Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!

I'm starting to see a pattern here...

-Tom

 

for anyone that thinks ships are better now then years ago
class works for and is paid by the owner so they bark like a dog when the owner says so

I always remember what a certain Dutch mega yacht builder said of their boats
"we would prefer not to build down to class standards"

http://www.amazon.com/Tankship-Tromedy-Impending-Disasters-Tankers/dp/0977647900
for anyone that needs to understand what class is all about
free read here
http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf

 

transcript of ship's Captain and Italian Coast Guard (yipes!)

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...uise-ship-captain-published-by-italian-media/


Corriere della Sera reported that the crew began preparing the lifeboats more than 10 minutes before the order was given in what the Italian newspaper described as “a kind of mutiny” by the officers under Mr. Schettino.

 

This is the only concord I want. http://www.welchs.com/products/natural-spreads

 

http://gcaptain.com/shame-you-costa-concordias/?37697

http://gcaptain.com/carnival-corp-issues-statement/?37516

This is an interesting account/perspective

 

Dougfrolich, I have copied you link to the other thread about Costa Concordia (http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/op...oncordia-cruise-ship-41313-17.html#post519483).
A very interesting and emotional testimony. Thanks.

 

Would this ship still be visible were in not in shallow water ? Or would it, as when Putin was asked what happened to the Kursk, be a case of "it sank" ? It is all a bit academic when the seabed is the only thing holding it up to ponder angles of heel.

 

Yes it would most likely have sunk but it would have done so in a more refined manner allowing the people to get off. If you run a ship onto a beach it can remain upright but it it's on a reef it can roll over quickly as it floods rather than settling more evenly in the water.

 

The "crash" was a result of debris from another plane left on the run way.

Not sure what the point is you're trying to make?

 

He refers to coincidence.

Remember the movie "Vanishing Point" when the star drove a Challenger and it went up in flames?

The same thing happened 15 years later when the space shuttle Challenger went up in flames.

Pure coincidence.

 

Aahhh..like those that wish to find meaning in pure random coincidence and subvert it as something from a higher plane etc as a raison d'etre

 

Well, guys, besides the name which was quite obviously doomed from the beginning, I've also read that at the moment of ship launch the champaigne bottle didn't break when top-model Eva Hercegova threw it against the hull. That might be a clue to this accident. I'm confident that the investigative board and judges in the court will take this terrible fact into account too.

 

There was an incident involving the QE2 several years ago.
Apparently, the ship was running late after staying around Martha's Vineyard
too long, so the captain decided to go a bit faster than usual. He thought he
could clear a submerged rock by 2` (yes 2 feet!) but ended up scraping it.
There were no human injuries, but it cost the company many millions when
the ship had to be dry-docked.

E.O. Tuck and I did some work on this, and we suspected squat was a
contributory factor. I'll be interested to see the exact course and bathymetry
(including tidal effects) for the latest disaster when all the evidence is in.
The course the captain took might be the same as others have taken before,
but that doesn't mean the water depth was exactly the same.
Was he going faster than the previous ships did when they came close to
shore?

 

And the court might also consider that the accident happened on Friday the 13th.

 

Out of curiosity I searched for information about the QE2 collision with a rock off of Cuttyhunk. The incident was long enough ago that the NTSB report isn't on the internet but I did find some other information. Nothing about the captain being in a hurry or the ship traveling at faster than normal speed. There was a pilot onboard. The cause of the accident was attributed to poor communications between the pilot and captain which put the ship on a course over a shallower area which neither intended. The particular rock which the ship hit may not have been on the chart. The crew's estimate of squat was much less than what subsequent analysis showed, and that was probably a contributory factor. Also, the incident occured in 1992 before the GPS system was fully operational, and the accuracy available then may not have been as good as today.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/14/us/qe2-was-slightly-off-course-at-grounding-captain-says.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/qe2-pilot-overruled-by-captain-1540481.html

http://www.hydro-international.com/...ounding_of_the_Queen_Elizabeth__response.html