PDA

View Full Version : Hole on Port side, capsized to Starboard?


captainmcd
January 18th, 2012, 02:40 PM
As a ship captain myself, I wonder how that happened. Damage stability is taught in all maritime academies, and on all license exams. Free surface could have done it, but would require partial flooding of damaged compartments, and with a hole that size, I would think that the compartments would have fully flooded almost immediately. When the ship listed to port initally, was there intentional flooding of starboard ballast tanks? If so, that was a mistake. Lowered stability (GM) requires you to flood the bottom tanks evenly. I have been waiting to hear an explanation of this.

Also, officers on all passenger vessels are required by international convention (STCW) to take courses in crowd control and crisis management. The thrust of those courses is that communication (preferably from the Captain) be timely, concise, believable, and as accurate as possible, and if you don't know, you need to say so.

ocngypz
January 18th, 2012, 03:17 PM
Would you risk turn turtle?

I think he chose to bring her portside alee and shift ballast to bring the breach above the surface while "beaching" her.

Crisis management training.. yes. However, ask any shrink what happens during a serious emergency. There's theory.. and there is reality.

sidari
January 18th, 2012, 05:26 PM
Lack of water under the Keel and loss of Stability! not Rocket Science really.

"There's theory.. and there is reality" How true that is ...amen.

Tonka's Skipper
January 18th, 2012, 05:50 PM
There is two basivc possiblities:

1. The cross flooding of the tanks with the damage of the port side extending to the starboard tanks and /or cross over valves were open causing overall flooding.

2. I really think there is more bottom damage on the starboard side, causing more of the the starboard tanks to flood., thereby letting her flop to starboard.

We will see as the salvage and inspections continue.

AKK

jtamchay
January 18th, 2012, 05:55 PM
In light of the ship rolling and not sinking do you have a guess as to which cabins will likely be the least desired on future cruises. As in lowest deck cabins which are always suggested for passengers who have not cruised before. Just wondering?

sidari
January 18th, 2012, 05:59 PM
Tonka .... Have you seen the Night Vision Video from the Coastguard Helicopter? the ship is totaly on its side and you can see the Keel, it may well be that they were trying to list the ship enough as you say to get the damage out of the water which is what i think they were trying to do but were unable to stop it going over due to lack of water under the Keel! i believe a Draught of around 28 feet needs something like 26 feet of water under it to keep it stable.

JT .... if you were in an Outside and saw the sea getting closer and the ship at an angle believe me any sensible person would be out like a shot!

chicy724
January 18th, 2012, 06:00 PM
In light of the ship rolling and not sinking do you have a guess as to which cabins will likely be the least desired on future cruises. As in lowest deck cabins which are always suggested for passengers who have not cruised before. Just wondering?

I'd prefer to be up as high as I can afford to be. Empress and higher.

JackofHearts
January 18th, 2012, 06:04 PM
There are some animations posted and a explanation of the reason for the ship going over 'the wrong way'. The accident occurred quite a bit south of where the ship ended up. The ship was apparently being navigated closer to shore at the end to make it easier for the passengers to reach shore. But it apparently was being brought in closer sideways (like they come into the piers). The underwater wash from this huge ship moving toward shore sideways hit the shore and rebounded, creating a backwash that hit the keel and pushed outward, causing the top of the ship to fall towards land. Imagine a running back in football being hit from the side at the ankles with a crossbody tackle. He falls back over the tackler.

I've seen so many posts and links on the whole thing that I can't remember where the animation of this is shown.

Tonka's Skipper
January 18th, 2012, 06:12 PM
Tonka .... Have you seen the Night Vision Video from the Coastguard Helicopter? the ship is totaly on its side and you can see the Keel, it may well be that they were trying to list the ship enough as you say to get the damage out of the water which is what i think they were trying to do but were unable to stop it going over due to lack of water under the Keel! i believe a Draught of around 28 feet needs something like 26 feet of water under it to keep it stable.

JT .... if you were in an Outside and saw the sea getting closer and the ship at an angle believe me any sensible person would be out like a shot!



you raise a very good point.........and are correct.the lack of floatable water depth or less then 28 feet as you say......could indeed have flopped her over.

We will see as time goes by!

AKK

KruznKel
January 18th, 2012, 06:31 PM
I read very early on that they flooded the starboard side to even out the flow of water from the port side... dunno if it is true or not.. but it that is the case they over compensated and that caused the major list to the starboard side:confused:

sidari
January 18th, 2012, 06:34 PM
Jackofhearts ... I refer you to my earlier post re lack of water under the Keel ... :) the wash you talk about had nowhere to go.

The 1st time Oasis of the seas tried to dock at St Thomas in the Caribbean it took them an age, it was only when they realised that there was a lack of depth under the Keel to the sea bed and that the water being pushed into the pier as the ship got close had nowhere to go! eventually and by moving very slow they managed to tie her up.

OldSeaDog
January 18th, 2012, 06:50 PM
As a ship captain myself, I wonder how that happened. Damage stability is taught in all maritime academies, and on all license exams. Free surface could have done it, but would require partial flooding of damaged compartments, and with a hole that size, I would think that the compartments would have fully flooded almost immediately. When the ship listed to port initally, was there intentional flooding of starboard ballast tanks? If so, that was a mistake. Lowered stability (GM) requires you to flood the bottom tanks evenly. I have been waiting to hear an explanation of this.

I am a retired US Naval Officer with some background as a Damage Control Officer. I agree that free surface effect can easily explain the starboard capsize. Looking at the gash photos, I think it probably crossed several water tight compartments. The forward end of the damage may have been intact enough that only partial flooding occurred--leading to the free surface CG shift as the Concordia was steered back towards shore. Any wind that evening, if on-shore, could also have contributed to the shift.

It's frustrating to watch how one man's ego, ineptitude, and cowardice created this tragedy.

05mak05
January 18th, 2012, 07:38 PM
I am a retired US Naval Officer with some background as a Damage Control Officer. I agree that free surface effect can easily explain the starboard capsize. Looking at the gash photos, I think it probably crossed several water tight compartments. The forward end of the damage may have been intact enough that only partial flooding occurred--leading to the free surface CG shift as the Concordia was steered back towards shore. Any wind that evening, if on-shore, could also have contributed to the shift.

It's frustrating to watch how one man's ego, ineptitude, and cowardice created this tragedy.
You've managed to sum it up ... ego, ineptitude and cowardice. Has anyone heard a 1st hand account of whether the ship first listed to port and then to starboard? The suggestion that it was going sideways hadn't occurred to me and does make sense. Have you seen the video of the cook who says the Captain ordered dinner? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfTbHga8HBg Everytime I read one of these outrageous accounts, I say "that can not be true ..." And, then it is.

captainmcd
January 18th, 2012, 07:42 PM
I am a retired US Naval Officer with some background as a Damage Control Officer. I agree that free surface effect can easily explain the starboard capsize. Looking at the gash photos, I think it probably crossed several water tight compartments. The forward end of the damage may have been intact enough that only partial flooding occurred--leading to the free surface CG shift as the Concordia was steered back towards shore. Any wind that evening, if on-shore, could also have contributed to the shift.

It's frustrating to watch how one man's ego, ineptitude, and cowardice created this tragedy.

Yes, OldSeaDog, I think that may have done it, free surface in one of the partially flooded compartments, maybe some heeling effect caused by the 180 degree turn to port after the grounding. Of course I had not considered the wind factor, which on those ships is large.

Activated95b
January 18th, 2012, 08:18 PM
Would you risk turn turtle?

Crisis management training.. yes. However, ask any shrink what happens during a serious emergency. There's theory.. and there is reality.

Better to ask a sergeant than somebody who deals in theory. The principles of leadership in a crisis are very simple - take charge, be direct, be clear, be decisive, be visible, and require that people do as you say. When you tell somebody to do something - address them by name. Use the 'command voice' so your words cut through the crown noise, and don't be afraid to hurt people's feelings.

Everybody is going to be looking for somebody in a uniform to tell then what to do - even if they already know what they should be doing. Take advantage of that and you have a huge advantage in terms of getting people to do what they are supposed to.

TVMet
January 18th, 2012, 08:40 PM
What must have been going on on that bridge? Maybe we will find out when the investigation is done, maybe not. Every officer must have been on the bridge, alarms must have been going crazy. They were dealing with more emergency situations, all at once than any other cruise ship in history. All at the same time and many of the things they tried weren't working. All the while knowing that human error caused this and it was the end of many of their careers, possibly even their lives.

