Cruise ship 'Costa Concordia' aground - merged threads - Page 34 - Ships Nostalgia
13:46

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
  #826  
Old 23rd January 2012, 06:06
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
IF the two tracks proffered by "Lloyd's List" are roughly right, the ship approached the island on a much broader bearing on the 13th January 2012 than she did in August 2011.

The first track looks more "planned", to me. Applying the cheapest thing in ships and shipping, 20/20 hindsight, I'd say the accident started to happen when course was first shaped to pass close to Giglio Porto, closing from a broad angle.

Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 23rd January 2012 at 08:05..
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 23rd January 2012, 06:13
Iangb Iangb is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
My location
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by dom View Post
i read on a reply here that they missed their way point by 30sec,now to me sounds like someone was'nt watching the plot or whatever it is their use nowadays,on pilotage on the wheel when your two markers line up you know what wheel to use either port or starboard,did the watch officer miss that point,or was the course laid out to close to the rock in the begining,or was the helmsman to slow in answering the order
As Cisco says I think we'll have to wait for the inquiry (Or the inevitable 'leak' from the Italian authorities) before we know for sure.
All I can offer is that the Captain is reported saying that he was 'navigating by eye' and that he 'turned too late'.
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 23rd January 2012, 06:24
barrinoz barrinoz is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1965 - 1973
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,735
There's nothing 'personal' about it, jaguar06. Over 820 comments, 34 pages of opinions and almost 32000 views gives testament to the 'fact' that peoples' right to opinions have not been thwarted. Nor have any meaningful conclusions been arrived at.
barrinoz.
__________________
Everything will be all right in the end and if it is not all right, then it is not yet the end.
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 23rd January 2012, 06:54
Ferry Man's Avatar
Ferry Man Ferry Man is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar06 View Post
The personal attacks certainly do not promote discussion, which is, after all, what an internet forum is created to foster.

I would say, too, that the personal attacks stem from prejudice, as in pre-judge. Based on simple information that at one point I was a working journalist, I’ve found several who would dismiss me out of hand. Before I might ever get to say that in a subsequent career I was an upper level administrator for a research team working on a novel way to reduce drag on U.S. naval nuclear submarines, a project initiated by DARPA and funded by multiple Federal agencies, on work totaling some $3 Billion. That doesn’t go to make me any kind of nautical expert but illustrates one way in which someone whose life experience has been outside directly seafaring can have direct effect on one facet your marine enterprise.

Personal hostility certainly doesn’t encourage me to participate in these discussions I’d hoped might elicit good perspectives and information, even if we might have to set aside certainty as “facts” till some later date when an enquiry might allow the information more weight, and yes, “providing the truth is told”.

Perhaps I’ve been mistaken that my participation would be allowed here after some years of reading posts by a group of men I’ve learned to respect for their obvious experience and pragmatic wisdom.

Ordinarily, I don’t ever attempt to socialize where I do not belong, much less pay for the privilege.

I won’t bother asking any further questions here as it’s of no consequence at all whether I understand the technical aspects of the event under discussion here nor will I bother to pass on any gleanings about things like wind that I in my ignorance might think have any bearing on the discussion (12 knots, northeasterly, at the time). About the only useful information I’ve gleaned here is that I’m not welcome here and my financial support of this site was wasted.

Future lurkers/readers would be well-advised to study this thread before becoming participants in this apparently closed club.
Please do not let it bother you, Open discussion and opinion is welcome (or should be) and is essential for good discussion. Anyway I'm getting off topic. There seems to be so much information out there in the media it's getting to be quite hard to follow it. The latest on the news here is that the Captain claims Costa new and encouraged the maneuver, You just do not know now what the truth is. This is why I'll wait for an investigation to conclude.

Last edited by Ferry Man; 23rd January 2012 at 07:00..
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 23rd January 2012, 07:01
pilot's Avatar
pilot pilot is offline  
Senior Member
Active: 1963 - 2011
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Roger View Post
A very good point NoR ; would not be good seamanship but could happen .
Anchor should be hauled ; secured then made fast with the Devils ; Claw ; spurling pipe made watertight etc .
And cleared when close to land, ready for use. (Unless approaching an SBM.)
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 23rd January 2012, 08:25
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar06 View Post
The personal attacks certainly do not promote discussion, which is, after all, what an internet forum is created to foster.

