Costa Concordia sinks (link)

[highcbob]

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1548951

[Salacia]

We are on QV at the moment, and the captain just made an announcement about the Costa ship. He also reassured us that the officers and crew on QV were well trained in emergencies. He then went on to say that the weather is deteriorating and we can expect a stormy night tonight.................

 

 

Hi safarigal. Thanks for your post; best wishes to you and all the ships at sea. Regards, -S

[Salacia]

I always attend the muster no matter which ship I am on, BUT I will admit that in the past I have sighed , wished I had the nerve not to go, and listened with only half my mind on that being said.

 

In future I will be far more attentive, and never think of not attending in.

 

That is the lesson we should all learn from this terrible event and the discussion here.

 

 

Mrs Jimsgirl, I also plead guilty to not paying attention to muster drills after the first 7 or 8 voyges on QM2.

 

But considering the events on the Costa Concordia, with the ship listing to such a degree by the time the abandon ship was called, muster drill was rendered meaningless. (If your muster station is underwater, where do you go?) Passengers rely on the captain and crew, but we also (hopefully) know not to panic.

 

Unfortunately, we know that all too often the facts of the situation are not communicated to passengers; to me, this is a breach of trust.

[ToadOfToadHall]

The thing about the muster/safety drill is that is utterly pointless.

 

Before I'm abused for saying that, I'll tell you why I think it.

 

1) I've briefly worked on an off-shore North See oil rig. To be allowed to go I had to undertake a 5-day off-shore survival course. So when I first went to the ship's safety briefly and realised the whole thing was a total waste of time.

 

2) I work on an industrial site from time to time. Everyone who is on the site must watch a safety video once a month. One of the things on it is what the two alarms sound like and what to do if they go off ( one is the fire alarm, the other is if there is a toxic chemical incident ). A few months ago, one of the alarms did go off and nearly every one walked outside and headed to the fire assembly point. The problem was that is was the gas alarm, so they did totally the wrong thing. But, they have all seen to video, so they should have all know what to do - but they didn't.

 

3) I reckon if you ask a passenger on a ship what they were told in the safety briefing an hour after it ended, I'd bet most people will not be able to tell you, and if they do, it will most likely be wrong.

 

My point is, my occupation sometimes takes me to hazardous work places, and I see "tick box" safety all the time. I could give you loads more examples of the rubbish I see, all in the name of "health and safety" and the muster briefing on a cruise ship is a prime example.

[bazzaw]

I can see your point - and as an ex-Navy man, I have always known that if some major emergency was to happen on a cruiseship (I have been mainly thinking of fire up until now), chaos would reign.

 

The average age of many cruiseship passengers is quite high - and the average fitness level is low (many are morbidly obese) . Can you imagine what would happen if a large cruiseship was to have a major fire and undisciplined civilian elderly/unfit passengers had to get up perhaps 5-6 decks by stairs in the dark (can't use lifts), etc.

 

My understanding is that the "safety lectures" on Costa ships are done in 5 languages -- is this so??

 

Barry

[balf]

The ship is operating a circular itinerary, with most passengers embarking and disembarking in Savona - and they had their drill 6 days ago. Some passengers boarded yesterday in Civitavecchia and they would have had their muster drill tomorrow with the newly boarded Savona passengers, within 24 hours of sailing, as required by law.

 

I have always thought this to be very unsafe practice.

 

David.

[Cruachan]

I can see your point - and as an ex-Navy man, I have always known that if some major emergency was to happen on a cruiseship (I have been mainly thinking of fire up until now), chaos would reign.

 

The average age of many cruiseship passengers is quite high - and the average fitness level is low (many are morbidly obese) . Can you imagine what would happen if a large cruiseship was to have a major fire and undisciplined civilian elderly/unfit passengers had to get up perhaps 5-6 decks by stairs in the dark (can't use lifts), etc.

 

My understanding is that the "safety lectures" on Costa ships are done in 5 languages -- is this so??

 

Barry

 

Another thing that has always worried me about the muster drill is that it is predicated on the idea that you will go from your cabin to "your" muster station, and the muster stations are basically arranged so that there is a more or less even distribution of cabins to muster stations.

 

All this is fine if the accident happens, for example, during the early hours of the morning when just about everyone is in their cabin. But if it happens during the day when passengers are spread around ever public space from one end of the ship to the other then the probability of mayhem becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

J

[Nippy Sweetie]

A scary prospect indeed. Just thinking about it all happening in the dark too while all dressed up..............

Good point about the predominance of elderly and pretty infirm people who enjoy cruising too. Oh dear oh dear

[cinta]

It's even scarier if you add alcohol into the equation at that time of night, in evening wear & spread all over the ship= Bedlam!

 

A lady has posted on the Costa forum telling her story. She & her family are waiting to fly back to Oz. It sounds terrifying.

[Ubarrow]

I do think that many commentators are completely missing the point here.

 

If you knew nothing about this incident but were simply shown the pictures and told that the ship was nearly full and asked how many casualties there were then most people would come up with far larger numbers than seem to be the case.