I read a book about an airline pilot once, he said when he thought the plane was about to crash, he thought " how did my Mom's little boy grow up to get himself in this impossible mess?"

American-in-Belgium
January 18th, 2012, 09:06 PM
Regarding the damage and flooding, another point is it remains unclear how much damage there is on the starboard side. In one of the underwater photos, it appeared there is significant additional damage to the hull, but it was not clear to me just where it was located.

OldSeaDog
January 19th, 2012, 10:21 AM
Yes, OldSeaDog, I think that may have done it, free surface in one of the partially flooded compartments, maybe some heeling effect caused by the 180 degree turn to port after the grounding. Of course I had not considered the wind factor, which on those ships is large.

It may just be the angle of the photograph, but it also appears that the stabilizers were attempting to correct for the initial port list. This may also have contributed the the capsize.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-IBUZuLLkN-w/Txg0W0s2SZI/AAAAAAAABf0/NQsq0nHwMKU/s640/Concordia_stabilizer_untouched.jpg

I would expect damage on the port side caused by grounding as she capsized. Ships are not designed to lay against hard objects.

H82seaUgo
January 19th, 2012, 10:31 AM
i guess a 9 ton rock wasn't good for balance either......

OldSeaDog
January 19th, 2012, 10:48 AM
i guess a 9 ton rock wasn't good for balance either......

Miniscule compared to the ship's 114,500 ton displacement.

captainmcd
January 19th, 2012, 11:17 AM
Other things to consider are how much headway did the ship have after the initial grounding? Were the azipods or thrusters used in turning around, and why was there a need to turn in the first place? She could have been placed alongside the shore port side to. The VDR will provide those answers. Not having a good plan of the ship makes speculation difficult. For example the hole in the port side may have been in a ballast tank, the engine or generator room, and that would have allowed cross flooding to starboard.

Mike11
January 19th, 2012, 12:14 PM
One question I have after seeing the ship apparently resting on its starboard side. Would it have rolled over completely if it were not resting on the bottom? Looking at how tall (and getting taller) cruise ships are today, have we reached the point where even a slight loss in stability, or a bit too much list, can quickly lead to the ship turning turtle? Or, did it turn over because it was resting on the bottom and would not have done so in deeper water?

Esprit
January 19th, 2012, 12:19 PM
Cruise ships have steel hulls and aluminium upper decks to keep the centre of gravity a low as possible. That why they can have so many upper decks.

VentureForth
January 19th, 2012, 12:20 PM
I think it would have sunk. Say what you will about Capitano Codardo, but he saved lives (which he shouldn't have had to), and possibly the ship by making this maneuver close to land.

Highlander0108
January 19th, 2012, 12:27 PM
Cruise ships have steel hulls and aluminium upper decks to keep the centre of gravity a low as possible. That why they can have so many upper decks.

Concordia is all steel. I think you will find that there are no ships in service of her size that use the combination of aluminum uperstructure and steel hull. Arguably, the most noteable ship with this construction is QE2. Her successor, QM2, is all steel too.

Esprit
January 19th, 2012, 12:33 PM
Concordia is all steel. I think you will find that there are no ships in service of her size that use the combination of aluminum uperstructure and steel hull. Arguably, the most noteable ship with this construction is QE2. Her successor, QM2, is all steel too.

Sorry to disagree but Independence of the Seas definitely uses aluminium for its upper decks. A documentary on the ship build explained the reason why.

Highlander0108
January 19th, 2012, 12:44 PM
Other things to consider are how much headway did the ship have after the initial grounding? Were the azipods or thrusters used in turning around, and why was there a need to turn in the first place? She could have been placed alongside the shore port side to. The VDR will provide those answers. Not having a good plan of the ship makes speculation difficult. For example the hole in the port side may have been in a ballast tank, the engine or generator room, and that would have allowed cross flooding to starboard.

The ship has conventional shafts and rudders, but is supplemented with bow AND stern thrusters. From the captains own statements, he mentions that the engine room was flooded. Was this the case for the second engine room? Did they still have partial power? There were other statements that the emergency generator had kicked in, which would explain how the ship was still lit up as we saw her sink. If the second engine room was down too, the ship would have essentially been dead in the water, coasting if you will, which the last AIS report showed about one knot of speed. Would/could they have used the thrusters to rotate the ship around to the present orientation with emergency power only? Would dropping the anchor at any time, generated the rotation, which could have had the disastrous result of the free surface effect that might have destablized the ship? Was the ship in danger of heading right into the shore eventually, if the manuever on the part of the captain did not take place? If the ship stopped, due to lack of power, off the coast without hitting anything further, I would think it would have been far easier to evacuate the ship if it was in a more vertical position, despite being farther from shore. The judgement call from the captain to do whatever he did to turn the ship may have sealed her fate and that will continue to be debated until we see all the facts, including whether the damage might have extended to the other side. I wonder if anyone who was onboard can confirm whether the ship listed to port initially and then when it changed course, the list shifted to starboard. I might have missed this in all the numerous reports since this tragedy if that was already discussed.

OldSeaDog
January 19th, 2012, 01:31 PM
Other things to consider are how much headway did the ship have after the initial grounding? Were the azipods or thrusters used in turning around, and why was there a need to turn in the first place? She could have been placed alongside the shore port side to. The VDR will provide those answers. Not having a good plan of the ship makes speculation difficult. For example the hole in the port side may have been in a ballast tank, the engine or generator room, and that would have allowed cross flooding to starboard.

There's already too much speculation by people who know nothing about ships and damage control. :) Close-up photos of the rock appear to show machinery visible forward of it, so probably not a balast tank, rather it was probably either an engine room or auxilliary space (I sure would like to see hull plans). The Concordia has conventional shafts/screws rather than azipods, with bow thrusters.

With no power, I don't personally believe the good captain Cazzo was maneuvering the ship after the impact. If he was, my opinion is that he did absolutely the wrong thing by turning in an attempt to ground the ship. Generally, modern ships have sufficient reserve bouyancy to survive even this much damage--though it's admittedly impossible to know without the hull plans.

As far as steel vs. aluminum for the superstructure, it's really pretty irrelevant. The issue for a naval architect involves the relationship between the roll center, center of bouyancy, and center of gravity. Their relationship to each other determine the "righting moment" and "stability curves." Without these data, it's impossible to determine whether the ship would have capsized or recovered herself absent grounding.

mainelycruising
January 19th, 2012, 03:31 PM
I read that an order was given to drop the anchor or anchors in order to effect an emergency stop. If so, that alone could cause the ship to heel hard over to port or starboard, depending upon the anchor's position relative to the motion of the ship. It is fortuitous it ended up this way, exposing the gash above the water line which kept out more flooding, prevented bunker oil and other pollutants escaping, and will make making watertight the gash easier.

05mak05
January 19th, 2012, 05:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vn7o1mnvM2c#!

Capt_BJ
January 19th, 2012, 06:18 PM
I've been waiting & wondering if a topic like this would open. As one who's sat in the Captain's chair for a few years and has the experience of schooling in Naval Architecture {both theory and practical} I'm dumbfounded about how the ship rolled so as to have the hole end up on the high side.

As previously noted 'free surface effect' comes to my mind but that depends on what compartments of the ship were breached. If the hole was into the engineroom and it flooded immediately then the Captain's decision to turn the ship about to approach the harbor was A fatal mistake. A sharp 180 turn sent the free water to one side and the ship went hard to that side - end of story. My opinion . .

If the ship was not breached in the engine room then SOLAS requirements call for side to side water tight compartmentation and I'm really confused as to how the ship rolls so as the hole is UP. {the ship only lists in this situation due to weight transfer and if there are compartments to prevent the transfer . . .}

With regard to anchors: 1) pictures do not show the exposed side exhibiting a dangling chain. and 2) the displacement of this ship is WHAT? The anchors are akin to swatting a fly.

Yes a last ditch effort - but akin to dragging your feet out of the door of a car going 100 miles an hour.

sidari
January 19th, 2012, 06:37 PM
CaptBJ .... the ship had sailed beyond the island and was listing to Port, the ship was turned around on its Starboard side according to the Captain using an Anchor(s) so that the ship could be stopped close to the island which would allow passengers easy egress to giglio.

Lack of Depth of water under the Keel along with the amount of water pouring in when the ship stopped and the fact that the ship was going sideways because they were using bow Thrusters is probably what contributed to it Listing the way it did!

Look at the early pictures of the ship, the Lights are still on but the ship is Listing to Starboard and is low in the water to the Aft.

Capt_BJ
January 19th, 2012, 06:53 PM
and your basis of ship damage control procedure is?

