Last voyage for Costa Concordia cruise ship

It did not sink in an hour. It was still floating an hour after the collision with the first rock which ripped the long gash in the port side. It "sunk" when it grounded on the rocks.

 

Good point David . . ! !

I'll guess she's in this position now because the rocks that prevent her from sliding down the slope forced her in this position.

To what side, and how much, was she listed before grounding there . . ? ?

Cheers,
Angel

 

That is the key question, and I suspect the answer will be that, had proper damage control protocol been followed, and had she not been beached, she would still be afloat. Eagerly awaiting the results of the investigation.

 

"Schettino is under house arrest in Naples facing charges of manslaughter and abandoning ship, which he denies, after he allegedly left the liner before hundreds of passengers. The court documents, published in Italian newspapers, revealed the frantic call he made to his bosses 23 minutes after the ship had struck rocks and torn a 70-metre hole in the hull.

As terrified passengers began asking what had happened, after the ship was plunged briefly into darkness, the documents said that Schettino called Costa Cruises operations manager Roberto Ferrarini in Genoa and told him: “I messed up. We have touched the bottom [of the sea].

“I am telling you the truth. We sailed past Giglio and we took a hit. All of a sudden I saw foam on the surface of the water off the bow of the ship. I knew immediately it was a reef that had not shown up on the radar.”

The ship was travelling at 16 knots. Schettino ordered the wheel to be turned “full to the right” and called for the engines to be thrown in “full reverse”, but it was too late.

Schettino told investigating judge Valeria Montesarchio how, after he had crashed into the rocks, he sent two senior officers down to the engine room. They reported that it was flooded and water was pouring in."
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on...into_sea_from_stranded_cruise_liner_1_2070889

So now he didn't see the "uncharted rock" on the radar...

 

you mean like this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sea_Diamond
Luckily the captain didnt trust the fully computerised ballast and stability control so he played it safe when everything on board said there was no dangerous situation
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lermontov_(ship)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Explorer
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTS_Oceanos
and

 

Where do you get the part about the fully computerised ballast and stability control? Which captain are you referring to? Are you saying Schettino played it safe by beaching Concordia? Whether beaching was a good move or not remains to be seen. There is not enough info available to the general public at the moment to make that call.

Sea Diamond and Mikhail Lermontov: Not much info in either article. To discuss these things properly you need an official accident investigation report, such as the ones the TSB produce here in Canada. That said, it appears the watertight doors failed in both instances. Sea Diamond may also have had 4 or 5 compartments damaged, in which case she was probably doomed from the point of grounding anyway.

The key point is that both ships, and the Concordia, stayed afloat and upright long enough to evacuate nearly all passengers. That is about as much as you can expect.

 

Explorer and Oceanos - both very old ships pushed past their limits, and the Oceanos was in poor repair. Even then, and despite poor efforts on part of the Oceanos crew, all hands were saved on both ships.

Again, human error is the dominant factor in all these incidents. The vessels themselves are not inherently flawed.

I ask again, what point are you trying to make?

 

If desired, we can "produce" an infinite number of query.
It could float if did not beached?
It could float if not beached in the middle of a storm?
He swerved first left, then right. Why?

None of these things is important; that's important:
"Is possible to design a passenger ship so that touching a rock (or an iceberg) has not keel or walled devastated?"

Sure is possible: it's just a matter of materials, thicknesses and sectors.

The sides and the keels of boats with over 4500 people shall not open for a collision with a rock!

...20 minuts after collision ship was drifting towards the damage.


Then we could talk about stability in the event of a leak, we could talk about the lifeboats unusable and we can talk about many other things.

I really hope that nobody pretends not to see the real problem.

Concordia and sisters are yoo high and too sensitive (therefore too dangerous) for the job they are intended.

Trolls with one or two posts of track record, of course, can continue to do the beggars.

 

Grounding a vessel causes damage. If you only "touch" bottom in a silty river, still a "grounding" report has to be made and at least a dive inspection and depending on that report a drydock inspection of bottom.
Grounding isn't a lightly considered option. The bigger the ship, the worse the damage.
Captains and companies premake decisions. Policies. I'm sure grounding in the instance of Concordia was the correct decision. A broadside beaching is more likely to be most stable. Unfortunately, Concordia landed on some fulcrum rocks. A two legged chair is difficult to balance.

 

I will assume you are inferring I am a troll. Not at all. I joined this forum to discuss the Concordia, and am simply trying to combat emotional, factless posts such as yours with some logic.

You seem to be inventing numbers and facts here. 20 minutes? More like 2h. Storm? Reports say it was calm. Lifeboats unusable? Only at the last of it. Had the captain ordered an evacuation much earlier, for example if he had anchored just outside Giglio harbour immediately after the collision, then it is likely all lifeboats would have been fully usable throughout the evacuation.

You cannot design a practical cruise ship that will stand up to being dragged across a rock at 15 knots (~30 km/h), and then subsequently beached. Who knows what other bits of human error further compounded things? Were there hatches left open? Watertight doors not working? Safety mechanisms disabled because they annoyed the crew?

Shall we agree to wait for some hard facts to arise from the investigation before we argue any further based on nothing?

 

What makes you sure? Please share this info with the rest of us. I'm very interested in the answer to that question: Was beaching the right decision or not? Did Captain Schettino accurately assess the damage to Concordia and determine that capsize was imminent, or did he simply panic and run for the safety and comfort of land, thereby sealing the fate of the ship? His actions after the beaching would seem to indicate the latter, but who knows for sure?

You say you are sure it was the correct procedure - why?

 

I wonder when and if the black box data will be released.
Intent to ground or no action possible due to machinery casualties will certainly be outlined in the data.

 

Of first importance is lives. Ships can be repaired, or at very least have scrap value.
We can't bring the dead back to life.
As a captain with more than 30 years experience in command, and more than 40 years at sea, it's what I would do.
If afterward, someone said,"Captain! That was a bad decision to beach her!"
My response would be, "My conscience is at ease. Lives were saved. The rest is just about money."

 

I have seen many trolls on the net.
never one who slips among the dead.
Poor fellow.

 

I could not agree more.The only thing that performs Schettino is to have beached.