
Carnival announce safety audit.

http://www.marinelink.com/news/proce...ces342170.aspx
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruise ship Ushuaia leaking in Antarctic - merged threads Santos News and Views from the Shipping World 4 5th December 2008 00:40



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.