Hole on Port side, capsized to Starboard?

[Esprit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[Capt_BJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tribune]

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]

I think if the ship had not landed on rock, wouldn't it have turned totally over (like in Posedian)?

[JLC@SD]

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]

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]

If this is legit, which it looks credible, this explains alot.

 

[SeaDog-46]

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]

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]

s

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?

 

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]

If this is legit, which it looks credible, this explains alot.

 

 

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]

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]

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]

Proof that the Anchor was used to turn the ship ? taken by the Divers searching the sea bed.

 

[H82seaUgo]

Proof that the Anchor was used to turn the ship ? taken by the Divers searching the sea bed.

 

 

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]

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?