Mine is specialized training in these very things as was required b4 I assumed command of an armed combatant

with regard to the Captain search my posts on other threads here . . . .

SeaDog-46
January 19th, 2012, 08:58 PM
My opinion - 15 years in command - 3,000grt to 156,000grt

After hitting the rock - how long? - water floods engine room.
Lights go out - ALL power is lost including rudder - port list.
Em.generator starts up - em. lights come on.
Ship was doing 15 knots - coasts on - drops stbd. anchor to stop going into deeper water.
Vessel swings to port as anchor runs out.
Free surface in flooded full width ER caused vessel to take up angle of loll to starboard. There is just not time or ability to flood ballast tanks.
Vessel continues to flood & list more - eventually grounding & capsizing - ending up as it is.
A time line would help but we will have to wait until inquiry I expect.

Highlander0108
January 19th, 2012, 09:15 PM
My opinion - 15 years in command - 3,000grt to 156,000grt

After hitting the rock - how long? - water floods engine room.
Lights go out - ALL power is lost including rudder - port list.
Em.generator starts up - em. lights come on.
Ship was doing 15 knots - coasts on - drops stbd. anchor to stop going into deeper water.
Vessel swings to port as anchor runs out.
Free surface in flooded full width ER caused vessel to take up angle of loll to starboard. There is just not time or ability to flood ballast tanks.
Vessel continues to flood & list more - eventually grounding & capsizing - ending up as it is.
A time line would help but we will have to wait until inquiry I expect.

All very plausable. My question is was it in the end the wrong thing to do to deploy the anchor and further destabilize the ship? Lifeboats further out at sea would really not be an issue. Plus, if the mayday had been issued earlier, perhaps additional ships would have been able to catch up to the ship. Food for thought. If the ship was coasting to a stop on her own anyway, and in no danger of coming up against the shore, wouldn't it have been safer to keep the ship more upright, let her go down at the stern, and have greater ability to load and launch lifeboats on both sides. I guess we will find out eventually how the ship flooded and how the starboard list developed, but it is puzzling.

chrisrotlmacin
January 19th, 2012, 09:21 PM
My opinion - 15 years in command - 3,000grt to 156,000grt

After hitting the rock - how long? - water floods engine room.
Lights go out - ALL power is lost including rudder - port list.
Em.generator starts up - em. lights come on.
Ship was doing 15 knots - coasts on - drops stbd. anchor to stop going into deeper water.
Vessel swings to port as anchor runs out.
Free surface in flooded full width ER caused vessel to take up angle of loll to starboard. There is just not time or ability to flood ballast tanks.
Vessel continues to flood & list more - eventually grounding & capsizing - ending up as it is.
A time line would help but we will have to wait until inquiry I expect.
Agreed with Sea Dog . Look on video http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/106870/kabayanihan-ng-mga-pinoy-crew-ng-tumagilid-na-barko-kitang-kita-sa-video?ref=related_video_title (http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/106870/kabayanihan-ng-mga-pinoy-crew-ng-tumagilid-na-barko-kitang-kita-sa-video?ref=related_video_title)on min 0:32 you see crew in galley loosing his stability and dishes falling , most probably is when the ship grounded on the present place. We are talking of 114,500 GT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_tonnage) ship that went on ground at that point , because of the ship movement sideways toward the island the underwater section stayed on the rocks and the top continued the slow movement. I am sure this will be a good subject for Ship Sim fans to try to re-make the last moments.

Tribune
January 19th, 2012, 10:08 PM
I am a retired US Naval Officer with some background as a Damage Control Officer. I agree that free surface effect can easily explain the starboard capsize. Looking at the gash photos, I think it probably crossed several water tight compartments. The forward end of the damage may have been intact enough that only partial flooding occurred--leading to the free surface CG shift as the Concordia was steered back towards shore. Any wind that evening, if on-shore, could also have contributed to the shift.

It's frustrating to watch how one man's ego, ineptitude, and cowardice created this tragedy.

Given the number of lives at stake, and the failure at the top, one wonders why some of the other officers did not step up, remove the Captain and take charge of rescue operations. No tribunal in the world would have faulted him or her. Discipline is fine but in this rare case some one else should have stepped up. If some one had done so earlier a lot of people would still be alive. Even on a warship, malfeasance of the type that occured here would have justified action.


Costa Riviera, Emerald Seas, Caribe II, Norway, Nieuw Amsterdam, Grand Princess, Norweigen Dawn, Constellation, Queen Mary 2, Norweigen Jewell

Gingee
January 19th, 2012, 10:52 PM
I think if the ship had not landed on rock, wouldn't it have turned totally over (like in Posedian)?

JLC@SD
January 19th, 2012, 11:17 PM
I think if the ship had not landed on rock, wouldn't it have turned totally over (like in Posedian)?

Ships are not designed with enough weight above to turn it upside down. I think it would have turned on its side, flooded the ship through the openings above the waterline and slipped under the water surface.

peter78
January 19th, 2012, 11:36 PM
I think if the ship had not landed on rock, wouldn't it have turned totally over (like in Posedian)?

I wondered about that. Three things I have heard about crusie ships. 1.) There are water tight compartments, in case of a collision, the boat won't sink. Clearly, this didn't happen. 2.) Cruise ships are very stable, dispite they are can be 100 feet above the water line at the top deck. So, I guess my question is did the ship tilt over because it hit bottom or did it just lose it's stability by having too much water in the ship? 3.) Crusie ships have enough space in a life boat for every passenger and crew member. Well, after seeing the ship lose it's stability, I now realize that the life boats may be useless.

I will be interested to find the findings of any court findings. I have been on three cruises and my feelings of thier safety has been somewhat shaken.

Highlander0108
January 20th, 2012, 12:06 AM
If this is legit, which it looks credible, this explains alot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5mbKt7rQkQ&feature=player_embedded#!

SeaDog-46
January 20th, 2012, 12:25 AM
Ship simulators are just Bridge ship handling simulators.

A stability stimulation could be done knowing how much water was filling which space & with this ships stabilty book plus a good computer programe for this size ship.

Passenger ships are the most tender [small reserve stability] of types.
Any amount of water in the wrong place will cause a list.
Watertight bulkheads would be there but not enough is known at present.
As far as I know the engine room runs across the full width of the ship.

I still think dropping the anchor was a good idea.
It stopped the ship reasonably quickly.
Had it drifted into deeper water it would have sunk & more lives would have been lost.

Cruise Cat
January 20th, 2012, 12:47 AM
Just some thoughts (from an electrical guy):

I noted on the night vision helicopter video that exhaust was coming steadily out of the stack indicating an engine was still running somewhere, though maybe just an aux diesel.

Mariner Captains, can there be a 'sloshing' effect which made her roll the other way, such as when she pulled away from the rocks? Also, The ship was going along the eastern shore of the island heading north. If I am not mistaken, she is still on the eastern side, but now facing south, therefore, she did a 180 at some point.

What do you captains think of the new ships like the Magic and Dream with the "Cove Balconies" that are just bove the waterline with water tight doors the crew can close in rough seas? In an accident like Concordia with a quick list, would the crew be able to get to those cabins fast enough to close the water tight doors to the balconies in time before they started taking in water?

vanki4
January 20th, 2012, 05:58 AM
sJust some thoughts (from an electrical guy):

I noted on the night vision helicopter video that exhaust was coming steadily out of the stack indicating an engine was still running somewhere, though maybe just an aux diesel.

Mariner Captains, can there be a 'sloshing' effect which made her roll the other way, such as when she pulled away from the rocks? Also, The ship was going along the eastern shore of the island heading north. If I am not mistaken, she is still on the eastern side, but now facing south, therefore, she did a 180 at some point.

What do you captains think of the new ships like the Magic and Dream with the "Cove Balconies" that are just bove the waterline with water tight doors the crew can close in rough seas? In an accident like Concordia with a quick list, would the crew be able to get to those cabins fast enough to close the water tight doors to the balconies in time before they started taking in water?

Good points ,but We have to guess ,because mostly of the Info circulated is about the master Schetino, the lady from Moldavia,the panic etc...

about the exhaust gases noticed:
Could be from the Emergency Generator

BillB48
January 20th, 2012, 07:59 AM
If this is legit, which it looks credible, this explains alot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5mbKt7rQkQ&feature=player_embedded#!

It looks credible and the times shown are very interesting as well. Somewhere around 8:40-45 is when they struck the shoal on the port side and around 10:00 stopping at it's current location, which is where they then abandoned ship. Lot of valuable time lost.

