Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!

On Discovery channel sunday eve Costa Concordia..

 

http://www.topspeed.com/boats/boat-news/gigantic-cruise-ship-planned-ar32625.html
http://www.vacationrental-merida.com/blog/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-princess-kaguya/

At 1,657 feet.
20 to 22 Knots
8,400 passengers?

The Princess Kaguya will be even less maneuverable than the Costa Concordia.

Is Captain Schettino looking for a job? Perhaps the Japanese Company Contents Network Inc. will have a job for him on their new cruise ship if it ever gets built.

Interesting idea of using it as a floating shopping mall. Security will undoubtedly be a nightmare.

Is there a point where the ship is just too big, with too much liability?

 

The Princess Kaguya concept is quite good, i.e. the public is invited to visit the floating shopping mall (and spend money aboard) while the passengers are ashore. Security is no problem as you go the ship by tender. And Princess Kaguya need not to be shown off like CC, as you advertise its arrival and invite the public to come aboard in local media. Knowing shop rentals in certain cities probably a floating shopping mall is cheaper ... and more fun. It will probably work well in S.E. and E. Asia.

 

That diagram is interesting to me - if only because it highlights how few Japanese ships there are. I have worked on part of the conversion of Crystal Harmony to Asuka II - we designed the Japanese Bath House on the top deck that filled in the space that used to be take up with a Magradome.

 

M/S Costa Concordia and Port State Control

M/S Costa Concordia was port state controlled seven times prior the incident: Lisbon 060719, Limassol 070124, Valetta 070928, Piraeus 080222, Rhodes 090402, Lisbon 100324 and Valetta again 110414. And no defects were ever found! Everything was OK incl. watertight doors … open at sea. So much for European safety at sea.

 

First it is obvious that you do not understand anything about port state control which monitor only condition of the vessel. The reference regarding stability is the set of documents (T&S booklet, Damage control plan, damage stability booklet, a.s.o.) approved by flag authority.

Second I would like to know how you pretend knowing that watertight doors were allowed to be open at sea.:?:

 

You are right to assume that I do not understand anything about PSC, but actually you assume wrongly.
Re topic of this thread, Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, etc., most persons aboard at incident (or whatever) managed to be evacuated and landed in little Porto Giglio as shown on:

Isn't it nice to see all these shipwrecked survivors lining up for a photo? :?:
Or ... is the photo real? http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news8.htm#SE
Re open watertight doors on Costa Concordia: there were plenty of watertight doors on CC, always open at sea and in port ... and nobody cared. Prove me wrong ... Pascal Warin.

 

1_ On a ship like the P Kaguya; With the new rules (attached) and the right subdivision system, she should be able to survive 10 flooded compartments out of 100. Steam back to port and still keep the rock as a souvenir.

2_ With redesigned Engine Rooms configuration one E.R. could be dead and the other still operational, like we have in the Navy.
There is no reason the ship has to go dead in the water every time the tourists plug their hair dryers all at the same time and blow the fuses.
And then being towed by a fishing boat ... Not good photos for the travel agents' brochure.

3_ With a better trained team in the wheelhouse there is no reason the tourists would ever need to swim back to shore.

No doubt cruising must be wide open for the Asian market. If you have spent a few days in Tokyo or Honk Kong, you know a 7 day cruise, with a fresh breeze from the ocean must be a real vacation.

With a good design and the right team in the wheelhouse 'stuff' will still happen but the outcome does not have to be catastrophic, ask Captain "Sully" he'll tell you it can be done.

Now that airplanes have replaced those magnificent ocean liners of yesteryears; The large cruise ship is our only chance. We have to get it right. We need to keep all those NAs on Burnsall Street busy and many more like us employed.

N.B. We also need a few good epidemiologists on the team to solve that recurring 'diarrhea' problem. 4000 tourists flushing the loo at the same time might 'overwhelm' the sewage system. I have read that it doesn't smell too good on those ships when it happen (I was once on a drilling rig that only had minor 'back vent' problems from the sewage tank. All the quarters stunk. Took me a few days to get that smell out of my nose)

 

Heiwa, we appreciate your present and future technical contributions on the subject of stability; but when you start questioning the reality of those passengers in the pictures; We start wondering if you are on the internet in a warm "coffee shop" in Amsterdam puffing on your Hookah ?
If you want to talk to somebody who share your thought I will give you my Grandma's email. She swears the CC wreck was caused by what she calls gangs of rogue Cirenas (see picture). She says that back in the old days those cantankerous gals would create all sort of mayhem on those shores.

Now keep in mind we are just mere simple engineers with no knowledge or experience in the paranormal/supernatural/religious/ or extra terrestrial Mechanics. Those subjects were never taught in our schools. All we know and apply here on this stability thread is good all Newtonian Mechanics.

 

Well, smartbight, you don't have to be very smart to see that the survivors photo is shopped as there are no spotlights in Porto Giglio and the palmtree is normally in front of the house with one window with lights ... and that corner of the port is normally full of small boats for fishing, the wharf/pier in the port has been moved to the right, etc, etc. I just wonder why anybody would change the picture.
Why not publish a real one?

 

The Captain's Duty

Heiwa,
A cruise ship like the CC has 1000+ people to keep the passengers happy, with numerous directors of entertainment etc. The bridge has maybe 30 people on that team, and the chief engineer maybe another 20-40. If the captain fails in Job 1, to navigate correctly and keep it from harm, the passengers will not be happy no matter how nicely he BS's them at dinner. CC is our current case in point. Only a person on board and in Command can navigate a ship correctly. The home office may try to have input about general routing, practices and equipment, but the captain is the man on board and in charge.

