Hole on Port side, capsized to Starboard?

Welcome to Cruise Critic! If you'd like to participate on our forums by joining in the conversation, please Register Now! Be sure to visit our FAMOUS Roll Call forums, where you can meet other cruisers sailing with you and share a tour or shore excursion and SAVE MONEY!

Costa Cruises
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
All times are GMT -4.
The time now is 07:33 AM.
#21
Missouri City, TX, USA
464 Posts
Joined Sep 2000
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.
#22
186 Posts
Joined Jan 2006
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?
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Sapphire Princess - 9/11 - Pacific Coast
Celebrity Xpedition - 4/11 - Galapagos Islands
Grand Princess - 09/10 - Northern Transatlantic
Celebrity Eqinox - 05/10 - Eastern Med.
Norwegian Gem - 04/10 - Transatlantic/Med.
Star Princess - 10/09 - New Zealand/Transpacific
Carnival Splendor - 03/09 - South America
Star Princess - 02/09 - S. America & Antarctica
Crown Princess - 09/08 - Baltic
Coral Princess - 04/08 - Panama Canal
Crown Princess - 10/07 - Southern Caribbean
Pacific Princess - 09/07 - Alaska
Noordam - 01/07 - Caribbean
Golden Princess - 05/06 - Transatlantic/Med.
Norwegian Majesty - 10/05 - Bermuda
Carnival Miracle - 05/05 - Western Caribbean
Grand Princess - 09/04 - Canada/New England
Golden Princess - 05/04 - Southern Caribbean
#23
Kent, UK
1,855 Posts
Joined Jun 2005
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.
#24
156 Posts
Joined Sep 2009
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.
#25
Connecticut
470 Posts
Joined Apr 2006
Originally posted by Esprit
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.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Costa Victoria Jan 1998 Western Carribean
Cunard QE2 Oct 2000 Carribean Sampler
Costa Magica Apr 2006 Western Caribbean
Costa Magica Apr 2007 Bermuda
Cunard QE2 Jan 2008 Winter Crossing
Cunard QE2 Oct 2008 Final Farewell to the UK
Cunard QM2 Jan 2011 Caribbean Calypso
Carnival Miracle Apr 2012 Eastern Caribbean
Carnival Splendor Apr 2013 Bermuda
#26
Kent, UK
1,855 Posts
Joined Jun 2005
Originally posted by Highlander0108
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.
#27
Connecticut
470 Posts
Joined Apr 2006
Originally posted by captainmcd
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.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Costa Victoria Jan 1998 Western Carribean
Cunard QE2 Oct 2000 Carribean Sampler
Costa Magica Apr 2006 Western Caribbean
Costa Magica Apr 2007 Bermuda
Cunard QE2 Jan 2008 Winter Crossing
Cunard QE2 Oct 2008 Final Farewell to the UK
Cunard QM2 Jan 2011 Caribbean Calypso
Carnival Miracle Apr 2012 Eastern Caribbean
Carnival Splendor Apr 2013 Bermuda
#28
Sunny Southern California
377 Posts
Joined Aug 2009
Originally posted by captainmcd
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.
#29
224 Posts
Joined Dec 2011
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.
#31
Melbourne, FL
8,198 Posts
Joined Apr 2005
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.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Capt BJ

Costa (1982), Commodore, NCL, Windstar, Princess,
DCL, RCL, Viking River, Cunard (TA)
50+ cruises
USCG Captain, retired - 6 ships, 2 commands, 12 yrs @ sea
Shellback, Golden Dragon, Bering Sea winter vet
Tall ship sailor
#32
Bolton / Accrington, Lancashire, UK
7,810 Posts
Joined Feb 2008
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.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Small things Amuse Small Minds while Bigger Fools Look on.

Relax Unwind Be Yourself! =Ruby Princess.

YOU CAN`T APPRECIATE THE RAINBOW WITHOUT THE RAIN.
[email protected]

MSC Seaside December 2017 Caribbean
MSC Preziosa September 2017 Northern Europe.
Majestic Princess April 2017 Inaugural med cruise.
MSC Orchestra November 2014 Venice to Dubai
MSC Divina November 2013 T.A. Venice to Miami
MSC Opera June 2013 Southampton to Norway
MSC Poesia November 2012 T.A Barcelona to Fort Lauderdale
NCL Jade April/May 2012 B2B Venice to Greek Islands
NCL Jade February 2012 Barcelona to Canary Islands
Costa Deliziosa December 2011 Savona to Savona
Mariner of the Seas May 2011Rome to Rome
Oasis of the Seas October 2010 Caribbean
Queen Victoria May 2010 Southampton to Southampton
Ruby Princess November 2009....
Vision of the Seas September 2009 Denmark to Norway
Brilliance of the Seas June 2009 Barcelona to Barcelona.
Ruby Princess November 2008 ....