TVMet
January 20th, 2012, 08:15 AM
Just some thoughts (from an electrical guy):

I noted on the night vision helicopter video that exhaust was coming steadily out of the stack indicating an engine was still running somewhere, though maybe just an aux diesel.

Mariner Captains, can there be a 'sloshing' effect which made her roll the other way, such as when she pulled away from the rocks? Also, The ship was going along the eastern shore of the island heading north. If I am not mistaken, she is still on the eastern side, but now facing south, therefore, she did a 180 at some point.

What do you captains think of the new ships like the Magic and Dream with the "Cove Balconies" that are just bove the waterline with water tight doors the crew can close in rough seas? In an accident like Concordia with a quick list, would the crew be able to get to those cabins fast enough to close the water tight doors to the balconies in time before they started taking in water?

Yes, there is a diesel at the very top, it runs the bridge and emergency lighting. This is all they had on the Carnival Splendor after they lost the other ones in the engine room.

I took the "behind the scenes tour" on the Carnival Dream, we got to talk to the captain on the bridge and get our picture taken with him at the wheel. I ask him about the control of such a large ship and he mentioned that he didn't like the upper balconies because they catch the wind. I forgot about the cove balconies, but you bring up a good point, wish I'd thought to ask him. He was interesting to talk with and answered all of our questions, I wonder what these other Italian captains think now after the Concordia?

captainmcd
January 20th, 2012, 08:32 AM
From my perspective the accident and aftermath were caused by human error, but as in all such incidents, there could have been some design problems. As cruise ships have doubled in size in recent years I don't think that there have been any changes in design standards for compartmentation or waterthght integrity. These standards are laid down by IMO and enforced by the chosen classification society. Ship owners can shop around for a class society that is less strict about interperting existing rules. Probably this accident will generate a lot of new construction rules, but already there were so many rules in place by existing conventions such as SOLAS, STCW, ISM, ISPS, etc. that were enforced by not onlly the classification society, but by the flag state and port state authorities, I doubt that more regulations will ever solve the problem of plain stupidity.

sidari
January 20th, 2012, 10:56 AM
Proof that the Anchor was used to turn the ship ? taken by the Divers searching the sea bed.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee275/corfugirl/article-2089339-1160F94D000005DC-507_306x423.jpg

H82seaUgo
January 20th, 2012, 11:05 AM
Proof that the Anchor was used to turn the ship ? taken by the Divers searching the sea bed.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee275/corfugirl/article-2089339-1160F94D000005DC-507_306x423.jpg

wow! no wonder it's been alleged that the shrip was "thrown".

i wonder if this before or after the captain had his dinner.

Silverado6x6
January 20th, 2012, 11:18 AM
So the ship did a drop anchor pirouette? And when the ship was turned the right direction they let the chain run out? A port side drop, ship swings back end to the right? Full port direction bow thruster, full starboard direction stern thruster?

Esprit
January 20th, 2012, 12:06 PM
So the ship did a drop anchor pirouette? And when the ship was turned the right direction they let the chain run out? A port side drop, ship swings back end to the right? Full port direction bow thruster, full starboard direction stern thruster?

As I've said elsewhere, had the anchor not been dropped and the ship swung back into shallow waters many more lives may have been lost.

Staying on board the ship for as long as possible is considered by many seamen the preferred option to launching life boats and abandoning a floating or beached ship.

Highlander0108
January 20th, 2012, 12:50 PM
To perform any change in direction, I suspect that they had to use their thrusters. I cannot buy that the ship did a complete 180 jsut by dropping the anchor and having it get hung up. So, if thrusters were used, does this mean that there was power available from the second engine room or can the energency generator power be directed to thrusters?

captainmcd
January 20th, 2012, 12:58 PM
Dropping an anchor will turn a ship assuming that she has headway, with or without assistance from thrusters. Emergency generators are usually not of large enough capacity to provide propulsion, even for thrusters, but I don't know if one or more of the ship's service generators were still on line and working. There are so many unanswered questions that I am sure will come out in investigations, and the Voyage Data Recorder, if working properly will make the investigation a lot easier.

sidari
January 20th, 2012, 01:47 PM
The ship was well lit when it had stopped and that is proved by the numerous photos of it so it must have had some power in order for it to get back to the island, had it turned to Port it would have hit the island and so it must have turned to Starboard in order to get back to where it is now.

It is possible that had the ship stopped in open deeper water that many more lives could have been lost and likely that it would have eventually sunk totaly.

captainmcd
January 20th, 2012, 04:15 PM
After an anchor is dropped the ship and headway ceases, the ship will tend to lay into the current and or wind, and a cruise ship with lots of sail area will lay into the wind, but it depends on the velocity of the current or wind. But aparently the anchor was dropped in relatively shallow water, not much deeper than the bottom of the ship. It appears that the ship came to rest on the rocky, uneven bottom, but on her starboard side, the side away from the damage. That is counter-intuative, and must have been caused by either the free-surface "sloshing" effect of the water in a partially flooded transverse compartment rushing to the starboard side. Alternatively, a starboard side ballast tank could have been flooded in order to correct the original port list, and that would have been a mistake unless the port list was caused by a flooded ballast tank on the port side.

OldSeaDog
January 20th, 2012, 06:57 PM
I have come to believe that the initial list to port was caused by the turn to starboard plus flooding and slight wind. The engine room/generator room flooded in mere seconds leaving no "free surface." From the point power went out, the ship was not under power. Ever. It drifted forward until momentum from inertia ceased, then due to slight wind was turned and pushed sideways back to the island and ultimately onto the bottom. Once the ship turned, the wind force on the superstructure healed the vessel to starboard. The catastrophic list and capsize occurred when the starboard aft and midships struck the rocky island causing more damage and flooding in previously un-flooded compartments. That secondary flooding caused the capsize.

captainmcd
January 20th, 2012, 07:49 PM
OldSeaDog, that is a possibility, and in which case she should be pretty hard aground and not as likely to slide off her grounded position and into deeper water. However I am not sure how much damage she would have sustained by her secondary grounding when her speed was only a knot or two. I think we will have a much better picture of what happened fairly soon.

mavis2222
January 20th, 2012, 08:48 PM
It dosent matter which cabin you have. As you noticed, allot of of the "more expensive" balconys ended up under water on the higher decks. Anyhow.. Use COMMON SENSE.. When you CANNOT stand easyly and finding yourself being forced to the bulkheads (walls for you landlovers) and it dosent recover (like its going to capsize), get your butt out of your cabin and up to the top decks outside to prevent getting trapped in case things get worse. And DONT use elevators to do it...

Zyzygy
January 20th, 2012, 11:00 PM
The video linked below shows that the Concordia listed violently from one side to the other at least six times. It looks as though she were sloshing in a bathtub.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Zbq_57wD9SE&NR=1

Highlander0108
January 20th, 2012, 11:25 PM
The video linked below shows that the Concordia listed violently from one side to the other at least six times. It looks as though she were sloshing in a bathtub.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Zbq_57wD9SE&NR=1

This is old video and not the Concordia and has been flagged incorrectly.

Zyzygy
January 20th, 2012, 11:29 PM
This is old video and not the Concordia and has been flagged incorrectly.

Thank you for the correction. I'm sorry to have posted incorrect information. I relied on the YouTube caption.

Germancruiser
January 20th, 2012, 11:54 PM
I also fell for the wrong video- I wondered who it would have rocked like this. Ah those busybodies should keep their mouths shut. Putting wrong videos and label them Concordia - Videos.

Highlander0108
January 20th, 2012, 11:55 PM
Thank you for the correction. I'm sorry to have posted incorrect information. I relied on the YouTube caption.

Not your fault and not the only one. CNN incorrectly referenced this video the other night, then eventually corrected their report. Can YouTube pull this since it's incorrect?

QM1
January 21st, 2012, 08:38 AM
To perform any change in direction, I suspect that they had to use their thrusters. I cannot buy that the ship did a complete 180 jsut by dropping the anchor and having it get hung up. So, if thrusters were used, does this mean that there was power available from the second engine room or can the energency generator power be directed to thrusters?

