quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:

This whole incident could just have easily have been Monarch of the Seas a few years back. More or less the same situation, just she was able to make a sandbar to rest on so didn't capsize and it took several hours to evacuate her with shore based vessels once 'stuck in the mud'. The pax were called to muster straight away, but they did not evacuate then.
Pam

---

The Monarch of the Seas to my knowledge was a much more orderly muster. Again all but 3 boats were launched on the high side, and if mustered earlier, all could have been deployed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

The Monarch of the Seas to my knowledge was a much more orderly muster. Again all but 3 boats were launched on the high side, and if mustered earlier, all could have been deployed.

---

It seems as if that was indeed the case, however, let's not forget that it's at times only tiny details which make a difference - especially when it comes to large groups of people. Monarch of the Seas could have easily turned nasty like the incident of Costa Concordia could have ended as 'harmless' as other similar incidents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

What is it with the modern boxboats where they capsize if breached? The Sea Diamond turned turtle when it hit the rocks in Santorini.

---

This is not generally the case. Sinking ships might indeed lean to the side or turn around at some point - they are finally sinking - however, older ships did that too - accidents and ships are too different to see a trend here.

What counts is that the ship does not capsize too early so that an evacuation is possible. As you said yourself, it seems as if there would in fact have been enough time for that even in the case of Costa Concordia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

What is
Concordia seemed like it would have done the same if in deep water.

---

Actually not.

Quite a few experts explicitly state that it would have been the (obvious ?) better choice NOT to beach her but let her sink on even keel in deeper waters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
If the ship was in deep water and with so much damage to the port side, why wouldn't Concordia roll over and sink on her port side? How likely is it that she would come to rest on an even keel on the bottom?

---

Of course the ship will lean to the side but it should 'stabilize' to an acceptable angle of inclination since the hull is 'designed' to be flooded evenly.
Mind you, in some cases the ship might still capsize after some time - the idea is that this is prolonged so that the ship can be evacuated safely.

I think this has been posted before - it might give you an idea of how that would be:

Model test on damage stability.

[ 02-24-2012: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

Of course the ship will lean to the side but it should 'stabilize' to an acceptable angle of inclination since the hull is 'designed' to be flooded evenly.
Mind you, in some cases the ship might still capsize after some time - the idea is that this is prolonged so that the ship can be evacuated safely.
]

---

I recall on the SS Norway a drawing with the flooding curves in several places. At Sea Trade I saw animations of ships flooding under many different scenarios.

Hey, a 150' x 20' gash on any hull is probably beyond the limitations of any ship where the weight of the sheer water will bring it down quickly.

I recall the Andrea Doria had stability issues that were allegedly corrected on the Leo Da Vinci and future Italian ships.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
[....]
Hey, a 150' x 20' gash on any hull is probably beyond the limitations of any ship where the weight of the sheer water will bring it down quickly.

---

Of course, it's always the weight of the ingressing water that sinks a ship - in a way, this is how sinking is defined.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
[....]
I recall the Andrea Doria had stability issues that were allegedly corrected on the Leo Da Vinci and future Italian ships.

---

Leonardo da Vinci had issues which is why ballast had to be added (not a very elegant way to fix that). Mind you, stability of the intact ship is something different than the stability of the damaged ship or 'how a ship sinks'. It seems that Andrea Doria had issues here (she allegedly was not correctly trimmed) - of course, the technical part of the trial on her sinking never happened. However, there were definitely lessons learned form her sinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
[....]
Computer simulations note that the SSUS and Titanic would have survived a Doria like penetration. SSUS would have survived the Titanic Iceberg. Who knows for sure.

---

Carnival Corporation & plc Reports First Quarter Results

First quarter 2012 results reflect Costa Concordia incident expenses of $29 million, including a $10 million insurance deductible related to third party personal injury liabilities. During the first quarter of 2012, the company also recorded an insurance recoverable of $515 million (euro 384 million), which offset the write off of the net carrying value of Costa Concordia as the ship has been deemed to be a constructive total loss.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
I wonder what will happen to the wreck? Remove the superstructure and then patch and right the hull or demolish the entire wreck on the spot?

---

In regards to refloatation, who knows if the hull is penetrated on the port side lying on the ledge?

More insights:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=255939

Lessons from the Costa Concordia collision By MAURICE OSTROFF Last updated: 01/31/2012 22:30Liners should be equipped with most advanced equipment available, including 3D forward-looking Sonar.

quote:

---

The tragedy of the luxury cruise liner Costa Concordia, which capsized on the rocks off the coast of the Italian Island of Giglio on January 13, should remind us that collisions at sea are not rare.

More than 30 groundings and in some cases sinkings of passenger ships have been reported since 2008. As recently as January 31, 2011 MV Polar Star, with 115 aboard, ran around in Antarctica with its outer hull breached, and even the famous cruise liner Queen Elizabeth 2 was grounded in August 1992 off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard and the state of Rhode Island by a 39-foot shoal at a depth of 30 feet.

Disappointingly, almost no questions have been raised about the failure of modern electronic collision prevention equipment to avoid these collisions.

Modern liners are routinely equipped with radar, which detects objects on and above the surface but not underwater. However, sonar equipment is readily available that will detect obstacles in the water, especially the type of rocks on which the Costa Concordia foundered.