By all accounts he CHOSE to take the helm from the bridge crew, he CHOSE to make a closer flyby for the Maitre'd and the Captain's former Captain on the island, he BLUNDERED in delaying his turn by 30-60 seconds, BLUNDERED again in not recognizing his error until too late to correct, and once the ship was badly damaged, he BLUNDERED in responded badly to the crisis. In spite of being informed by the engineering staff less than 10 minutes after the impact that he had 5 compartments flooded, no engines, no main generators, and that the compartments could not be pumped out, he lied to the coast guard, lied to the passengers and misled his home office as to the state of the ship ("he damaged the ship, had lost power and needed tugs"). Either he was in severe emotional shock at the loss of his ship and future,(highly probable), or he was incompetent at crisis management and numb to the critical facts being presented to him (apparently so). He was also apparently unaware of the fundamentals of his ship's stability, the effects of five compartments flooding, and the essentials of damage control.

What you are implicitly proposing, that the home office told him to pretend it didn't happen and do nothing for an hour, lie to the coast guard, the passengers and the crew, and minimize any publicity, is ridiculous on the face of it.

Anyone with any brains at the corporate level reached on the phone at 10 PM and told the truth would immediately tell them "Get everybody off the ship immediately and search the ship".

Now the home office would be responsible for selecting such an idiot for a captain. They would be at least partially responsible for managing their training. They would be responsible for cheap construction of their ships. They would be responsible for the lack of wing tanks and watertight door deficiencies (along with the shipyard and naval architect). They would be responsible for allowing or encouraging flybys. But the Captain is responsible for navigating badly, wrecking the ship, and managing the initial emergency response poorly. Someone on board must be in charge and the job title is Captain.

I would not want to be on a ship commanded by a captain who was dependent on the home office for instructions as to how to do is job.

We can be sure the details will come out in court. The captain and the home office will get fried, with government, insurance companies and plaintiffs piling on, and the company(s) trying to slither out.

 

Starbuck1,
A cruiseship is not a tanker or bulkcarrier with their problems driving the Master crazy. A cruiseship carries passengers and most of them wants to discuss their situations with the Master to get happy, happier (or a free cruise?). Navigation on a cruise ship is delegated to, e.g. the 2/0:s.
The Master looks after the cargo, hm, the passengers.
Many passengers are very complicated and not only the Master, the Chief Purser, the ship's Doctor, etc, etc, have to attend distressed passengers! Sometimes legal advice is required so Master calls HQ as ship does not carry a ship's lawyer or solicitor!
I am more interested what caused the incidents 13/14 January.
Italy, being a member of EU, shall ensure that safety investigations are conducted under the responsibility of an impartial permanent investigative body, endowed with the necessary powers, and by suitably qualified investigators, competent in matters relating to marine casualties and incidents.
The Italian Marine Casualty Investigation Central Board is located at Viale dell'Arte, 16, 00144 Roma and can be reached on Tel: +39 06 45489209 and Fax: +39 06 96519919 or email: segreteria.ccism@trasporti.gov.it.
The entry into force on 17 June 2011 of Directive 2009/18/EC establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector implies new obligations for Italy, namely: to ensure proper safety-focused investigation systems, to investigate very serious marine casualties and decide on the investigation of others, as well as to send commonly structured investigation reports and to populate the European Marine Casualty Information Database (EMCIP).
The Rules of Procedure of the permanent cooperation framework prescribed by Article 10 of Directive 2009/18/EC were adopted on 5 July 2011 through a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) N° 651/2011.
The common methodology for investigating marine casualties and incidents prescribed by Article 5.4 of Directive 2009/18/EC was adopted on 9 December 2011 through Commission Regulation (EU) N° 1286/2011.
It will be interesting to see if Italy will follow Directive 2009/18/EC, that you find at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:131:0114:0127:EN:PDF
If you study above, you will note that it is not really important to establish what person is responsible for the incident(s). In order to improve safety at sea you have only to find out what really happened ... and why. Only then safety at sea will be improved.

 

Thanks Heiwa for the many useful details on the investigation rules and players in the EU. I agree that the key thing is to determine what really happened and why. We'll all be interested to see the results, and pray they do an honest job. It will be doubly interesting to compare the report with our collective speculations and calculations.

In the CC case, it appears the captain came to the bridge, entourage in tow, and overrode the 2/O or whoever was the OD at the time.

My sister had a recent experience on the Seabourn Odessey where the passengers were not following the safety directions of the crews in the shore boats. The captain got on the PA before the next port and made it VERY clear there would be NO going ashore if the passengers didn't follow his crew's directions. He was clearly in charge, down to the details.

 

@Heiwa

Quote: "The Master looks after the cargo, hm, the passengers."

Mr. Schettino did not. That's why som cargo got lost...

 

Thanks for the Solas 2009 summary link.

Many of the new Solas concepts were ideas that I had noticed while looking at the Costa including increased reserve buoyancy and the watertight portion of the superstructure extending higher above the waterline, as well as more compartmentalization for propulsion. Although, I do still think it would be appropriate to locate some of the generators for Diesel/Electric propulsion systems in the bow in 1000 foot ships, perhaps with a secondary emergency propulsion system too.

For better or worse, Captain Schettino did little to prevent a second grounding such as dropping anchor, sealing the ultimate fate of the ship.

I would think the corporate headquarters would get real-time GPS positioning of all of their ships, including alarms when the ships significantly deviate from the planned course. Thus, one would have to conclude the company was at least complicit with the course deviations.

Certainly ships in locations subject hijacking risk should keep under close surveillance.