Or maybe the ship would have simply stayed afloat with a 20 degree list.

baldercash
January 21st, 2012, 10:17 AM
This link gives clear explination of what happened in the last moments.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/graphic-the-final-moments-of-the-costa-concordia/

luckybogey
January 21st, 2012, 11:23 AM
Note damage to stabilizer. Can anyone explain how the stabilizer is used on the Concordia? Is this automatically or gyroscope controlled? Did the damage shown affect the ships stability?

http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/costaconcordiastabilizer.jpg

luckybogey
January 21st, 2012, 11:35 AM
This link gives clear explination of what happened in the last moments.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/graphic-the-final-moments-of-the-costa-concordia/

The graphic assumes that the Concordia has use of its rudder and power to all thrusters. The graphic also assumes the final capsize is due to water filling from the starboard side after the final grounding. Without VDR data, this graphic is pure speculation.

captainmcd
January 21st, 2012, 01:45 PM
The gyro fin stabilizers only dampen rolling when at speeds greater than the five knots shown after the initial grounding. Normally they are retracted when entering port or near shallow water. It seems the engineers were able to maintain at least one ship's service generator until close to the end, even though flooding must have been a problem. As luckybogey says, the VDR should give investigators an accurate picture of what happened.

luckybogey
January 21st, 2012, 08:03 PM
Weather for Monte Argentario, Italy Friday, January 13, 2012

Time Temp. Windchill Dew Point Humidity Pressure Visibility Wind Dir Wind Speed
7:00 PM 45 F - 42 F 85% in 19 mi ENE 17.3 mph - -
7:55 PM 44.6 F 36.6 F 44.6 F 100% 29.98 in - ENE 19.6 mph
8:55 PM 44.6 F 36.4 F 42.8 F 93% 29.98 in - ENE 20.7 mph
9:55 PM 44.6 F 36.1 F 42.8 F 93% 29.98 in - ENE 21.9 mph
10:00 PM 44 F - 43 F 93% in 19 mi ENE 21.9 mph - -
10:55 PM 42.8 F 33.5 F 41.0 F 93% 29.98 in - ENE 23.0 mph
11:55 PM 42.8 F 33.5 F 39.2 F 87% 29.98 in - ENE 23.0 mph

http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/16168/2012/1/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

luckybogey
January 22nd, 2012, 09:53 AM
If I'm reading this correctly, the VDR had been turned off the last 15 days?

English Translation

The black box turned off
Costa is so present that night, that Ferrarini reminds Schettino, before leaving the ship, to make a final, crucial, duty: " told me to push the button of the Voice data recorder (black box), to download the navigation data of the last 12 hours and make it so available and I said to my second Roberto Bosio do ". Unfortunately, c l ' ' is yet another problem. To pm: says Schettino " I want to be honest with you, to the bottom. On board we had the problem that by 15 days had broken the back-up system and we did request Vdr to inspector ' to fix it. But was not successful. Bosio, in fact, once ashore, he said to me, I have " Commander pushed the button, but the system was all off ". Therefore? The black box " " soon to be opened will be an empty " object "? Schettino, at least on this point reassures: on the upper " of the vessel c ' is the voyage data recorder, which records whatever ". Travel data, certainly. But entries in the dashboard? We'll see. Yesterday, Police divers, with the Commander safe, have recovered the ' hard disk of the first section of the black box and the memo-closed circuit cameras found in the median part of the ship's bridge. Still missing, the " Voyage data recorder ", what definitely worked.

La scatola nera spenta
Costa cos presente quella notte, che Ferrarini ricorda a Schettino, prima di abbandonare la nave, di compiere un ultimo, cruciale, dovere: "Mi disse di spingere il bottone del Voice data recorder (la scatola nera), per scaricare i dati di navigazione delle ultime 12 ore e renderli cos consultabili e io dissi al mio secondo Roberto Bosio di farlo". Purtroppo, per, c' l'ennesimo problema. Dice Schettino ai pm: "Io voglio essere onesto con voi, fino in fondo. A bordo avevamo il problema che da 15 giorni si era rotto il back-up del sistema Vdr e avevamo fatto richiesta all'ispettore di aggiustarlo. Ma non era successo. Bosio, infatti, una volta a terra, mi disse: "Comandante, io ho spinto quel pulsante, ma il sistema era tutto spento". Dunque? La "scatola nera" che sar presto aperta sar un oggetto "vuoto"? Schettino, almeno su questo punto rassicura: "Sulla parte pi alta della nave c' il voyage data recorder, che comunque registra a prescindere". I dati di viaggio, certamente. Ma le voci in plancia? Staremo a vedere. Ieri, i subacquei dei carabinieri, con la cassaforte del comandante, hanno recuperato l'hard disk della prima sezione della scatola nera e la memo-centralina delle videocamere a circuito chiuso trovati nella parte mediana della plancia della nave. Manca ancora, proprio il "Voyage data recorder", quello che sicuramente funzionava.

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/22/news/costa_inchino-28555394/

The VDR typically records the following:

Speed log – Speed through water or speed over ground.
Gyro compass – Heading.
Radar – As displayed or AIS data if no off-the-shelf converter available for the Radar video.
Audio from the bridge, including bridge wings.
VHF radio communications.
Echo sounder – Depth under keel.
Main alarms – All IMO mandatory alarms.
Hull openings – Status of hull doors as indicated on the bridge.
Watertight & fire doors status as indicated on the bridge.
Hull stress – Accelerations and hull stresses. <Rudder – Order and feedback response.
Engine/Propeller – Order and feedback response.
Thrusters* – Status, direction, amount of thrust % or RPM. Anemometer and weather vane – Wind speed and direction

The SAM Electronics VDR 4350 may be the model on board. (Not Confirmed)

http://www.sam-electronics.de/dateien/navigation/broschueren/3.055.pdf

captainmcd
January 22nd, 2012, 11:56 AM
It is hard to understand the translation, it seems that the back-up was not functioning, but that does not mean that the data was not recorded on the hard drive. I know that we are not allowed to sail unless we get all green lights on the VDR imputs, so if they sailed without a functioning VDR their insurance company would probably be off the hook for about 500 million!

luckybogey
January 22nd, 2012, 12:19 PM
It is hard to understand the translation, it seems that the back-up was not functioning, but that does not mean that the data was not recorded on the hard drive. I know that we are not allowed to sail unless we get all green lights on the VDR imputs, so if they sailed without a functioning VDR their insurance company would probably be off the hook for about 500 million!

Captain: I posted the below on the other large Concordia thread. My read here is that is the VDR recorded only "data" and the "communications" between the officers was not working. There is apparently mention of the Prosecutor's allegation of VDR tampering in the Court Magistrate's decision as well as the missing of the Captain's notebook. Getting interesting...

English Translation

The ' investigation. On the front of the investigations, as the details emerge on Commander Francis Scehttino said to gip di Grosseto during the interrogation of ' guarantee. Starting with the fact that, in his opinion, by two weeks the black box was no longer able to record communications between officers. Second Schettino, who would have to resolve the problem had been informed, but was not successful. If the statements made by the Commander of the Costa Concordia were true, the black box would be useful only to reconstruct the data. According to rumors, the pm of Grosseto are also looking for the laptop that Schettino led off the ship and entrusted to a blonde girl. When the computer has not yet been recovered, but prosecutors have identified the woman. According to what they have learned the woman would be a lawyer, although it is not clear whether Costa Cruises or a freelancer, whose relations with stakeholders are yet to be shown. Prosecutors want to examine your pc because, considering the haste with which it was ' changed hands ' speculate that may contain important data. By ' crew Meanwhile arrives a declaration in favour of Schettino by Katia Keyvanian, head of the Costa Concordia customer service: " I saw the Commander before me to 23:45 while he was helping passengers to climb into lifeboats on deck 3 bow ", said the ' used.

L'inchiesta. Sul fronte delle indagini, emergono particolari su quanto il comandante Francesco Scehttino ha dichiarato al gip di Grosseto durante l'interrogatorio di garanzia. A cominciare dal fatto che, a suo dire, da due settimane la scatola nera non era pi in grado di registrare (http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/22/news/costa_inchino-28555394/?ref=HRER3-1) le comunicazioni tra gli ufficiali. Secondo Schettino, chi avrebbe dovuto risolvere il problema era stato informato, ma non era successo niente. Se quanto affermato dal comandante della Costa Concordia fosse vero, la scatola nera sarebbe utile solo per ricostruire i dati di viaggio. Stando alle indiscrezioni, i pm di Grosseto stanno inoltre cercando il pc portatile che Schettino port fuori dalla nave e che affid a una ragazza bionda. Al momento il computer non stato ancora recuperato, ma i pm hanno identificato la donna. Secondo quanto appreso la donna sarebbe un avvocato, anche se non chiaro se della Costa Crociere oppure se un libero professionista, i cui rapporti con le parti in causa sono ancora da appurare. I pm vogliono esaminare il pc anche perch, considerando la fretta con cui stato 'passato di mano' ipotizzano che possa contenere dati importanti.
Dall'equipaggio arriva intanto una dichiarazione a favore di Schettino da Katia Keyvanian, responsabile del servizio clienti della Costa Concordia: "Ho visto il comandante davanti a me alle 23:45 mentre stava aiutando alcuni passeggeri a salire sulle scialuppe di salvataggio sul ponte 3 a prua", ha dichiarato l'impiegata.