 

I live near Grayrigg and was there the morning after the train crash. I looked at the scene of devastation along with the intact carriages and vowed to travel in this type of train wherever possible.

 

Clearly this accident should never have happened (whatever the cause) but the ship having got into this position the fact that the vast majority of passengers are safe and well is a tribute to the crew, the passengers and the safety systems.

[Ray66]

The number not accounted for has now been set at just 17 (previously around 40) - 11 passengers and 6 crew.

 

Still just 3 people confirmed dead.

[Freecall]

I do think that many commentators are completely missing the point here.

 

If you knew nothing about this incident but were simply shown the pictures and told that the ship was nearly full and asked how many casualties there were then most people would come up with far larger numbers than seem to be the case.

 

I live near Grayrigg and was there the morning after the train crash. I looked at the scene of devastation along with the intact carriages and vowed to travel in this type of train wherever possible.

 

Clearly this accident should never have happened (whatever the cause) but the ship having got into this position the fact that the vast majority of passengers are safe and well is a tribute to the crew, the passengers and the safety systems.

 

Totally agree.

[BlueRiband]

The thing about the muster/safety drill is that is utterly pointless... I had to undertake a 5-day off-shore survival course. So when I first went to the ship's safety briefly and realised the whole thing was a total waste of time...

 

I'll take a chance and disagreeing with you since what happens on an oil rig is considerably more volatile than a sailing on a cruise ship.

 

 

 

At the very least, after a muster drill people know that they are supposed to stop whatever else they were doing, grab medication and other essentials, get their life vest and show up at the appointed place. (If the ship was so catastrophically damaged that ALL of the muster stations were submerged then of course this would be pointless.)

 

 

On a port call in Barbados in December 2010, the QM2 crew had a drill deploying the port side lifeboats. Some ships crew were inside suited up in their safety gear so presumably that boat would be their charge should the situation ever come to that. (Whether they would still keep up these standards now that the ship is the "Bermuda Queen" is another argument.)

 

 

 

With all do respect, what to you therefore propose? Mandatory attendance at a safety video before the ship sails? What if somebody doesn't attend? Put them off the ship? Perhaps ban evening wear in case there should be an emergency?

[ToadOfToadHall]

With all do respect, what to you therefore propose? Mandatory attendance at a safety video before the ship sails?

 

No, the complete opposite. If you read the example I gave about the fire alarm/gas alarm incident that I witnessed, what I'm saying is the safety briefings/videos or whatever are a waste of time.

 

People simply don't take the information in, i.e. these briefings serve no real purpose, so don't bother with them.

 

But, that will never happen, because the main purpose of the safety briefing is to protect the company involved from any legal action.

 

after a muster drill people know that they are supposed to stop whatever else they were doing, grab medication and other essentials,

 

You see, that's wrong. If the ship is sinking or on fire, people should not be wasting time looking for their pills or anything else. What can be "essential" given the fact that the ship is sinking ?

[BlueRiband]

We're going to have to disaree on this one. At least people know what they are supposed to do when the alarm sounds. (Whether they do it or not is another issue.)

 

As for the legal issues, I couldn't agree more. There was an earlier thread where the QM2 stated the emergency procedures during the gas turbine fire. One person commented that they were "ninety minutes from loading the life boats". It appears the cruise lines are in a lose-lose situtation. Start emergency procedures and they're accused of inciting unnecessary alarm. Don't start them in time (as one of the Concordia survivers recounted) and the situation is worse.

[ToadOfToadHall]

We're going to have to disaree on this one.

 

I was about to say the very same thing.

[ToadOfToadHall]

In the UK, most papers are comparing this incident to that of the Titanic ( I assume the same is also being said in other countries as well ).

 

So, when you think about it, that means there has not really been an incident on a cruise ship of this scale for 100 years. What other form of transport can claim that I wonder ?

[Jim Avery]

One of the things bothering me most is the sudden loss of initial stability leading to the rapid, and ultimately fatal, listing. I have dug up some numbers that might shed a bit of light. The original Queen Mary is 1,019' 6" long, 118' beam, with a 40' draft. Gross Tonnage is listed at 81,237. The air draft (distance from water line to the top of the forward funnel) is 181'. Passenger capacity listed at 1,957 with 1,174 crew. 3,131 total. Compare this to the Queen Mary 2. Length, 1,132', beam, 135', draft, 32' 10" air draft 236'! and 151,400 GRT. Passengers, 2,620, crew, 1,253. Total 3,873. The Costa Concordia is even more extreme. Length, 951'. Beam, 118'. Draft, 26' 10"!!. 114,500 GRT. Air draft 215'.! Passengers, 3,570. Crew 1,068. Total 4,638.!! The purpose is to illustrate that modern naval architecture has a much greater portion of the ships volume and weight above the waterline. this is compensated in part by wider beam but mainly is accomplished by computer controlled ballast and fuel stowage. Costa Concordia has 14' less draft but 34' more air draft and 33,000 more GRT in a 68' 6" shorter hull. Consider that the Titanic, with a similar gash type damage sank more slowly and for practical purposes the decks remained level albeit down by the head. They would have had time to launch many more lifeboats had they had them. This sudden loss of stability is a scary issue. In fact, passengers have been injured in modern cruise ships when a steering malfunction caused a sharp turn and a severe list from the turning forces. Perhaps safety standards will be modified and the "block of flats on a barge" style of naval architecture will have to revert to a more "seagoing" style of ship. One thing for certain, there will be repercussions from this. Had the ship had this sudden loss of stability in deep water, I fear the results would have been much more terrible.