I would say, too, that the personal attacks stem from prejudice, as in pre-judge. Based on simple information that at one point I was a working journalist, Iíve found several who would dismiss me out of hand. Before I might ever get to say that in a subsequent career I was an upper level administrator for a research team working on a novel way to reduce drag on U.S. naval nuclear submarines, a project initiated by DARPA and funded by multiple Federal agencies, on work totaling some $3 Billion. That doesnít go to make me any kind of nautical expert but illustrates one way in which someone whose life experience has been outside directly seafaring can have direct effect on one facet your marine enterprise.

Personal hostility certainly doesnít encourage me to participate in these discussions Iíd hoped might elicit good perspectives and information, even if we might have to set aside certainty as ďfactsĒ till some later date when an enquiry might allow the information more weight, and yes, ďproviding the truth is toldĒ.

Perhaps Iíve been mistaken that my participation would be allowed here after some years of reading posts by a group of men Iíve learned to respect for their obvious experience and pragmatic wisdom.

Ordinarily, I donít ever attempt to socialize where I do not belong, much less pay for the privilege.

I wonít bother asking any further questions here as itís of no consequence at all whether I understand the technical aspects of the event under discussion here nor will I bother to pass on any gleanings about things like wind that I in my ignorance might think have any bearing on the discussion (12 knots, northeasterly, at the time). About the only useful information Iíve gleaned here is that Iím not welcome here and my financial support of this site was wasted.

Future lurkers/readers would be well-advised to study this thread before becoming participants in this apparently closed club.
Hey, Jaguar06

Don't let this nonsense get under your skin, my friend.

Like you, I'm astonished by the amount of immature spite levelled at me on this forum at times. However, immature spite is all that it is. I won't stoop the same level as the immaturely spiteful so they'll just have to get on with that by themselves. The only thing I wouldn't be prepared to do would be to pay for the privilege of putting up with it, so in your shoes I would withdraw any financial contribution to SN forthwith. Apart from that, though, rise above it and treat it with the contempt that it deserves, I suggest. If you take it personally, the spiteful will win. Please don't let that happen?

I value the advice you have given me on this thread immensely. You've done a huge amount to help me to try to understand why this prang has happened. I am absolutely CERTAIN that a lot of other people share my view but many of them will be too scared so say so out loud, for fear that the spiteful will start trying to bully them next.

SN is only an internet forum. It amazes me that anybody has the energy to extract their claws and to start trying to scratch other people in such a trivial medium, frankly. Still - they're only wearing out their own claws, not mine or yours!

Like you, I've been prowling around the Web for the last couple of hours, trying to glean more information about what happened to/with/Concordia.

So, like you, I also saw the comment on another forum that apparently the wind at the time was 12kts from the NE. 12kts might be a lot for such a long, large ship with so much windage, I would guess?

I also saw that this ship is not particularly heavy. Someone on here said 10,000 tonnes but apparently her registered/Class deadweight is given as 8,900 tonnes.

There is also quite a lot of discussion about all the engineering-type things that you mentioned. The consensus seems to be that this type of design is only stable for as long as it remains upright, preferably without any water sloshing around inside the hull. Seemingly, the ship was built to something called SOLAS 90, under which it is only expected to stay afloat for long enough to allow safe evacuation but that in turn seems to depend on the assumption that no more than two compartments will be flooded.

According to the lady Judge last week, Capt Schettino seems to have told her that, ".....the impact that had caused the springing of the leak and the flow of water into five compartments of the shipís engine room..."

I'm not sure whether the Judge means 5 compartments of the engine room or 5 compartments of the whole ship? The (translated, not necessarily accurately) official transcript of the Judgement is here:

http://gcaptain.com/grave-imprudence...isaster/?37904

I'm surprised that the Judge allowed the preliminary hearing to go ahead as soon as it did. I suspect that all the witnesses, Capt Schettino and the Judge herself were all still too shocked to be able to be really rational about the whole thing.

That said, my guess is that it was felt to be in Capt Schettino's best interests to hold a preliminary hearing quickly so that the Judge could send him home to his wife and child. I quite agree with her that there is no evidence that this man intends to disappear so it is not necessary to keep him in custody. (EU Law would doubtless have a fit about keeping him walled up, to judge by the ECHR's edicts concerning prisoners in the UK!)

Please cheer up and stick with this thread?