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/201...naio-28562859/ (http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/22/news/costa_concordia_22_gennaio-28562859/)

luckybogey
January 22nd, 2012, 01:49 PM
"...he ordered to drop the anchors and the ship, progressively increasing the tilt starboard, ran aground...""...the flow of water into five compartments of the ship's engine room...""...In the aforesaid situation the captain lost control of the ship, which had its engines off and shifted position only by means of inertia and the rudders..."
The court document (below) is signed by Dr Valeria Montesarchio, the Magistrate in charge of Preliminary Inquiries for the Court (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/388/court/) of Grosseto. Translation by La Repubblica (http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2012/traduzione_ordinanza_grosseto.pdf).
--
No. 12/285 N.R. and No. 12/117 Magistrate in Charge of Preliminary Inquiries

"'...Coming to the danger of tampering with evidence, it must be pointed out that what was initially highlighted by the Public Prosecutor with regard to the presumed intention of the captain somehow to remove the ship's Voyage Data Recorder (VDR), it is belied on record by Document 170, PG annotation of Capt. De Falco, which specifies the possible misunderstanding of a piece of information given on that point. Capt. De Falco states that "following the contact that took place between the person in charge of the Company, Mr Paolo Mattesi present in the operations room and Capt. Schettino, it was decided to send another person, subsequently identified as Officer Martino Pellegrini, since the captain did not appear to be lucid."...]http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/284454/20120119/francesco-schettino-costa-concordia-transcript-captain-court.htm

Harbour Master's Log

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9030216/Costa-Concordia-Harbour-masters-log-shows-how-the-disaster-unfolded.html

captainmcd
January 22nd, 2012, 03:47 PM
Luckybogey, Thanks for the information. Another friend of mine sent me the following powerpoint about the AIS track of the Concordia. According to the naration, only the inertia, rudder, and finally the bow thruster (which takes a lot of power) were used to turn the ship back south, and it seems like the wind set her up onto her final resting place.
http://gcaptain.com/gcaptains-john-konrad-narrates-the-final-maneuvers-of-the-costa-concordia-video/?37941

vanki4
January 23rd, 2012, 04:25 AM
Luckybogey, Thanks for the information. Another friend of mine sent me the following powerpoint about the AIS track of the Concordia. According to the naration, only the inertia, rudder, and finally the bow thruster (which takes a lot of power) were used to turn the ship back south, and it seems like the wind set her up onto her final resting place.
http://gcaptain.com/gcaptains-john-konrad-narrates-the-final-maneuvers-of-the-costa-concordia-video/?37941

Thanks for the link and also a credit for the sensible points shared by a different members.

Still not able to understand another info about the Engine room flooded compartments . The amount is shocking.

luckybogey
January 23rd, 2012, 02:34 PM
Engine room flooded compartments. The amount is shocking.

In my view, the captain and his officers aboard the Concordia should have declared a "mayday" immediately after damage assessment showed over three compartments were flooded. Preparations for an emergency evacuation of all passengers should have also been started by the crew.

Luckybogey, According to the naration, only the inertia, rudder, and finally the bow thruster (which takes a lot of power) were used to turn the ship back south, and it seems like the wind set her up onto her final resting place.

Captain: I don't agree with linked simulation by gCaptain (John Konrad). If the Captain had use of his thrusters, I feel this would have stated in the court documents. He specifically said "shifted position only by means of inertia and the rudders". I agree with you on the wind setting up the final resting place. The weather shown above from the Monte Argentario weather station (approx 12 miles E of Giglio) clearly shows ENE over 20 mph.

I don't understand why the Captain did not drop anchors upon his turn back to the port. He would have had safe water and was going less than .5 knots during the turn across the wind. I understand his logic to run aground however this decision most likely is the cause of the deaths aboard as well as the capsizing of a beautiful ship.

Question For All: I have yet to see any video, nor current webcams showing either the red or green lights at Giglio Port as being operational?


http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nauticard.png

luckybogey
January 23rd, 2012, 11:50 PM
As shown on the above chart, both lights are active at Giglio Port:

Giglio Porto Molo di Ponente (West Mole)
Date unknown. Active; focal plane 9 m (30 ft); green flash every 3 s. 6 m (20 ft) round masonry tower with a small lantern and gallery, painted green. Located on the west mole of Giglio Porto. Accessible by walking the mole. Site open, tower closed. ARLHS ITA-205; Admiralty E1490; NGA 9100.

Giglio Porto Molo di Levante (East Mole)
Date unknown. Active; focal plane 9 m (30 ft); red flash every 3 s. 6 m (20 ft) round masonry tower with a small lantern and gallery, painted red. The first mole light at Giglio Porto was built in 1865; by the 1930s there were lights on both moles. Located on the east mole of Giglio Porto. Accessible by walking the mole. Site open, tower closed. ARLHS ITA-204; Admiralty E1488; NGA 9096.

Capel Rosso (Punta di Capel Rosso)
1883. Active; focal plane 90 m (295 ft); four white flashes every 30 s. 20 m (66 ft) octagonal cylindrical masonry tower with lantern and gallery, attached to the front of a 2-story keeper's house. Lighthouse painted white; lantern dome is gray metallic; the house is painted with red and white horizontal bands. Located on the southern tip of Giglio; accessible by a hiking trail from the end of a national park road. Site open, tower closed. Site manager: Parco ****onale Arcipelago Toscano (http://www.islepark.it/entrata.htm). ARLHS ITA-126; Admiralty E1492; NGA 9104.

Punta Fenaio
1883. Active; focal plane 39 m (128 ft); three white flashes every 15 s. 10 m (33 ft) octagonal cylindrical masonry tower with lantern and gallery, attached to the front of a 2-story keeper's house. Lighthouse painted white with one red horizontal band; keeper's house painted bright red. Located on the northern tip of Giglio. Access is probably by a hike of about 2.5 km (1.5 mi) from the end of the nearest road. Site open, tower closed. Site manager: Parco ****onale Arcipelago Toscano (http://www.islepark.it/entrata.htm). ARLHS ITA-246; Admiralty E1486; NGA 9092.


Source (http://www.unc.edu/%7Erowlett/lighthouse/itanw2.htm)

Host Mick
January 24th, 2012, 01:29 AM
Luckybogey, Thanks for the information. Another friend of mine sent me the following powerpoint about the AIS track of the Concordia. According to the naration, only the inertia, rudder, and finally the bow thruster (which takes a lot of power) were used to turn the ship back south, and it seems like the wind set her up onto her final resting place.
http://gcaptain.com/gcaptains-john-konrad-narrates-the-final-maneuvers-of-the-costa-concordia-video/?37941

That's an excellent video. I was about to post that link after wondering how she can be holed on the port side yet rest on her starboard side. The video explains it very clearly.
Note that she was travelling at 14 knots when she hit the rock. The OOD was steering visually. It's hard to believe that he's too inexperienced to know that that's a bad idea at night. It's much more difficult to judge sizes and distances at night. He made the turn northward, parallel with the coast too late and broadsided the rock.

vanki4
January 24th, 2012, 01:31 AM
In my view, the captain and his officers aboard the Concordia should have declared a "mayday" immediately after damage assessment showed over three compartments were flooded. Preparations for an emergency evacuation of all passengers should have also been started by the crew.



Captain: I don't agree with linked simulation by gCaptain (John Konrad). If the Captain had use of his thrusters, I feel this would have stated in the court documents. He specifically said "shifted position only by means of inertia and the rudders". I agree with you on the wind setting up the final resting place. The weather shown above from the Monte Argentario weather station (approx 12 miles E of Giglio) clearly shows ENE over 20 mph.

I don't understand why the Captain did not drop anchors upon his turn back to the port. He would have had safe water and was going less than .5 knots during the turn across the wind. I understand his logic to run aground however this decision most likely is the cause of the deaths aboard as well as the capsizing of a beautiful ship.

