It must have been terrifying experience, but he sounds as if he was trying to do his job and look after the passengers as well as save himself and his fellow crew members.

My recollection is the the SSUS is a 5 compartment standard ship, and SOLAS used to require 2 compartments.

The Monarch of the Seas also hit a reef many years ago, ship was beached and sank upright and was refloated.

I was advised that if the Monarch was in deep water she would have been afloat for 2 hours.

Compartmentalization does not stop a ship from sinking, just slows it down to get the passengers off

quote:

---

Originally posted by OceanVoyager:
Shocking image...

Rgds,
Andrew

[ 01-14-2012: Message edited by: OceanVoyager ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
[...]

My recollection is the the SSUS is a 5 compartment standard ship, and SOLAS used to require 2 compartments.

---

This is not true.
Also, be aware that for many 'two compartment ships' the foremost four adjacent compartments can be flooded without sinking the ship. Also, many 'two compartment' ships can tolerate more non-adjacent compartments to be flooded.

Beside that, it would not necessarily have made a difference. If the leak is too large, it's too large.

A hull is capable to stay afloat with a certain part of it's length being flooded - this is an important input during the design process to choose where watertight bulkheads have to be placed. e.g. for a 'two compartment ship' two adjacent compartments have to be shorter than this 'floodable length'.

However, if the leak is 'longer' it would not necessarily make that much of a difference. In fact, one could even imagine a configuration of water tight compartments where the compartments are placed such so that more of them could be flooded (e.g. a 'three compartment ship') but where the same leak would in fact cause a larger section of the hull to be flooded compared to a configuration of compartments where only two compartments may be flooded to keep the ship afloat (this is a 'Gedankenexperiment' you can easily do yourself).

->> If there is a very large leak it does not make that much of a difference if the section of the hull that is affected by the leak (and flooded) is split between more compartments - the ship will go down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
[...]
Compartmentalization does not stop a ship from sinking, just slows it down to get the passengers off

---

This is also not true. Compartmentization can indeed very effectively prevent a ship form sinking. Of course, there are limits to that - e.g. when the leak is very large.

Pleaae be aware that the above explanations are rather simplified. However, I hope that it helps to understand how 'compartmentization' works. There are of course other factors to be considered - beside the stability of the ship one also must not forget that too many compartments might e.g. be hindering in case of an evacuation (etc. etc.).

[ 01-14-2012: Message edited by: Ernst ]

My thoughts are with all those that have lost loved ones in this terrible accident.

Seeing the Costa Concordia on her side reminds me of when the Chinese owned, ex P & O cruises ship, ss Oriana was torn off the quay at Dalian during a typhon and finished up partly sunk and full of water having had her hull punctured by an object on the harbour floor..

[ 01-14-2012: Message edited by: dmwnc1 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmwnc1:
Is that a gigantic rock embedded in her hull?

[ 01-14-2012: Message edited by: dmwnc1 ]

---

Sure looks like it. Not something you see every day.

I'm still perplexed how the ship could hit a reef in such well charted waters and with the most modern equipment onboard? Was there some kind of power failure beforehand?

It will be interesting to learn exactly what happened, and hopefully something like this can be prevented in the future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rex:
This is insane - and tragic.
I guess I don't understand how compartmentalization works as much as I thought.

Thank God the ship was in relatively shallow waters. Any hope for salvage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aleks:
A lot of questions will be asked about ship safety after this. Im hoping this disaster will result in even more focus on safety and more secure ships.

---

I agree. I also wonder if the same accident happened on a ship that meets the new SOLAS requirements of "safe return to port" if the outcome would have been any different?

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

I agree. I also wonder if the same accident happened on a ship that meets the new SOLAS requirements of "safe return to port" if the outcome would have been any different?

Ernie

---

It is too early to come to any conclusions but evidently she was maneuvering to the position where she sank under her own power.

[ 01-14-2012: Message edited by: joe at travelpage ]

Also, I would not be surprised if the ship was righted, repaired and possibly even re-named. We have seen several other ships that appeared to be a complete loss later repaired.

This accident may require that a lifeboat drill take place before a ship departs the dock.

[ 01-14-2012: Message edited by: lasuvidaboy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rex:
[QB]This is insane - and tragic.
I guess I don't understand how compartmentalization works as much as I thought.

/QB]

---

And that is one big hole! Any ship will sink if there is enough damage but most would think that a modern cruise ship could handle such a collision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

It is too early to come to any conclusions but evidently she was maneuvering to the position where she sank under her own power.

---

There very well could have been some malfunction and/or catastrophic mechanical failure (similar to SPLENDOR) or something completely different. We don't know.

Ernie

[ 01-14-2012: Message edited by: joe at travelpage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

Sorry if that is colliding with your intention to construct a connection to the Carnvial Splendor incident.

---

Oh and if you think I'm the first to speculate on any possible correlation between SPLENDOR and CONCORDIA you give me way too much credit. It's already been discussed on other boards to a great extent. It's also not unrealistic to make such a correlation. Cruise ship accidents are rare. Even more rare are two serious incidents concerning the same class of ship. It very well could be coincidence, or there could be some design flaw with the design of the ship. If there is a design flaw I sure as hell would want it analyzed and corrected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmwnc1:
This track of her course posted on Cruise Critic

---

On another board they show this same map, but it also apparently shows the ship heading straight for Giglio at 15 knots. Again it makes me wonder if there was some sort of catastrophic failure with the electrical systems or propulsion where they couldn't turn?

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

Seems you are doing a bit of your own speculating. Practice what you preach and quit being such a hypocrite.

---

Where am I speculating?

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:
[...]
If you don't like it then don't read it or do to another message board.

There very well could have been some malfunction and/or catastrophic mechanical failure (similar to SPLENDOR) or something completely different. We don't know.
Ernie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atlcruiser:

We are discussing what happened to the ship. No one is pointing fingers.

---

Sorry, but that's simply not true.
Ernie's posting definitely insinuate that he tries to 'build a case' and this is a pretty serious accusation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atlcruiser:

Why are you such an ass? Serious dude.[...]
Why in the hell don't you go back to bed and get up on the right side. [...]

---

Look, if that's how you want to express yourself, it's fine, people will come to their own conclusions.