Many thanks

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 23rd January 2012, 08:32
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferry Man View Post
Please do not let it bother you, Open discussion and opinion is welcome (or should be) and is essential for good discussion. Anyway I'm getting off topic. There seems to be so much information out there in the media it's getting to be quite hard to follow it. The latest on the news here is that the Captain claims Costa new and encouraged the maneuver, You just do not know now what the truth is. This is why I'll wait for an investigation to conclude.
Hi Ferry Man

Have you read last week's Judgement? If not, the link is below:

http://gcaptain.com/grave-imprudence...isaster/?37904

Also, the ship's VDR unit is broken, apparently. Without that plus the presence of all the hysterical hyperbole in the Judgement, I'm wondering whether any sort of investigation is actually likely to be completely objective and to stick to nothing but facts that can be proven?

Cheers

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 23rd January 2012, 08:38
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Hi Derek Roger
Quote:
Another observer has asked if an an anchor needs power to be dropped ? No as every one who has been to sea would know . Gravity does the trick ; power required to recover it but not to drop it ( one good chippy could do it by himself ).. I am still at a loss as to why the Pick was not dropped when the circumstances were right .
Gravity alone will drop an anchor. Even I know that. However gravity alone can't be trusted to get it to dig in. In my experience with yachts, you need to drop the anchor and then put the boat into astern, to make sure that the anchor has dug in and isn't just sitting proud on the bottom.

That's why I asked whether a cruise ship needs power in order to drop an anchor - ie, does getting the thing to dig in work in the same way as it would on a small yacht? I realise now that I didn't make myself clear about what I meant - for which I apologise.

Cheers

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 23rd January 2012, 09:06
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Roger View Post
A very good point NoR ; would not be good seamanship but could happen .
Anchor should be hauled ; secured then made fast with the Devils ; Claw ; spurling pipe made watertight etc .
Not able to comment on 99% of the posts on this thread as they
are much too advanced for my simple mind.
However , Your post , I can , Derek.
Spurling pipe can be cleared and D claw can be released even if
anchor has walked back a trifle. But if the bar has been put over
at the compressor and has locked a link ( like it's supposed to) then
you're knacked. You will have to put in gear and take the weight off
before being able to let go.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 23rd January 2012, 09:27
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
Deadweight Tonnage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollywobbler View Post
I also saw that this ship is not particularly heavy. Someone on here said 10,000 tonnes but apparently her registered/Class deadweight is given as 8,900 tonnes.
Gill
Just to clear up any confusion.
Deadweight tonnage is a measure of the vessels's carrying capacity (Cargo, Fuel, Fresh Water, ballast...etc...etc). It is the weight necessary to 'sink' her from light to loaded draught.

Displacement is the weight of the vessel at her 'normal draught' (whatever that is ?). I believe that for the Costa Concordia it is about 52,000 tons.

Her Gross Tonnage is 114,137 tons which is about eleven times her 10,000 (-ish) deadweight tonnage. In a bulk carrier the deadweight tonnage would be the other way about probably between about 1.75 and 2.0 times the gross tonnage. So it seems to me that the Costa Concordia is/was of very light construction.

I stand to be corrected - and I'm sure I will be.
Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 23rd January 2012, 09:35
Boatman25 Boatman25 is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1958 - 1972
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,044
Seems to me a certain person has taken over the posting and believes she is right no matter what the more knowing and more experienced people say, to me she has spoilt the enjoyment of the thread and it is no longer interesting, just boring and full of hot air like the Coastguard thread which I no longer take an interest in any more
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 23rd January 2012, 09:42
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boatman25 View Post
Seems to me a certain person has taken over the posting and believes she is right no matter what the more knowing and more experienced people say, to me she has spoilt the enjoyment of the thread and it is no longer interesting, just boring and full of hot air like the Coastguard thread which I no longer take an interest in any more
If you actually took the trouble to READ some of the links that everyone has been posting, you would actually find both threads very interesting. But if you only post in order to moan about how sorry you feel for yourself then I agree with you - that does get very boring.

So - do you have anything constructive to add to this thread or do you only want to share your self-pity with everyone else, pray?

God knows why I bothered to stick up for the Coastguard Service, considering that you are one of them.

Last edited by Gollywobbler; 23rd January 2012 at 09:44..
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 23rd January 2012, 09:44
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
Further back in the thread is a calculation, not by me, of the probable displacement. That's one of the very many good things about this thread, which, frankly, is doing a much better job of educating anyone who looks at it than either the general Press or the shipping Press, since both Lloyd's List and Tradewinds are behind paywalls and only available to subscribers.

The deadweight of a pure passenger ship is always small since she only has to carry people, their luggage, stores, spares, fuel, luboil and other consumables.

I doubt if this ship is of lighter construction than others but designers always try to make the weight of the upper structure as light as they can, in order to improve stability. If they can improve it they then "spend" the extra stability by adding a deck.

