MorganMars Posted July 28, 2012 #1551 Share Posted July 28, 2012 VP, I understand what you are saying about the chain. What I don't understand is Captain John Konrad's theory about using the anchors and a proper length of chain to prevent the capsize of the Concordia. It sounds as though, he is implying that the ship could have been careened. Is that possible with the Concordia and similar vessels? Regards, MorganMars Interesting :eek: video. If I'd been on that deck I would have run away terribly quickly and told everyone else around me to do the same... only once the chain had run out past the bitter end would I even think about getting back on that deck! On a ship, it's the weight of chain on the seabed that anchors the ship in position, not the anchor itself. Once their is sufficient weight on the seabed, additional chain will increase the distance the ship can move.... it's as much art as science, a balance between how much slack chain their is, and weight of chain on seabed as too little chain will increase the risk of anchor drag. VP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampire Parrot Posted July 29, 2012 #1552 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I understand what you are saying about the chain. What I don't understand is Captain John Konrad's theory about using the anchors and a proper length of chain to prevent the capsize of the Concordia. It sounds as though, he is implying that the ship could have been careened. Is that possible with the Concordia and similar vessels? The hawsepipes (through which the anchor chains run through and which hold the anchor in place at sea) are close to the centreline of the ship, so the force to be applied from the anchor to the ship required to stop the ship capsizing would be huge as there is so much mechanical disadvantage. Perhaps the right length of chain would have prevented the capsize - personally, I doubt it. Careening a flat-bottomed boat (which all modern ships are) would be extremely difficult. It would either stay upright or topple over onto it's side. VP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidari Posted July 29, 2012 #1553 Share Posted July 29, 2012 CT ... it is of no matter how many Historians put their name to the Titanic issue and the binoculars, after all they were not there and are merely hazarding a guess that they would not have helped without actual proof. "In the opinion of Captain John Konrad, Schettino deployed the anchors during the grounding in order to help prevent the capsize but, by allowing too much chain to be released" Morgan ... so many people have hung their coats on making a guess without waiting for the actual facts of how and when the Anchors were used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiserfanfromct Posted July 29, 2012 #1554 Share Posted July 29, 2012 CT ... it is of no matter how many Historians put their name to the Titanic issue and the binoculars, after all they were not there and are merely hazarding a guess that they would not have helped without actual proof. You're right Sid...there is no PROOF whether the binoculars would have prevented the Titanic from hitting an iceberg or not -- it goes both ways. We do however have PROOF that 100 years later they did not help Captain Schettino, as captured from the bridge of the Concordia in the photo below : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uniall Posted July 29, 2012 #1555 Share Posted July 29, 2012 You're right Sid...there is no PROOF whether the binoculars would have prevented the Titanic from hitting an iceberg or not -- it goes both ways. We do however have PROOF that 100 years later they did not help Captain Schettino, as captured from the bridge of the Concordia in the photo below : Here's a photo of what Captain Schitino is looking at: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka's Skipper Posted July 29, 2012 #1556 Share Posted July 29, 2012 The hawsepipes (through which the anchor chains run through and which hold the anchor in place at sea) are close to the centreline of the ship, so the force to be applied from the anchor to the ship required to stop the ship capsizing would be huge as there is so much mechanical disadvantage. Perhaps the right length of chain would have prevented the capsize - personally, I doubt it. Careening a flat-bottomed boat (which all modern ships are) would be extremely difficult. It would either stay upright or topple over onto it's side. VP I agree VP........the anchors could not have been used in this manner. In a emergency like this, the anchors could have been used to hold position, cause the vessel to spin around to maybe better position her to provide a lay side to get the lifeboats away or to lay her againist the ocean bottom to keep her from capsizing/sinking. There are many factors that would effect this maneuver.......the current, tide, wind force and direction, and the shape and depth of the bottom. AKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka's Skipper Posted July 29, 2012 #1557 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Here's a photo of what Captain Schitino is looking at: A nice view! I am lol here looking at the bridge photo.............8 other Officers visible and the Captain........My merchant ships had the Duty Officer, a quarter master and the look out forward, at night...that it! Ho add the Captain if he was on the bridge!:D AKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidari Posted July 29, 2012 #1558 Share Posted July 29, 2012 At least Captain Schettino has got his glasses on the the photo! .... :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uniall Posted July 29, 2012 #1559 Share Posted July 29, 2012 At least Captain Schettino has got his glasses on the the photo! .... :p How do you say "Dominca" in Italian? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidari Posted July 29, 2012 #1560 Share Posted July 29, 2012 John .... no idea about that but I guess the anchor argument will go on to the bitter end! Tonka ...... do you reckon the sacrificial annodes will have still done their job despite the ship listing over? Could the ship have listed like it has due to being holed in the ballast tanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka's Skipper Posted July 30, 2012 #1561 Share Posted July 30, 2012 John .... no idea about that but I guess the anchor argument will go on to the bitter end! Tonka ...... do you reckon the sacrificial annodes will have still done their job despite the ship listing over? Could the ship have listed like it has due to being holed in the ballast tanks? Hey there Sidari! The anodes last for a year to 3 years.so they should still be doing there job well, not to mention it takes along time......like years to rust though a ships hull. I still expect when she righted, news will be released showing more hull breaching/holes then we know of now! She has been on the rocks over 6 months and will be there a few more. AKK AKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidari Posted July 31, 2012 #1562 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Tonka ... Saw a TV programme last night about a Double ended Oil Tanker/ Ice breaker called the Timofey Guzhenko around 90,000 tons which is the largest in the world, there were areas of Ice where the ship had to travel Stern first in order to break up the Ice into small pieces with its Azipods. I see no one has commented about the "Bitter End" but i am sure you know what and where it is .... