Last voyage for Costa Concordia cruise ship

Hello Guillermo,

I have not seen anything in the previous post regarding this matter.

According to the delivery time the vessel has been built under SOLAS 90 rules. That means the deterministic principles have been used and based on this I suppose the vessel is a "2 floodable compartments".

I recall that SOLAS 90 stipulates that an approx. damage length of 11,50 m has to used for damage stability calculations. For people not experienced with naval architecture, I should say that this damage length doesn't mean that the vessel will not sustain a damage of more than 11,50 m. The "theoretical" damage is such and should be applied anywhere on the ship's length, which potentially means on a watertight bulkhead. In this case 2 compartments will be flooded. And then we came back to your question regarding floodable length.

Francois-Xavier Nettersheim

 

Is it possible that the beaching manoeuvre was actually an attempt to conceal the damage by bringing the ship in to the harbour? The action followed a frank admission of the incident to the company which presumably resulted in some instruction and would explain the captains curious (and deadly) delay in informing the emergency services and preparing for evacuation.
Nick.

 

Thanks, François-Xavier.
Would have SOLAS 2009 given a better chance of survivalability in this case?

http://147.102.98.1/ws1_files/GOALDS_HLuhmann_presentation_2010_09.pdf

Should a double hull requirement, for these huge vessels carrying thousands of people aboard, be implemented?

 

I can't imagine how the beaching would obscure the need for beaching.

Nor can I imagine any captain trying to enter harbor under these circumstances. Blocking a harbor mouth with a wreck and resulting demurrage would be terribly damaging financially to the company. They were already facing losing the revenue from the ship even if their insurance paid 100% replacement. Unlikely.

 

Hi!
I'm new here.

I found this discussion about Costa Concordia very interesting and educating.
I have some questions about cruise ship safety.

Are there full scale evacuation training? When a new aircraft model is introduced manufacturer has to demonstrate with real people that everyone can be evacuated in 90 seconds. Is something similar required when new cruise ship is introduced. Basically get out at sea with full crew and passengers and test how fast ship can be evacuated.

Regarding ship stability. Are they stable enough? There are some videos online showing cruise ships caught in storms rolling violently with people and furniture sliding from one side to another.

In this case accident happened in calm weather close to shore in relatively warm water and ship did not sink fully. Many people were able to jump and swim directly to shore without waiting for lifeboat.
Now suppose a different scenario. Massive storm and ship like Costa Concordia out in open sea colliding with large cargo ship causing similar damage.
Would it be possible to deploy lifeboats in such conditions?
What effect on stability would have 10+ meter waves on a ship that is flooding and have no power to keep bow pointed into waves with all that water sloshing inside from one side to another?
Would it be possible to evacuate all people before ship sinks?

 

I am asking if perhaps his intention was to enter the harbour and not to beach the ship outside. In the harbour they would have had every possibility of concealing the extent of the damage thus protecting the reputation of the company. Very probably the ship would have settled upright.
I saw some where at the start of the thread that the first indication to the authorities of a serious problem was a request for a tow.
I can see no other reason for the delay in informing the authorities or in preparing the passengers.
Nick

 

They may have originally thought they could remain afloat and be towed in, but once the captain realized they were sinking, entering the harbor would not be an option. Do you understand demurrage?

 

"They may have originally thought they could remain afloat and be towed in"
If this was the case it puts a very different perspective on the decision to beach the ship and would show that the company put their financial interests ahead of the lives of their passengers.
"Do you understand demurrage?"
No, I am a yacht-master not a ship master. Explain?

 

If you delay a ship from sailing, the owners can file demurrage charges against you. You will have to pay the complete minute to minute overhead and operating costs plus lost revenue for the ship for the time you delayed it.
Blocking a harbor could make you responsible for demurrage on all the vessels trapped inside and for all vessels diverted to other ports. For the entire length of time you blocked it. maybe months. No company or captain would bring a sinking vessel in the harbor and risk blocking it and vulnerable to such financial exposure.

 

"No company or captain would bring a sinking vessel in the harbor"
I suggest few captains would risk sailing at speed within meters of rocks just to wave at a friend on the shore. This was obviously no normal captain. He also had a huge incentive to hide his mistake.
What I am trying to understand is the reason for the delay in alerting the authorities. I have seen many times on the forum the opinion that the only good thing the captain did was to beach the ship thus saving many lives. Possibly at the last minute he aborted the attempt to enter the harbour, possibly he out of time? Never-the-less the ship came to rest just outside the entrance. For the good of the pasengers? In that case why did they not inform the services earlier and have a rescue fleet waiting?

 

Do you expect me to defend this captains behavior and decisions? i have no idea what was going on in his head. He is indefensible.
I would have beached the vessel in similar circumstances. I would not have been within miles of the rock he ran over!
Unless I was entering port there, at slow speed, with tugs and pilots.
Sorry i can't help you more.

 

Oh. The port itself and the docks and businesses in the harbor can also claim demurrage. Expensive business.

 

Yobarnacle- Do you feel there is evidence that the captain beached the boat?

This is his statement though from what I see of the track the boat bled off inertia after the strike, stalled head to wind, blew off beam to and forereached towards that point till she struck.
She came in at .5 knots- this seems possible with the 12 knots of beam breeze at the time of the accident.

You stated that the axial spin was proof of bow thrusters being used- is it?
She settled towards the point slipping off to starboard.
What propulsion to effect this maneuver? Thrusters?
Are there any witnesses who are stating how the ship was handled following the strike?

 

Yes I see a bowthruster manuever. That hairpin about face turn can not be duplicated by any combination of current and wind, even if the stern was pinned to the bottom. The bow swung rapidly then stopped when parallel to the beach. I believe she then drifted. There may have been some thrusting pushing bow away from beach at last moments insuring stern beached first.
You wouldn't want the bow to beach first. She might pivot on the bow and twist off and fall further down blocking harbor.

 

Thanks- so effective control of the vessel amidst all the other errors..

I can only imagine corporate screaming in his ear: "don't block the gosh damn harbor..."