Last voyage for Costa Concordia cruise ship

The aesthetics, the whole idea of a cruise ship, is not my cup of tea.
But safety statistics don't back up the opinion.

 

as u wish...

 

It's not about wishing, it's about data.
Does a statistically significant number of deaths result from cruise ship lack of seaworthiness or not?
And it's about profitability. Maybe this accident will change the latter and make more nautical ships more profitable than the 'floating hotels.'

 

A sample of Bernoulli is not distorted, takes large numbers.
This, (thank God) we can't have.
Without Bernoulli, any statistic can be interpreted.

If it is interpreted by those who have too much money and too many interests ... the problem starts.

Several have already posted about this topic.

Go just to see how long it takes to roll on its side in the sunken ships.
Then, look at the number of deaths.

When one of these condominiums has a real problem, isn't a problem: is catastrophe.

100 meters offshore, and on Concordia were still thousands of people.

 

Some of the cruise ships look like top heavy floating coffins. I would not want to be on one out in an ocean when a large Rouge Wave showed up. The Posiden adventure scared me.

 

I'm surprised to see so much unsubstantiated fear mongering on a boat design forum. People stating their own fears and fear based opinions as fact, and refusing to believe the opinions of those with some knowledge of the subject.

The internet - where experts are treated as idiots and idiots lauded as experts.

It doesn't matter how top heavy these vessels 'appear', the numbers say they are stable. Perhaps the investigation onto Concordia will reveal some shortcomings in design, construction, regulation or operation, or a combination of all the above. Or perhaps it will reveal nothing more than what it appears at first glance - human error. We will all just have to wait what the investigators find. of course, there will still be the same set of people who won't believe the results of the official investigation, and who will try to find conspiracy and intrigue in it all.

 

I for one am fairly shocked that this ship listed and went over on her side at 80 degrees so quickly in this day and age of naval design but obviously there is lots more work to be done in cruise ship design safety....and I am sure the NTSB will be examining their requirements but it's too easy for ship's registry to be elsewhere than USA or European countries,etc...where ther tend to be more stringent regulation agencies....condolences to family and friends of the deceased.

 

Cars and boats are the same. Its best to keep the wheely side down.

 

I do not need to talk about technical details.
I'm talking about common sense, ethics and some ...number.

Common Sense.
Can a ship made to carry 4500 people to sink in an hour to have hit a rock?

Ethics.
The expert designers would do so well in hiding like rats in these moments.
In other times, where honor had something, some suicides would run away.

Numbers.
Here are your numbers: 1-1-0.

1 rock
1 hour
0 chance to use lifeboats 60 minutes after impact (offshore).

What other numbers do you want?
I could talk about other numbers, but it is better to let those poor people rest in peace.

 

Where did the 80 deg list figure come from? And how quickly did it happen? I've been looking for that information.

From what I've read, there was no dramatic list until after she was beached. So basically it took ~2h and grounding to cause capsize.

Reliable information is hard to come by though, so it's impossible to draw conclusions.

 

Number of recorded deaths from lack of seaworthiness would be useful.
Divided by number of passengers carried compared with other boats.

 

Today has been found the hard disk of Concordia.
Tomorrow or later in two days, we will know a lot of things.
For now, having spoken to two survivors of my city, I can tell you that the boat after 20 minutes he leaned heavily on the side of the tear.
When it is stalled, rolled back to the other side.

I do not think that being partially supported the rolling speed increases.

But in a world of s**t where you even Schettino is defended, I agree to hear everything.

******************

I'm not interested in your division and your stats, BPN.
Tell that to the mother of the girl of 5 years is gone.

If you like, enjoy and post your superb numbers.

It is your right.
***********************
On this topic, I will not insert other posts.

 

No, it seems you would rather talk emotionally in fragments of broken English, so nobody is quite sure what you mean.

Perhaps there should be a forum www.boatwailing.net for you and your sort.

1-1-0 - I think you missed on all counts:

1 rock on 1st impact + x rocks on beaching = at least 2 rocks

it took circa 2 hours to begin evacuation. 2 critical hours wasted.

Despite 2 wasted hours, severe damage and secondary grounding, nearly 4200 people managed to evacuate successfully. Not bad at all. Would have been better to have everyone make it off obviously, but not bad.

So, what other numbers do you have? Or perhaps after getting these wrong you should just stick to emoting.

So far I have seen no evidence to suggest any design fault, just evidence to support poor skippering.

I would guess that the expert designers are busy reviewing their work to be able to answer the questions that are about to be asked of them. i will be surprised if they end up on the hot seat along side Captain Schettino.

 

Hey, that's the Jolly Amaranto..!! So, being scrapped there in front of Alexandria port, Egypt. I wondered about that here . . . .

Cheers,
Angel

 

Does everyone here understand the adverse effects grounding on an uneven surface can have on stability? I suspect not.

Unanswered question: Would the Costa Concordia have sunk if it had been anchored in water deep enough that it wasn't touching the bottom. Given that it floated for over an hour befire grounding it may have reached an equilibrium condition which was disturbed when it grounded?