Hole on Port side, capsized to Starboard?

[luckybogey]

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?

 

 

[luckybogey]

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. 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. ARLHS ITA-246; Admiralty E1486; NGA 9092.

 

 

Source

[Host Mick]

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]

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?

 

 

 

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]

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!

 

[luckybogey]

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]

Somewhere around a 1000' per anchor would be in the ballpark.

[vanki4]

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][/url]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPqniJ26bC8&feature=related

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.

[captainmcd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This video link, posted in another thread, shows the anchors on the seabed.

 

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.