#33
Melbourne, FL
8,198 Posts
Joined Apr 2005
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 . . . .
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Capt BJ

Costa (1982), Commodore, NCL, Windstar, Princess,
DCL, RCL, Viking River, Cunard (TA)
50+ cruises
USCG Captain, retired - 6 ships, 2 commands, 12 yrs @ sea
Shellback, Golden Dragon, Bering Sea winter vet
Tall ship sailor
#34
Sunshine Coast Queensland Australia
545 Posts
Joined Feb 2007
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.
#35
Connecticut
470 Posts
Joined Apr 2006
Originally posted by SeaDog-46
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.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Costa Victoria Jan 1998 Western Carribean
Cunard QE2 Oct 2000 Carribean Sampler
Costa Magica Apr 2006 Western Caribbean
Costa Magica Apr 2007 Bermuda
Cunard QE2 Jan 2008 Winter Crossing
Cunard QE2 Oct 2008 Final Farewell to the UK
Cunard QM2 Jan 2011 Caribbean Calypso
Carnival Miracle Apr 2012 Eastern Caribbean
Carnival Splendor Apr 2013 Bermuda
#36
Romania
33 Posts
Joined Apr 2005
Originally posted by SeaDog-46
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 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 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.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Cristian Munteanu - At sea 1995-2006 - Former Crew of : Nowegian Star, Norwegian Dream, Norwegian Dawn, Norwegian Sea, Norwegian Crown, Norwegian Sky, Norwegian Sun, Regal Empress, Red Sea Magic, Aist, Krimskaya Strela, Montana, Silver Star 3, John B, Monte Carlo, Atlantic X, Solovki. Longest non stop time at sea 7 1/2 years april 1995 - september 2002. Member of Romanian Maritime League Founder of the Romanian Sailors Web Site www.marinarii.ro
#37
4 Posts
Joined Aug 2006
Originally posted by OldSeaDog
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
#38
Peoria, IL USA
5,318 Posts
Joined Feb 2004
I think if the ship had not landed on rock, wouldn't it have turned totally over (like in Posedian)?
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Gingee

Royal Caribbean Sovereign 7-2003 (the beginning), Carnival Conquest 7-2004, Carnival Legend 5-2005, Royal Caribbean Vision 6-2006, Royal Caribbean Rhapsody 5-2007, Carnival Victory 8-2008, Norwegian Spirit 1-2009, Royal Caribbean Mariner 5-2010, Celebrity Century 5-2011, Carnival Conquest 5-2012, Carnival Glory 7-2013, Carnival Freedom 7-2014, Allure of the Seas 6-2016.
#39
San Diego
5,138 Posts
Joined Oct 2005
Originally posted by Gingee
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.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Cruise History
Celebrity Constellation, Adriatic & Italy (2018)
Ruby Princess, Alaska (2018)
Viking Longship Baldur, Amsterdam to Budapest (2017)
Celebrity Summit, Round-trip Bermuda (NY) (2017)
Crown Princess, Round-trip Hawaii (LA) (2016)

Emerald Princess, Eastern Caribbean (2016)
Zuiderdam, Mediterranean Explorer (2015)
Emerald Princess, Western Caribbean (2014)

Jewel of the Seas, Southern Caribbean (2014)
Golden Princess, Round-trip Hawaii (LA) (2013)
Pacific Princess, Mediterranean & Adriatic (2012)
Pacific Princess, Mediterranean Collection (2012)
Island Princess, Pacific Coastal (2012)
Sapphire Princess, LA / Hawaii / Samoa / Tahiti / LA (2011)
Golden Princess, Round-trip Hawaii (LA) (2011)
Crown Princess, Greek Isles / Med + Italy (2010)
Sapphire Princess, Mexico (LA) (2010)
Royal Princess, Mediterranean + Italy (2009)
Sapphire Princess, Australia / NZ + Fiji (2007)
Golden Princess, British Isles + Scotland (2006)
Dawn Princess, Mexico (SF) (2006)
Grand Princess, Mediterranean + Italy (2005)
Tahitian Princess, Cook Island (2005)
Tahitian Princess, Marquesas Island (2005)
Zenith, Western Caribbean (2004)
Ryndam, Mexico, (2003)
Grand Princess, Eastern Caribbean (2003)
Grand Princess, Western Caribbean (2003)
Dawn Princess, San Diego to Hawaii (2003)
Dawn Princess, Tahiti to Hawaii (2002)
Dawn Princess, Hawaii to Tahiti (2002)
Royal Princess, Panama Canal (2002)
Ocean Princess, Southern Caribbean (2001)
Dawn Princess, Mexico (1991)
Golden Odyssey, Black Sea / Med (1990)
Dawn Princess, Mediterranean (1989)
Fair Sky, Alaska (1984)
Fair Sea, Panama Canal (1983)
#40
Georiga
22 Posts
Joined Apr 2007
Originally posted by Gingee
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.