Last voyage for Costa Concordia cruise ship

He wasn't able to "distance" himself far enough!

 

absolutely agree!
Furthermore, keels are ridiculous, stability is precarious even in normal conditions.
These bins, taking on water, falling on its side in a few minutes: can not be otherwise.
And of course sink (thank God this is not seen).


What we saw at Giglio, is a warning at low prices.
A present, perhaps a miracle.

There is not much to say: these "boats" must be dismantled before happens really something irreparable.

 

har har

I wonder if the captains authority is still in play once the coast guard gets on site of a evacuation like that ?

Whats the manual say Yobar

 

very well said Gian

I wouldn't get on one of those things if you paid me

I've been down to Puerta Viarta numerous times and although I did sail on a replica of the Pinta, when the girl wanted to go for a cruise, me being a cape kid and looking at the height of the liner compared to the depth of the harbor said, hell no. Maybe I'm just a tad paranoid but those huge cruise ships look like death traps to me.

I couldn't agree more that the number of lives lost had that thing gone down just a half mile further out would have been unthinkable

 

Coast Guard can and does take charge, but doesn't relieve captain unless he is arrested.

Anybody make out a double bottom in that mess of wreckage in Concordias bottom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Double_hull#Double_Hull_on_Passenger_ShipsHello everybody,

I have worked on cruise ships and ferries, all of them built after 1990 and none of them has a double hull. I am hereby referring to the sentence "Double hulls or double bottoms have been required in all passenger ships for decades as part of the Safety Of Life At Sea or SOLAS Convention. " I have checked my SOLAS and couldn't find any requirement for a double hull on passenger ships. It would be nice if this could be referenced to the proper SOLAS chapter and regulation. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanclaudelennon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Solas Chapter II-1 Regulation 12
Quoting from pp 71 of the 2004 combined base text plus amendments in force at that time:
Regulation 12
Double bottoms in passenger ships
1 A double bottom shall be fitted extending from the forepeak bulkhead
to the afterpeak bulkhead as far as this is practicable and compatible with the
design and proper working of the ship.
.1 In ships of 50 m and upwards but less than 61 m in length a
double bottom shall be fitted at least from the machinery space
to the forepeak bulkhead, or as near thereto as practicable.
.2 In ships of 61 m and upwards but less than 76 m in length a
double bottom shall be fitted at least outside the machinery
space, and shall extend to the fore and after peak bulkheads, or as
near thereto as practicable.
.3 In ships of 76 m in length and upwards, a double bottom shall
be fitted amidships, and shall extend to the fore and after peak
bulkheads, or as near thereto as practicable.
It's highly unlikely that your ships didn't have full double bottoms, whether you were aware of it or not. The convention doesn't require a full double hull, to my knowledge. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello,

Thank you for your contribution. Of course the ships I've been working on have a double bottom. However they don't have a double hull, which is different. In fact, the text cited above does not require a double hull on passenger ships, only a double bottom. I suggest to remove that sentence from the article as it may cause misunderstandings. Jeanclaudelennon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC).

 

too true
everybody gets confused with double botton tanks versus double hull

Of course if you go back and research double hull you will see it was an ill conceived knee jerk reaction by greenies that had no basis in testing or science

 

In my opinion, in ship so hight, when water come in is the end.
We need to understand two things:
1) those ships are unstable under normal conditions.
2) will not be possible in a storm hoping that this ship doesn't topple over if it has shipped water.

Any case, we do not play with the lives of thousands of lives.
Concept is wrong for navigation, good to make money.

 

Pretty big call there !

 

they are dangerous places to be

http://www.cruiseshipdeaths.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sea_Diamond
so it had some water in it then it just flipped over......
I have never seen that one explained

http://ferriesdisasters.blogspot.com/

 

Yah but Gian pretty much nailed it, those guys are in it for the money and it was just a mater of time.

 

a bit like Airbus

 

Concerning classification societies like RINA , you would have to ask A Naval Engineer like Daiquiri for insight. Some controversy must be brewing

"President of RINA, Gianni Scerni, has resigned. RINA, the Italian Naval Register, is the classification society that issued the Costa Concordia a certificate of seaworthiness and safety management certificate in November 2011, according to Equasis.

As the death toll from the cruise ship sinking climbs, Scerni has announced his decision to resign from the company. This may be an attempt to soothe the controversy surrounding the lack of control on board the Costa ship and the questions regarding its classification status."

 

classification societies....

same guys that put bow doors on ships ( without warning lights)
at least one of those accidents killed enough they did something

 

At the moment there is no controversy about quality ship.
Mr. Rina prevent?

 

sure but it looks like any time a crusie ship has a problem it rolls over and sinks
so maybe its only as good as all the others which may not mean good as all?