[bazzaw]

 

the fact that the vast majority of passengers are safe and well is a tribute to the crew, the passengers and the safety systems.

 

In the same way that we do not know the complete facts about how the ship sank, we also do not know the full facts about the successful rescue. Was it because of the crew - or in spite of the crew - or possibly even in spite of some of the crew??

 

The anecdotal evidence at this time does seem to be the latter.

 

Also - in the same way that it is not good to now go into panic mode, speculate and hypothesize on what might have happened - it is also not good to say "all is well, everything worked largely as it should, move along, nothing to see here!!" The ship sank, some people died, others are still missing.

 

There are a LOT of questions on the table!

 

 

Barry

[Leucothea]

Now it seems 2 more bodies were found and the report is now 5 dead. The Captain may be charged with homicide. A couple of Korean honeymooners were rescued in their cabin many hours after the accident. The French news reports that 21 French citizens are unaccounted for; the names of the 2 dead French citizens have not yet been released.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16568760

[Cruachan]

Now it seems 2 more bodies were found and the report is now 5 dead. The Captain may be charged with homicide. A couple of Korean honeymooners were rescued in their cabin many hours after the accident. The French news reports that 21 French citizens are unaccounted for; the names of the 2 dead French citizens have not yet been released.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16568760

 

Looks like the Cabin Services Director had a lucky escape too. They managed to airlift him from the ship today after (I think) they had found the Korean couple. Seems he had a badly injured leg having been trapped by a large item of fallen furniture.

 

J

[QM1]

The Costa Concordia is even more extreme. Length, 951'. Beam, 118'. Draft, 26' 10"!!. 114,500 GRT. Air draft 215'.! Passengers, 3,570. Crew 1,068. Total 4,638.!! The purpose is to illustrate that modern naval architecture has a much greater portion of the ships volume and weight above the waterline. this is compensated in part by wider beam but mainly is accomplished by computer controlled ballast and fuel stowage.

 

One thing for certain, there will be repercussions from this. Had the ship had this sudden loss of stability in deep water, I fear the results would have been much more terrible.

 

I fully agree with you. Since quite some time I am worried about the increasing bulk/height of cruise ships above the waterline. 14, 15 decks, about twice as many as Titanic! Bulky brandnew ships like the Norwegian Epic are not only ugly due to their excessive height, they must also be regarded as questionable in terms of constructive safety. Add to the critisism the thin hulls now so fashionable. And add the huge number of passengers being forced to evacuate from a single deck by using a shrinking number of staircases/elevators, and any crew would be overwhelmed in an incident like the Costa Concordia.

From all ultralarge ships "our" QM2 is certainly the safest/stable and least extreme in this respect, but still, being a modern ship it also has an impressive height. Imho QE and QV would be far less trustworthy than QM2 in a similar event that befell Costa last friday.

 

I am not at all afraid and am looking forward to my next QM2 cruise in spring!

[busmech]

I would compare this more to the Andea Doria. It will be interesting to see what is found, as the hole is on one side but the ship is over on the other. Also why did they hit something that is claimed not on the charts in a what would be an area with a long shipping history?

[Ray66]

I would compare this more to the Andea Doria. It will be interesting to see what is found, as the hole is on one side but the ship is over on the other. Also why did they hit something that is claimed not on the charts in a what would be an area with a long shipping history?

 

 

"...with the ship listing – first one way and then the other"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9015749/Cruise-disaster-Chaos-reigned-as-order-came-to-abandon-ship.html

 

"The company operating a cruise ship that capsized after hitting rocks off western Italy on Friday says the captain may have "committed errors"."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16570281

[new to cuising]

What I'm having trouble in working out is why in the photos of the stricken vessel is the land on the starboard side of the ship, when if it was heading north at the time of the collision the island was to the ship's west - ie port side. Had the vessel turned around ? could a "high speed turn" have destabilised the vessel - Other thoughts - why were the stabilisers out? were they trying to stabilise the ship due to the unstable ballast - the weather i understand was calm? I heard somewhere that the initial impact was about 10pm but the ship didn't sink until 6 hours later - why weren't the lifeboats deployed earlier.

 

Finally and sorry for being a bore but when the captain was interviewed on TV he said he was within three hundred metres of the coastline. Foregive me for being slightly cynical but who in their right mind would take a 350 + metre ship within three hundred metres of the coast if not planning to dock ?

 

There are some very fortunate passengers who survived and my thoughts are with the families who lost members or are still waiting for news