Last voyage for Costa Concordia cruise ship

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by daiquiri, Jan 14, 2012.

  1. armando12
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 120
    Location: Gdansk [Poland]

    armando12 BalckRock

    Me neither... but the VDR is the property of the shipping company. However, I guess that the authorities can demand revealing the data (if not for the public then for the authorities).

    Anyways, if there were 'bad things' going on the bridge (e.g. some women, sightseeing etc.) then I believe in might not be in the best interest of Costa Cruiser to reveal those data. 2 plus 2 = 4
     
  2. armando12
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 120
    Location: Gdansk [Poland]

    armando12 BalckRock

    OK. I've read couple of times (here and in other places) that captain (and other crew members) claimed that there were no rocks on their charts.
    As I wrote earlier Costa Concorida was equipped with ECDIS system (which is mandatory system for this type of vessels) and they must have had ENCs chart onboard. The question is, however, which type of charts did they have?

    In general there are six types of ENCs (which contains different levels of details): Overview, General, Coastal, Approach, Harbour, Berth)

    Now, if Costa Concordia had not Approach/Harobur charts then, indeed, they did not see any rocks. However, without Approach/Harbour charts installed any kind of vessel shouldn't be even off the main waterways.

    General (1:700000)
    [​IMG]


    Coastal (1:90000)
    [​IMG]

    Approach (1:12000)
    [​IMG]

    Harbour (1:4000)
    [​IMG]
     
    2 people like this.
  3. nettersheim
    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posts: 47
    Likes: 7, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 152
    Location: France

    nettersheim Consultant

    Very interesting. Thank you.

    Francois-Xavier Nettersheim
     
  4. powerabout
    Joined: Nov 2007
    Posts: 2,944
    Likes: 67, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 719
    Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy

    powerabout Senior Member

    its most likely magnetic tape?
    but the year of fit will determine what type it was
    There has been a few cock ups with VDR's so the rules keep changing
     
  5. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    I wouldn't think the VDR would be in control of Costa but rather under the control of Italian authorities.
     
  6. janneke
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: Belgium

    janneke New Member

    Stabiliser

    In the post # 721 one can easily see in what position the stabi is : deployed in the outward position. I have the suspicion that this was done AFTER the concordia hit the rocks. When the ship left Civi on fridaynight the weather was calm and steady, no wind and the sea was also calm. Hence there was no reason to deploy the stabi. This is only done in rough weather . Normally captains do NOT deploy this system frequently because it causes more drag and that results in increased fuel consumption. This is NOT appreciated by the shipping company because it increases cost and decreases profit. On the foto one can see the port side stabi , which is turned upwards, to give upward lift, probably to compensate for the increased load of water on port side. I guess that right after the "rock impact" the ship started to list to port side. The bridge officers decided quickly to extend the stabi and to immobilise it in the upward postion to compensate the listing (in italian : bending ) of the ship. That explains also why the stabi is not damaged by the rock impact. It was extended after the impact. Athough the ship was on a tight right turn, it went all relatively so slowly that the stabi would have been teared off of its mountings had this device been extended before the impact. I suppose that extending the stabi doesn't take much power because it is hydraulically operated, so what little electrical emergency power was available was sufficient for this.
    Again this is speculation
    JP
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. Angélique
    Joined: Feb 2009
    Posts: 3,003
    Likes: 336, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 1632
    Location: Belgium ⇄ The Netherlands

    Angélique aka Angel (only by name)

    Thanks for the explanation Janneke, it sounds very plausible, I'll add a link to this in my stabi post.

    Cheers,
    Angel
     
  8. nettersheim
    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posts: 47
    Likes: 7, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 152
    Location: France

    nettersheim Consultant

    Hello Janneke,

    Sorry but I disagree with your hypothesis and for many reasons. I would like to mention some of them here after.
    After collision, no more energy was available on board and power packs (hydraulic power equipment) for stabilizers were not anymore available in my opinion.
    Extending of a fin stabilizer is of no use when the speed is low, furtermore with no or nearly no speed which has been the case few minutes after the collision.
    You can't produce any moment to counteract statical force (flooding induced forces) with a fin stabilizer in such condition.
    The fin stabilizer is by principle something which is working dynamically i.e with speed.
    I can't imagine people on the bridge thinking that they should extend stabilizer after the collision... especially when they have had the first reports from the engine officer in the engine control room...
    Obviously, my point is also speculation with the facts knowledge we have at time !

    Francois-Xavier Nettersheim
     
  9. smartbight
    Joined: Dec 2006
    Posts: 112
    Likes: 8, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 55
    Location: London

    smartbight Naval Architect

    Attached Files:

  10. Angélique
    Joined: Feb 2009
    Posts: 3,003
    Likes: 336, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 1632
    Location: Belgium ⇄ The Netherlands

    Angélique aka Angel (only by name)

    Francois, what are your thoughts about the stabi isn't hit ?

    And thanks for your view also :)

    Cheers,
    Angel
     
  11. nettersheim
    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posts: 47
    Likes: 7, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 152
    Location: France

    nettersheim Consultant

    Angel,

    I am sharing the opinion already mentioned in this thread in previous posts that the fin has not been hit because the vessel was in high rate of giration at the time of collision with the rock (which explains the position of the impact on the hull). The port fin "escaped" the crash because it was positioned inside the sweeping area ! This high rate of giration should be confirmed by the future analysis of the VDR, but I have no doubt that the vessel was in "hard a starboard" situation.

    Francois-Xavier Nettersheim
     
  12. BPL
    Joined: Dec 2011
    Posts: 217
    Likes: 15, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 209
    Location: Home base USA

    BPL Senior Member

  13. rxcomposite
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 2,752
    Likes: 608, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 1110
    Location: Philippines

    rxcomposite Senior Member

    Note also the source of the source. BoatDesign.net. Lower left hand corner.
     
  14. Gian Milan

    Gian Milan Previous Member

    I am particularly interested in "bending".
    Because of my broken English I can't understand perfectly.

    Can you explain the "italian bending?"
    T.U.
     

  15. Angélique
    Joined: Feb 2009
    Posts: 3,003
    Likes: 336, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 1632
    Location: Belgium ⇄ The Netherlands

    Angélique aka Angel (only by name)

    I understand this is a conventional two shaft set up with each one fixed pitch propeller.

    Meant question was, are the props counter-rotating while both in the same direction of propulsion, i.e. does one shaft have a right handed prop and the other a left handed prop? Is this standard in this kind of set up so the two prop walks would cancel each other? Or are there reasons not to do so?

    I asked this because if both props are right handed this would give the stern a huge prop walk to port, towards the rock, after Schettino ordered “full reverse”. Which would enlarge the stern swing to port due to the (to?) hard steering correction to starboard.

    Cheers,
    Angel

    P.S.

    Didn't see pics of the props + surroundings but on the simple drawings I've seen there were no prop tunnels visable. Pics would be welcome :)
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.