100 years ago, the Titanic tragedy spurred the development of using sound waves to locate objects under water in a manner similar to the way bats use sound for navigation, and during WWI the system, which has been dubbed “Sonar,” short for Sound Navigation and Ranging, was used for detecting submarines.

Sonar uses sound waves as opposed to Radar (Radio Detection and Ranging), which was developed during WWII and uses electromagnetic waves.

The Sonar sound waves are produced by electrical devices like microphones and loudspeakers, known as transducers, that transform one form of energy into another. In an active sonar system, the sonar transducer generates pulses of sound waves into the water which bounce off objects in the vicinity as an echo. This echo is received by the equipment and the time taken for the forward and return journey of each pulse is measured. As the speed of travel of a sound wave in water is known, the instrument calculates the distance and the exact locality can be determined.

One of the leaders in the field of underwater acoustics, the US-based company FarSounder has developed a real-time 3D forward-looking sonar system for ship protection which, had it been in use on the Costa Concordia, would no doubt have averted the tragedy.

Although the captain may have been away from his post, it is more than likely that other bridge officers would have been alerted by the prominent appearance of the underwater rocks on the screen with flashing alarms. The equipment can be configured to provide an audio alarm when a dangerous object appears so as to make it unnecessary to constantly monitor a screen visually.

Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) is the world’s largest cruise association, composed of 26 of the major cruise lines serving North America. Its mission is to promote policies and practices that foster a safe, secure and healthy cruise ship environment. An enquiry to CLIA’s director of public and media relations about the electronic obstacle recognition equipment carried on board its ships elicited the following reply:

“All cruise ships are equipped in accordance with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules and have the required bridge navigation equipment as found in SOLAS [International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea] Chapter V.... The majority of cruise lines carry additional equipment beyond what is required. All ships have a compass, both magnetic and gyro-compass; radios and electronic means to receive weather forecasts & meteorological updates; charts, both paper and electronic; a global navigation satellite system; echo-sounding device (depth of water); radar with electronic plotting aid; speed and distance measuring device; Automatic Identification System (AIS) device and back-up devices as required by SOLAS for these systems, etc.”

Unfortunately, it appears that the IMO rules have not kept up with the availability of more advanced equipment. Radar is effective only above the water, charts may not show recent changes and depth sounders look down, not forward. It is only too obvious that in order to avoid obstacles in the path of travel, the detection equipment must look in that direction.

Yet the IMO rules do not appear to require even 2D forward-looking sonar, let alone the 3D equipment that is readily available today for measuring depth as well as range and bearing. The Costa Concordia tragedy should serve as a wake-up call to equip modern liners with the most advanced safety equipment available, including 3D forward-looking Sonar.

---

[ 03-11-2012: Message edited by: desirod7 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
[...]Unfortunately, it appears that the IMO rules have not kept up with the availability of more advanced equipment.[....]The Costa Concordia tragedy should serve as a wake-up call to equip modern liners with the most advanced safety equipment available, including 3D forward-looking Sonar. [....]

---

I don't think that this is 'the solution'. Costa Concordia did not hit that rock because of a lack of technical equipment. Adding another 'gimmick' is not doing anything in a situation where someone 'deliberately' steers the vessel on a course too close to the shore. Giving all the information that was available to the bridge crew: Why should 'one more alarm' have made a difference?

Of course, everything has to be reviewed - and that also includes regulations on necessary equipment. However, it's not that easy. More equipment means more complexity and this can also have detrimental effects. One has to be very careful with that.

I won't be watching because I don't have satellite or cable; I still use an antenna for TV watching.

On other pages it does say some [4] Antarctic cruising vessels have had it fitted, which makes more sense at a slower speed for ice, and The World. It also mentions that 2D is not much good.

In the case of CC I don't think it would have made the slightest difference whether it was there or not. But I have no knowledge of these things, merely a very layman's view Someone familiar with hands on cruise ship navigational bridge systems and expertise might advise us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
I don't think that this is 'the solution'. Costa Concordia did not hit that rock because of a lack of technical equipment.

---

In addition, sonar may not be a zero harm technology. ISTR that it's at least controversial whether it may disturb or interfere more substantially with sea life. There are times when sonar is vital, but toting it as a panacea is just asking for trouble to strike from another direction.

The article actually sounds to me like it needs one or more of these warning labels attached (you can print your own from this PDF). The most suspicious thing about it is that its premise (the ship accidentally hit rocks that nobody had any reason to suspect might even be there) is so wrong - and was already known to be wrong by 31 January 2012, the date of the article.

[ 03-12-2012: Message edited by: Globaliser ]

- firsst : sadly : five bodies were discovered, bringing the total of confirmed deaths to 30, 2 persons unaccounted for. The bodies were discovered between the wreck and the seabed. Very very sad.

-secondly : it is reported that the operation of the pumping out of the oil from the wreck of the Costa Concordia has been finished. There should be no danger anymore for an environmental disaster. The surroundings of the wreck will now be cleaned, and then the wreck will be removed, which will take about a year.

I think this is rather good news.

Also, it was reported Capt.Schettino is about "to publish a book"... I am curious...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johan:
T...Also, it was reported Capt.Schettino is about "to publish a book"... I am curious...

J

---