Question For All: I have yet to see any video, nor current webcams showing either the red or green lights at Giglio Port as being operational?


http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nauticard.png

During a ,,black out" when the Anchor Winch El motors are not energized from the Main Switchboard ,some times the anchors couldn't be dropped. Depends of the depth . In deep water without using the motor ,the anchor can be loosed due to the heavy mass .

re : flooded compartments. I have no drawings in hands to know the hull construction and to assume where the water came from ,but at least water tight doors should be closed during maneuvering or manual closed in case if water comes in order to deley the flooding of the Generators .
Need to mention the Engine Room Emergency Suction .
Also when the life of the persons on board are in danger ,MARPOL allows pumping out the Engine Room bilges. One thing is to pump out an oil contaminated water ( 1-2 mm oil film at the top of the bilges) and other thing is to deal with a 2000 tons of pure oil: HFO , DO and thousand of litres lubricants .

sidari
January 24th, 2012, 06:08 AM
The anchor was used at some point and there are underwater photos that show the anchor on the sea bed with a diver close to it!

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee275/corfugirl/article-2089339-1160F94D000005DC-507_306x423.jpg

luckybogey
January 24th, 2012, 08:43 AM
During a ,,black out" when the Anchor Winch El motors are not energized from the Main Switchboard ,some times the anchors couldn't be dropped. Depends of the depth . In deep water without using the motor ,the anchor can be loosed due to the heavy mass.

Would there be a manual override for the anchor release? What is the typical length of the anchor chain on a cruise ship? What is the procedure for dropping both anchors?

BillB48
January 24th, 2012, 09:42 AM
Somewhere around a 1000' per anchor would be in the ballpark.

vanki4
January 25th, 2012, 02:24 AM
Would there be a manual override for the anchor release? What is the typical length of the anchor chain on a cruise ship? What is the procedure for dropping both anchors?


Please kindly find few links about basic guidelines the anchors,chains,links and other info.
http://www.ehow.com/how_6901_drop-anchor.html
[/URL]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPqniJ26bC8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPqniJ26bC8&feature=related)
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0v1qrPIxBI&feature=related


also there is the link for one accident with manual releasing the stern anchor
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/drunk/anchor-drop-lands-cruise-passenger-brig.

I made a point for the depth and the lowering the anchor by the anchor winches. this is very important where the depth are over 35-40 mtr.
In this case a big length of the the chain is lay out by the turning the engaged El. motor or Hydromotor in order any time the chain to be stopped ,other wise nothing and nobody is able to stop the released aweigh anchor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAcfaMDcY68&feature=related

captainmcd
January 25th, 2012, 11:26 AM
On ships with anchors that release from the bridge, there is a spring that keeps tension on the brake, and a hydraulic ram that compresses the spring, allowing the anchor to drop. If the hydraulic pump were not on the emergency circut (it probably was) the anchor could be dropped locally by a brake wheel that compresses the spring.

That said, the rapid turn to starboard, in my opinion, was not caused by the anchor, it must have been the bow thruster, even though they consume up to 1000 kw of power, more than an emergency generator could probably handle, even if used at partial thrust. If the chain were let out with enough scope at that slow speed it would have been of little use in turning the ship, and would have to been dragged along the bottom to the final resting place. The chains typically have 10 shots or 900 feet from anchor to bitter end.

It would be my guess that if the anchor were dropped, it was done when near its present location.

Highlander0108
January 25th, 2012, 12:55 PM
On ships with anchors that release from the bridge, there is a spring that keeps tension on the brake, and a hydraulic ram that compresses the spring, allowing the anchor to drop. If the hydraulic pump were not on the emergency circut (it probably was) the anchor could be dropped locally by a brake wheel that compresses the spring.

That said, the rapid turn to starboard, in my opinion, was not caused by the anchor, it must have been the bow thruster, even though they consume up to 1000 kw of power, more than an emergency generator could probably handle, even if used at partial thrust. If the chain were let out with enough scope at that slow speed it would have been of little use in turning the ship, and would have to been dragged along the bottom to the final resting place. The chains typically have 10 shots or 900 feet from anchor to bitter end.

It would be my guess that if the anchor were dropped, it was done when near its present location.

I think your analysis makes the most sense. Perhaps the starboard side engine room (are the two engine rooms side by side, spanning the entire width of the ship?) operated for awhile, providing power to the thrusters. The ship appeared quite lit up to be running alone on the emergency generator. I am wondering if it took a bit of time to switch over to the other engine room and then some ships power was restored until that engine room went underwater.

captainmcd
January 25th, 2012, 09:25 PM
I think your analysis makes the most sense. Perhaps the starboard side engine room (are the two engine rooms side by side, spanning the entire width of the ship?) operated for awhile, providing power to the thrusters. The ship appeared quite lit up to be running alone on the emergency generator. I am wondering if it took a bit of time to switch over to the other engine room and then some ships power was restored until that engine room went underwater.

Highlander, I read about the Turkish AIS data, and can not believe that any sane person would attempt to take anything larger than a pleasure craft through that narrow passage, and say what you will about the captain, I don't think he was insane. It seems to me like he was in denial and refused to believe that his ship was in danger, but that does not raise to the level of insanity.

Although the ship had twin propellers, shafts, and engines, I think it is probable that there was only one engine room, and probably another separate generator flat. Ships at sea usually use a shaft generator, and that would have been knocked off line when the initital grounding took place, and the RPM's dropped. The engineers would then have quickly started the port generators, probably several diesel generators but since I have no ship's plans I am not sure about the arrangement. When the shaft generator went off line, the emergency diesel generator in some topside location should have come on automatically, and after a few minutes the auxiliary (port) generators should have kicked in, if not flooded. They would be able to provide enough power for the bow thruster. The change from shaft generator to emergency generator to auxiliary generators probably led crew and passengers to believe there may have been electrical problems rather than flooding.

P.S. I like your website and have often seen the QE2, most recently in 1994 when we tied up behind her in Lisbon.

Highlander0108
January 25th, 2012, 09:50 PM
Highlander, I read about the Turkish AIS data, and can not believe that any sane person would attempt to take anything larger than a pleasure craft through that narrow passage, and say what you will about the captain, I don't think he was insane. It seems to me like he was in denial and refused to believe that his ship was in danger, but that does not raise to the level of insanity.

Although the ship had twin propellers, shafts, and engines, I think it is probable that there was only one engine room, and probably another separate generator flat. Ships at sea usually use a shaft generator, and that would have been knocked off line when the initital grounding took place, and the RPM's dropped. The engineers would then have quickly started the port generators, probably several diesel generators but since I have no ship's plans I am not sure about the arrangement. When the shaft generator went off line, the emergency diesel generator in some topside location should have come on automatically, and after a few minutes the auxiliary (port) generators should have kicked in, if not flooded. They would be able to provide enough power for the bow thruster. The change from shaft generator to emergency generator to auxiliary generators probably led crew and passengers to believe there may have been electrical problems rather than flooding.

P.S. I like your website and have often seen the QE2, most recently in 1994 when we tied up behind her in Lisbon.

Thanks for the comments on my site. I do need to update it to reflect more recent news of where the Concordia struck. I think the captain was in a state of shock after the initial impact. I hope I did not imply he was insane! Wreckless and irresponsible, yes!

We sailed twice on the Magica, a sistership of sorts, and I recall the ships propulsion was similar to QE2's, that is they had multiple dieselgen units tied to a main busbar to power the ship and the large electric motors on the propshafts for propulsion. The Costa ship just had less powerful motors and available power from fewer dieselgensets. The Costa ship also had reversable motors while QE2 did not, using instead, variable pitch props to provide reverse.

I know the Concordia has two engine rooms, similar to the sistership, Carnival Splendor, but have never seen a deck plan showing their configuration. I'm sure we'll eventually see one in the press, once they finally do their homework and perform some indepth and accurate reporting instead of sensationalism and bashing of the cruise industry.

Ken

Esprit
January 26th, 2012, 05:54 AM
Of all the CC threads about Concordia this is the most informative with balanced comments and realistic assessments of what may have happened on that fateful night.

Thank you

sidari
January 26th, 2012, 06:43 AM
THe latest pictures show close ups of the ship and the actual lighting still in use, note that there are no cabin lights on so maybe they are on the back up Generator! Sad that this stupid newspaper continue to peddle ridiculous stories that cannot be substantiated!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091752/Rich-Russians-bribed-way-Costa-Concordias-lifeboats-stuffing-wads-cash-crew-members-pockets.html

captainmcd
January 26th, 2012, 08:26 AM
As often happens in incidents like this journalism seems to get in the way of facts. I had first assumed that like many newer cruise ships, the Concordia had azipod propulsion, but it was actually the more traditional propeller and rudder. Then I again incorrectly assumed that it was direct drive, slow speed diesel, probably with variable pitch propeller, and again I was wrong, it seems it was diesel electric. Without facts it is really difficult to speculate on exactly what happened. Esprit, thanks for the complement on this thread. I too feel that the participants have been knowledgable and civil.