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka's Skipper Posted July 31, 2012 #1563 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Tonka ... Saw a TV programme last night about a Double ended Oil Tanker/ Ice breaker called the Timofey Guzhenko around 90,000 tons which is the largest in the world, there were areas of Ice where the ship had to travel Stern first in order to break up the Ice into small pieces with its Azipods. I see no one has commented about the "Bitter End" but i am sure you know what and where it is .... :) They are of course, specially built tankers for moving in ice covered channels and harbors!....I believe the only one running now is a Russian one! The bitter end is the end of the anchor chain that is not connected to the anchor. It is connected to the vessel inside the chain locker with a steel pin. If the chains starts running away to fast and/or the brake dies, the pin is designed to pull away and let the chain run out and thereby do little or no damage to the vessel. AKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Host Mick Posted July 31, 2012 #1564 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Interesting :eek: video. If I'd been on that deck I would have run away terribly quickly and told everyone else around me to do the same... only once the chain had run out past the bitter end would I even think about getting back on that deck! On a ship, it's the weight of chain on the seabed that anchors the ship in position, not the anchor itself. Once their is sufficient weight on the seabed, additional chain will increase the distance the ship can move.... it's as much art as science, a balance between how much slack chain their is, and weight of chain on seabed as too little chain will increase the risk of anchor drag. VP The rule of thumb it 5:1. Five feet of chain for every foot of water. That puts enough chain on the bottom to set the anchor horizontally and adds enough chain to reduce the ship jerking the anchor in seas. It's 7:1 for line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Host Mick Posted July 31, 2012 #1565 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Tonka ... Can you hold a Masters liscence in more than one country ? Yes, in fact some countries will grant you a license based on your current US license and sea time. The IMO standardizing licenses made this easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiserfanfromct Posted July 31, 2012 #1566 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Looks like a passenger on a HAL ship was testing out the 5:1 anchor rule...before being arrested. Not recommended on your next cruise: http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=159538 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidari Posted July 31, 2012 #1567 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Tonka ... It made me laugh when a guy said that the Bitter End is the part the Ship is connected to! LOL. Timofey Guzhenko is Russian owned as you say and the area it picks up oil from is 12 miles out to sea and ice covered. Mick ... thanks for the info. CT ... I believe that happened quite some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka's Skipper Posted July 31, 2012 #1568 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Looks like a passenger on a HAL ship was testing out the 5:1 anchor rule...before being arrested. Not recommended on your next cruise: http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=159538 That was indeed a awhile ago........The dam fool was drunk and got a big fine and I am pretty sure some prison time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiserfanfromct Posted July 31, 2012 #1569 Share Posted July 31, 2012 That was indeed a awhile ago........The dam fool was drunk and got a big fine and I am pretty sure some prison time. Yep - that happened in 2010 but he was sentenced this year and got 2 months in the slammer, 2 months home confinement and 3 years probation for the stupid prank: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/man-sentenced-for-cruise-ship-prank/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uniall Posted August 1, 2012 #1570 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Yep - that happened in 2010 but he was sentenced this year and got 2 months in the slammer, 2 months home confinement and 3 years probation for the stupid prank: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/man-sentenced-for-cruise-ship-prank/ Can that sentence be a benchmark for Schitino ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiserfanfromct Posted August 1, 2012 #1571 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Can that sentence be a benchmark for Schitino ? Hope so -- multiplied by 4,200 for each passenger and crew member. Let's see, that's 8,200 months or 700 years of jail time, 700 years of home confinement and 12,600 years of probation. :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiserfanfromct Posted August 1, 2012 #1572 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Apparently back at sea on a speed boat according to the UK paper the Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4465174/Costa-Concordia-captain-Francesco-Schettino-sails-again.html If he goes out further than 12 nautical miles, does that mean he left the country? :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeBeach Posted August 1, 2012 #1573 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) CT, we both saw and posted at the same time. Edited August 1, 2012 by SomeBeach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomeBeach Posted August 1, 2012 #1574 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Interesting article. Follow the page down to the comment posted below article. http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/770878--chivalry-on-sinking-ships-myth-sea-disasters-study-finds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiserfanfromct Posted August 1, 2012 #1575 Share Posted August 1, 2012 CT, we both saw and posted at the same time. GMTA...LOL -- glad to see you back SB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts