Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!

This is what we are talking about !

"Barred the door, I will try to enter from the window.
1.) This accident was caused by idiocy, not a technical failing of the vessel or design rules."

There's room for improvements.

We NAs know that all these newer 'resort' cruise ships meet all the class and solas standards and requirements if built to rules, and approved by classification Societies like Lloyds, RINA, BV, DNV, GL, etc. They have enough engineers and lawyers on their payroll to make sure of that.

But ! ....

Take a look at one of the CC machinery modules (hi-res photo, exhibit A) and you can see why that 'boulder' got in the E.R. so easily.

Now take a look at the same module on the MSC Divina (low-res photo, exhibit B). Obviously designed by an NA who was not sleeping during Prof. Yagle lectures.

You can see that the outcome might have been totally different.
Capt. Francesco could have finished his bottle of Chianti with that Moldovan beauty... and maybe even have time for a cigar too ; while the ship kept on steaming toward Savona for 'patching'.

 

Nice detail Smartbight,

Effectively double hulled with enough space to dredge up boulders, or take a torpedo in the side and not damage more that 2 compartments. Clearly a double hull would probably have saved the ship by limiting the number of compartments flooded to one or two.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying so I won't comment other than to suggest you start a new thread for this latest tragedy. Since I don't have the details of the accident I don't feel qualified . . .

 

Maybe something like "Cruise Ship Tromedy" similar to Tankship like described here:

http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf

?

 

Willkommen zum Forum, seewolfbarney.

 

All lives are precious, but there is a difference between those who risk their doing something dangerous and those who rely on the XXXXXXX.

This is the difference.
Who goes on cruising, do not know who has made ​​a choice to embark on something that delegates safety to probabilistic calculations and not to everything could have been done.

 

In the first world we have very opportunity to dig deeper and make a rational decision as to which, if any, vessel is safe enough for a pleasure cruise. Also, the repercussions (lawsuits, environmental penalties etc.) are greater so a higher saftey margin is automatically assured. In the third world they have to just climb aboard and accept what happens - to stay ashore could mean untold hardship or even death. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. These third world places often have little oversight and less repercussions. I am only one generation removed from that attitude. My father worked on coastal freighters. One day they were loading barrels of fish - heavy cargo. The captain was loading by volume, not weight. My father noticed the Plimsoll mark well below water. He asked the captain what the marks meant (knowing full well what it was for). Captain admonishes him for not understanding that it was to set the load limit. Father says "Then what the f¤¤k is it doing a foot under water??" Captain relents (sort of, still allowed another x barrells to be loaded). This is what's happening day to day in the poorer places of the world.

 

Of course.
And a thousand other things, all horrendous.

Understand that in a forum on ship design, though, we're a bit OT.

 

maybe, but you steered us there.

The point is, we can't invest all our resources ensuring pleasure cruises are super safe while people in the third world are drowning on overloaded, under-maintained rust buckets on a regular basis. Lives are lives, and perhaps we should divert more of our attention to ensuring their lifelines are as safe as our 'escape' lines.

 

if one wants to be an owner, must purchase appropriate vessels.
resources are his, not yours.
Indeed, doing some pretty boats aid the economy.
earn designers, shipyards etc.. etc..
I do not think that the money of Costa Cruises are public!

 

Your profile says Canada. Is English your second language?

 

If one wants to produce in Europe, must submit at its plant in the rules ensure workers and environment.
Reasonable rules, but more and more invasive.

Now one wakes up, puts up a nice fleet of safe things X%, its customers do not know anything about what combines and all is well?
But where in the world?

Buys a laser, a water jet cutting, a press brake.
Look what they have to take for safety!
and are used by trained technicians!
and then, what the hell means interests of a company with problems of the Third World.
Those should be solved by governments.

 

There's room for improvements.

We NAs know that all these newer 'resort' cruise ships meet all the class and solas standards and requirements if built to rules, and approved by classification Societies like Lloyds, RINA, BV, DNV, GL, etc. They have enough engineers and lawyers on their payroll to make sure of that.

But ! ....

Take a look at one of the CC machinery modules (hi-res photo, exhibit A) and you can see why that 'boulder' got in the E.R. so easily.

Now take a look at the same module on the MSC Divina (low-res photo, exhibit B). Obviously designed by an NA who was not sleeping during Prof. Yagle lectures.

 

Sorry, gentlemen and gentlewomen, I missed to include my comment in post #193...

I wanted to thank Smartbight (post #181).

Obviously, there is room for improvements... even a lot of room !

Regarding the internal and structural architecture matter, I have some concern with the new damage stability rules (SOLAS 2009). They are letting the designer free to draw out whatever general arrangement he likes to make.

No more floodable length calculation, no more permissible compartment length, no more margin line, etc...

No more heel angle limit in damage condition, except a switch to zero of the contribution to the general subdivision index (attained index A) when a certain heel angle is reached.

No more limit for vessel sinking, except a switch to zero of the contribution to the general subdvision index (attained index A) if evacuation/escape ways are no more "dry", or if watertight doors control are no more available, etc...

Obviously, general attained index of subdivision (A) has to be above required index (R), but the absence of margin line is questioning me a lot. Equivalence (as a minimum) with previous level of safety provided by "old" rules (SOLAS 74 as amended, the rules in force for "Costa Concordia") is guaranteed according to researchers but... questions are still there...

Have a look on the European research program "Goalds" (gogol it and you will find very good technical deliverables on their site). You will see that there are questions...

Francois-Xavier Nettersheim

 

Thank you Jehardiman for your answer. I confess the matter is fascinating.

I don't confuse attained and required index, believe me !

Prior to SOLAS 2009 (MSC 216), there were no probabilistic rules for passenger ships, except the old Resolution A265 dated 1973 which was an alternative to deterministic rules of SOLAS 1960.

The required index you mention for rules before SOLAS 2009 is the old one included in Resolution A265. The comparison in between both required indexes is quite difficult, the set of rules being so different even if the philosophy is common (probabilistic principles).

You still refer to margin line in your post, which is a deterministic concept. There is no more margin line in SOLAS 2009. And this is in my opinion a problem. See other posts on the matter in this thread. An interesting point to note is that in the old Resolution A265, there was in addition to the probabilistic principles based rules, there was still a kind of margin line...

Francois-Xavier Nettersheim