Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!

[smartbight]

80 deg list to port after 110' of tanks holed on stbd side. Could have been worst than Titanic if not for shallow waters. What happened ? Aren't we the NA'S or Class Societies doing our jobs ? 2012 !!! Update the damage criteria if need be! so that passengers don't have to crawl on bulkheads and lifeboats can be launched when vessel is sinking! At least they had the band playing on deck back in 1912.

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by smartbight

At least they had the band playing on deck back in 1912.

These are modern times, the band was replaced by a big LCD tv-screen:



There's already a thread about Costa Concordia, with a lots of pics of the damaged hull: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...hip-41313.html . You'll find a lots of data over there about the presumed dynamics of the accident (awaiting for the results of the official investigation). Do you want to keep this one as a separate thread about damaged stability design criteria?

From the aerial pics of the ship it looks like about 1/6 of the hull was interested by the breach. Don't know what do the class rules say about cases like this one.

Cheers

[smartbight]

2012. The picture of the band on the giant LCD screen can rotate, the band can play 'level' so the passengers don't panic.
Thanks 'daiquiri' for opening the informative thread "Last voyage for Costa Concordia cruise ship". Considering the size of new passenger vessels with 'rolling' incidents; damage stability criteria need to be revisited. An additional 50' of water depth and the ship would have turned turtle with half of the 4000 souls on board drowning in the dark of night ?
Do we have enough experienced NA's on this forum for this stability thread ?

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by smartbight

An additional 50' of water depth and the ship would have turned turtle with half of the 4000 souls on board drowning in the dark of night ?

More probably the accident would have never happened if the ship was steered through the areas with at least 50' of water below...

[peter radclyffe]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater

[jpquattro]

In this image where the ship is now.



in this image a small part of "the hole" note the unbelievable size of the stone inside... and the hole is in the 70 meters range (that is 210' more or less)


the boat is 280 meters long, about 910'

Paolo, from Italy

[DCockey]

In the first photo of the post above, what is under the small boat in the lower right? It looks like it might be man made.

[jpquattro]

difficult to say... not enough detail... but the place is extremely close to the rock coast... it can be a rock underwater...

Paolo

[Ad Hoc]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

More probably the accident would have never happened if the ship was steered through the areas with at least 50' of water below...

As I understand it, the vessel does this very same route many times, same crew too.

The reason for the vessel being so "close" is that when the Capt realised he was taking on water...he went close to shore to aid evacuation.

This accident is going to radically change IMOs stance on these big floating block of flats cruise ships. Most are designed for the America market going around the Caribbean and Bahamas etc. So the "safety" level is somewhat different for a full blown ocean going like the QM2.

The Herald of Free Enterprise changed the design of RoRos for ever, this accident shall do the same for Cruise ships. No longer shall we see vessels like this being built again. Radical changes shall be made. Listening to survivors testimony on how they had to evacuate is contrary to what is "believed" should happen and designed for. This is a major game changer!

[jpquattro]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

As I understand it, the vessel does this very same route many times, same crew too.

Not so close... It appear that whas usual courtesy for passengers to pass close to islands to see the islanders say "hello" to the big ship...
This is obviously out of any law...

The reason for the vessel being so "close" is that when the Capt realised he was taking on water...he went close to shore to aid evacuation.

This is true and this is the only smart move of the captain... more than 4000 people, most them dinning... this move has saved tousand of lives... actually there are 5 confirmed casualties and 17 missing people...
1000' away from there it is 500' deep...

Paolo

[peter radclyffe]

http://www.farevela.net/2012/01/14/t...i-navigazione/

[peter radclyffe]

we can see giglio from here,
we just heard on the local news that when the coastguard saw the captain leaving the ship they told him he must stay with it,
ok he said then left anyway
then they arrested him

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

o longer shall we see vessels like this being built again. Radical changes shall be made. Listening to survivors testimony on how they had to evacuate is contrary to what is "believed" should happen and designed for. This is a major game changer!

I agree Ad Hoc. I really hope that in the future we will not see stuff like this floating on the water surface:



Also for purely aesthetic reasons.

[Willallison]

As I returned home from a weekend away on the boat with my family () there was a large cruise ship leaving the port of Hobart. My eldest (9) year old son watched it heading down the river for just a few moments before he observed... "Dad... you know, that thing looks like it's about to fall over"....
Out of the mouth's of babes....

[Mr Efficiency]

Vessels of this genre 'look' incredibly top heavy ( yeah, I know looks can be deceiving), and the draft seems quite shallow, I'm thinking keeping them floating relatively upright is a tough ask with even modest water ingress upsetting the balance.