This is not as daft as it sounds.

Too much stability is bad because a ship that is too stiff has a very short sharp roll, which shakes up the paying passengers and makes them seasick.

There's absolutely nothing new in passenger ships having relatively low stability - there have been ships where you only filled up the swimming pool(s) (weight high up and free surface) after bunkering (tanks pressed up - no free surface in them...) for a century and more.
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 23rd January 2012, 10:04
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
I doubt if this ship is of lighter construction than others but designers always try to make the weight of the upper structure as light as they can, in order to improve stability. If they can improve it they then "spend" the extra stability by adding a deck.
By way of comparison ( the sublime to the ridiculous ?)

The RMS Queen Elizabeth I had a GRT of 83,673 tons and a deadweight of 15,856, so her deadweight to gross ratio was about five whereas the Costa Concordia's is about eleven.
Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 23rd January 2012, 10:19
Steve Steve is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
My location
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollywobbler View Post
The only thing I wouldn't be prepared to do would be to pay for the privilege of putting up with it, so in your shoes I would withdraw any financial contribution to SN forthwith.
Why would you advise him to do this? we are very grateful for whatever help members can give us in keeping the cost's at a manageable level, the bandwidth drawn on the gallery alone every month is considerable, yet it gives many members all over the world a bit of pleasure and brings back some happy memories for many.

Sorry but I find advising a member to withdraw support to the running of SN because he has run into a bit of heavy weather on a forum thread a childish and illogical statement to make?
Reply With Quote
  #841  
Old 23rd January 2012, 10:24
Satanic Mechanic's Avatar
Satanic Mechanic Satanic Mechanic is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boatman25 View Post
Seems to me a certain person has taken over the posting and believes she is right no matter what the more knowing and more experienced people say, to me she has spoilt the enjoyment of the thread and it is no longer interesting, just boring and full of hot air like the Coastguard thread which I no longer take an interest in any more
Carefull there Boatman you may get "mauled" which is a bit like getting bitten by a sheep to be honest (gummied?).

Id say it is like asking questions while peeking at the answers/ trying to trip people up
__________________
I've been all around the world
But, there's nowhere compares to my hometown
The mayhem of Glasgow is buried deep in my blood
And there's no other place where a '****' might not be a put down
It's thirteen degrees and there's folk in the street, in the scud
Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 23rd January 2012, 10:28
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Good Underwater Footage of Wreck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O5jKC2gISg

Morning, All

The Italian Police seem to have released some really clear pictures of the underwater parts of the ship.

At one stage, the divers are inspecting what looks like strips of metal, lying on some rocks. A bit earlier, the ship's name is clearly shown - either on the underwater stbd bow or possibly the stern? I'm not sure where that bit of filming was done. I'm wondering whether the strips of metal were torn from the side of the hull or the superstructure?

I'd be very grateful if someone with a better understanding than me would be kind enough to watch the film and describe whereabouts all the outside bits of filming are likely to have taken place, please.

The innards are easy enough to understand - everything that is bolted down (eg tables) show how steeply the ship is now listing. I'm not sure what I'm looking at outside the ship, though.

Many thanks

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 23rd January 2012, 10:30
McCloggie McCloggie is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,068
The CEO (or equivalent) of Costa was on CNN over the weekend saying that Costa was as safe now as it was before the incident and that the incident was caused by the Captain.

The CEO may be right but if Costa'a safety is as good as it was before the incident I find that worrying - to say the least.

Despite all the technicalities of what may/may not have happened on the night and the actions/non-actions of the Captain, the question we should be asking is "why was the incident allowed to happen?"

Some questions:

If the Captain was as irresponsible as Costa portray him, why was he in the role in the first place?
What are the Costa rules for competency and training and experience?
Why was the vessel allowed to perform "fly pasts" and if it had been done (so called safely) in the past why was it not picked up by Costa management?
Why is there confusion about the Captain's role and where is the clear distinction of roles and responsibilities?
Are there any records kept?
On the news this morning (BBC) it is reported that there may have been unaccounted persons on board - how could this happen?

What I am getting at is that it appears that the overall Costa management system - including their Safety Management System - leaves a lot to be desired and there appears to be little or no Quality Asssurance of the management system involved - Audits, Inspections, Analysis and follow up. If there had been, would this have happened?

I work in the floating production sector of the offshore industry where POB numbers for a few hundred highly trained people are enforced - never mind for thousands of untrained people. If my company can not demonstrate that it effectively manages our operations we will be shut down, yet the cruise industry seems to be taking risks and making the most basic mistakes or indeed NOT doing the most basic things and is allowed to do so.