OldSeaDog
January 26th, 2012, 09:07 AM
As we learned from teh fire on Concordia's sister ship Carnival Splendor, there are two engine rooms--forward and aft--each with three engines. There are also forward and aft generator rooms. The electrical switch gear is located in the aft generator room.

Highlander0108
January 26th, 2012, 12:57 PM
The lastest photos also show the starboard anchor deployed and the chain is leading out of the hull straight down. That leads me to believe that the anchor was deployed after the ship ran up against the shore. If it had been deployed earlier, wouldn't we see the chain off at an extreme angle if the ship were dragging it? Just thinking how the anchor rode would look on my little boat if I dropped it and dragged it. Who knows about the port anchor, but published photos suggest it too was deployed.

Lots of lights on from the photos too. Looks like the ships engineers prioritized what was essential to be powered up with what generators they had online to work with. Smart move to get all the exterior lit up and what looks like some of the public areas. Still, very disturbing to look at.

Esprit
January 26th, 2012, 02:17 PM
Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere but it is evident as the ship lies on its starboard side that all by one life boat was launched from the port side. This to me suggests the angle of tilt wasn't bad enough to prevent most being launched until much later into the night. This is contrary to most media reports that these life boats couldn't be launched at all!

I'm also surprised if most of the boats were successfully launched why there were still so many passengers left having to climb down the side of the hull.

Was this a result of crew members using the life boats rather than assigned inflatable rafts (three of which are still hanging onto the ship's side)?

The Maritime accident investigation team certainly have a job on their hands!

GambleBay
January 26th, 2012, 05:28 PM
Does anyone know what the engine room and generator room arrangement looks like? Are the watertight compartments such that there is separation between port and starboard? With the hull penetration on the port side and the ship capsized to starboard there must have been quit a lot of water that found a way from port to starboard.

Some reports have indicated that the initial list was to port as would be expected given the damage on that side. Have there been any reports of crew actions to try to compensate that could have lead to the eventual roll to starboard?

captainmcd
January 26th, 2012, 07:32 PM
Does anyone know what the engine room and generator room arrangement looks like? Are the watertight compartments such that there is separation between port and starboard? With the hull penetration on the port side and the ship capsized to starboard there must have been quit a lot of water that found a way from port to starboard.

Some reports have indicated that the initial list was to port as would be expected given the damage on that side. Have there been any reports of crew actions to try to compensate that could have lead to the eventual roll to starboard?



This is what was troubling for me. Other than in tanks in the double bottom and for water, ballast, and fuel it is unusual for there to be any watertight separation between port and starboard. I think the four compartments mentioned would have thwartship communication, and therefore the change of list from the initial port to starboard could have been caused by free surface, or the "sloshing" of water in partially filled compartments from port to starboard. This could have been caused by a number of things, but most likely would have been heeling from a turn OR by intentional counter ballasting done in order to correct the list to port. Without more information it is hard to speculate, and some have suggested that there were breached compartments on the starboard side as well.

Highlander0108
January 26th, 2012, 08:24 PM
This video link, posted in another thread, shows the anchors on the seabed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U11CtZFkf1U

They do not look like they've been dragged at all. The flukes of the anchor would have been dug in and if were dragged, wouldn't you expect to see a trench in the sand as evidence since these are very heavy. It looks like they were dropped when the ship came to rest against the shore. It also looks like the anchor rode from the port anchor has piled up on the starboard anchor. Would the captain have partially dropped the anchor, say letting out 50' of chain to provide drag and effectively swing the ship around while the ship was coasting and they were frantically trying to restore power? Then, when the ship appeared to ground, the anchors were fully deployed to keep the ship from shifting. Maybe I am giving the captain too much credit.....it really looks like they had thruster power to move the ship sideways to the shore.

GambleBay
January 26th, 2012, 09:58 PM
When the hull is breached below the waterline does that mean that section of the ship will fill with water all the way up to match the surrounding waterline or are there horizontal watertight bulkheads to divide the sections vertically (and to trap air above the level of the hull failure)?

With ~200 feet of the length of the hull completely flooded, I would imagine that the roll stability is almost nill. The wind probably played a big part in pushing her over toward shore. The same force that brought her in tipped her over.

Too bad the port anchor was not left on deck. It would have helped resist the roll to starboard.

With the hull failure completely out of the water now, what are the chances that she will lift and float when the fuel is removed? Does that process involve flooding the fuel tanks with water, or is the void created by removing fuel replaced with air?

My background is mechanical engineering, but I have no naval architecture experience so these thoughts are not based on any marine expertise.

captainmcd
January 27th, 2012, 08:34 AM
When the hull is breached below the waterline does that mean that section of the ship will fill with water all the way up to match the surrounding waterline or are there horizontal watertight bulkheads to divide the sections vertically (and to trap air above the level of the hull failure)?

With ~200 feet of the length of the hull completely flooded, I would imagine that the roll stability is almost nill. The wind probably played a big part in pushing her over toward shore. The same force that brought her in tipped her over.

Too bad the port anchor was not left on deck. It would have helped resist the roll to starboard.

With the hull failure completely out of the water now, what are the chances that she will lift and float when the fuel is removed? Does that process involve flooding the fuel tanks with water, or is the void created by removing fuel replaced with air?


My background is mechanical engineering, but I have no naval architecture experience so these thoughts are not based on any marine expertise.

Good questions,,and Idon't have the ship's plans to provide all the answers. A few things I do know are that most ships have watertight compartments longitudinally, dividing the hull into a number of watertight sections from the keel to the main deck. There is little vertical compartmentation except for the double bottom tanks and ballast tanks. That goes for transverse compartmentation as well. If any compartment is breached, if it is not a tank, water will fill the entire section up to the waterline. Tanks are all vented to a common header or straight to the main deck to allow air to enter and leave as the liquid in the tank is filled or removed. Removing the fuel now requires them to access the tank, probably through the vents, and pump air or water into the tank and suck out the contents. This is difficult because bunker C fuel is like tar at ambient temperatures, and must be heated to pump.

HelloHelloHola
January 27th, 2012, 11:01 AM
Captainmcd, I've been reading this thread for a few days now. Thanks for the technical expertise on this subject. I don't have anything of value to add. However, I do have a question. If the anchor was dropped to initiate that starboard turn, does the drag of the anchor also cause the bow of the ship to essentially become the back end of the ship? In which case, the bow of the ship would be pointing north, instead of south as it currently is? Or is the size and momentum of the ship is so great that the drag of the anchor had little or no effect?

captainmcd
January 27th, 2012, 11:24 AM
Captainmcd, I've been reading this thread for a few days now. Thanks for the technical expertise on this subject. I don't have anything of value to add. However, I do have a question. If the anchor was dropped to initiate that starboard turn, does the drag of the anchor also cause the bow of the ship to essentially become the back end of the ship? In which case, the bow of the ship would be pointing north, instead of south as it currently is? Or is the size and momentum of the ship is so great that the drag of the anchor had little or no effect?
HelloHola, that too is a tough question. If you drop an anchor when the ship has forward momentum, the anchor will hit the bottom, grab or drag, and tension the anchor chain, which will lead aft. If you drop the port anchor and have much headway, it will turn the bow to port, or if you use the starboard anchor it will turn the bow to starboard. According to the AIS data the ship made a rapid turn to starboard when it had little headway, leading me to believe it must have used the bow thruster to turn to starboard. When anchoring with little headway the chain will stay "up and down" until the wind or current move the ship away from the spot where you let it go, and the bow will be pulled in the direction of the anchor, or into the wind or current. I don't think the anchor was dropped until the Concordia was near her final resting place.

HelloHelloHola
January 27th, 2012, 12:24 PM
HelloHola, that too is a tough question. If you drop an anchor when the ship has forward momentum, the anchor will hit the bottom, grab or drag, and tension the anchor chain, which will lead aft. If you drop the port anchor and have much headway, it will turn the bow to port, or if you use the starboard anchor it will turn the bow to starboard. According to the AIS data the ship made a rapid turn to starboard when it had little headway, leading me to believe it must have used the bow thruster to turn to starboard. When anchoring with little headway the chain will stay "up and down" until the wind or current move the ship away from the spot where you let it go, and the bow will be pulled in the direction of the anchor, or into the wind or current. I don't think the anchor was dropped until the Concordia was near her final resting place.

Thanks for the detail explanation. Now that I think of it, your mentioning of the little headway leading to the starboard turn is an important clue. I am more convinced now that your theory is most likely correct.