Costa'a safety may well be the same as it was before this incident but it makes me ask just how safe it is. It looks more and more that this was an incident just waiting to happen.

McC
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 23rd January 2012, 10:39
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Why would you advise him to do this? we are very grateful for whatever help members can give us in keeping the cost's at a manageable level, the bandwidth drawn on the gallery alone every month is considerable, yet it gives many members all over the world a bit of pleasure and brings back some happy memories for many.

Sorry but I find advising a member to withdraw support to the running of SN because he has run into a bit of heavy weather on a forum thread a childish and illogical statement to make?
Hello Steve

There is no reason why anyone should pay for the privilege of receiving personal insults from the other members of this thing. You might well think that refusing to pay to put up with that is childish and illogical. I think that it is perfectly logical and sheer common-sense.

If you want Jaguar06's money, make sure that you stop your fellow members from insulting him/her, I would suggest.

If you read some of the very personal (and totally off-topic) insults that have been dished out over the last 5 pages or so of this thread, they are not "heavy weather". They are nothing but personal insults, very offensive and pure, petty, immature spite - as you will see for yourself if you read them.

I'm not a bit surprised that Jaguar06 feels so disheartened that s/he wants to rack off out of this forum. There are other forums - populated by some much nicer people than some of the members on here - which are altogether more civilised than SN. That's a poor reflection on SN, I would suggest.

Cheers

Gill

Last edited by Gollywobbler; 23rd January 2012 at 10:55.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 23rd January 2012, 10:47
Cisco's Avatar
Cisco Cisco is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1963 - 2006
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post


There's absolutely nothing new in passenger ships having relatively low stability - there have been ships where you only filled up the swimming pool(s) (weight high up and free surface) after bunkering (tanks pressed up - no free surface in them...) for a century and more.
Back when Noah was a deck boy it was standard practice on the passo boats I was on to have the pools set at 'empty' on the Ralston whether they were full or not...
Stability on passo boats as you say always a problem viz CP ships falling over in Gladstone Dock etc etc etc ....

I'm surprised nobody picked up on my comment re the garbage log but then the Norwegian Dream prang was a few years ago.

Like you I think there has been some good stuff on this thread, and a bit of fluff, but thats the way it is... why some should choose to weigh in the way they did has me a bit confused...

Glad we sorted out the wind thing

I still think that cutting the master adrift may come back and bite Costa on the bum
__________________
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 23rd January 2012, 10:52
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrinoz View Post
There's nothing 'personal' about it, jaguar06. Over 820 comments, 34 pages of opinions and almost 32000 views gives testament to the 'fact' that peoples' right to opinions have not been thwarted. Nor have any meaningful conclusions been arrived at.
barrinoz.
G'day
Quote:
I'm at a loss to understand why the Italian authorities haven't snapped up the services of Gollywobbler and jaguar06 who seem to be experts on everything from the strength of fish to way shoe laces must be tied. Despite Derek's defence of some, I would consider it perfectly acceptable for some of us to point out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of those "who are not mariners" and quoting every idiotic snippet they come across in the media as if they were facts.
barrinoz.
You made the comment, cobber. In what way is it anything less than a personal insult to both Jaguar06 and I? You said it, so please enlighten me.

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 23rd January 2012, 11:04
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,923
It might be worthwhile to point out that if any inshore navigation (including showboating) should be prohibited on the grounds of 'elf and safety (as some might holler), the United Kingdom would be starved out of existence sooner rather than later. The navigation of large ships close inshore takes place every day around our own coastline. Not without risk. It is called pilotage. The knack is in doing it properly.
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 23rd January 2012, 11:06
duquesa's Avatar
duquesa duquesa is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1953 - 2014
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My location
Posts: 1,283
Cruise ship "Costa Concordia" aground

Quote:- " as you will see for yourself if you read them. "!!!

He reads everything. It's his site.

Last edited by duquesa; 23rd January 2012 at 11:10..
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 23rd January 2012, 11:10
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
Tonnage......Again !

A more stark comparison.


QE1 Displacement 83,000 tons Gross 83,000

Costa Concordia Displacement 52,000 tons Gross 114,000

all figures approx
Reply With Quote
  #850  
Old 23rd January 2012, 11:11
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
Angry Squabbling

The squabbling on this thread is getting in the way of the discussion! It's like a bloody kindergarden !
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 4th December 2008 23:40



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.