Concordia News: Please Post Here

[MorganMars]

VP,

 

Wish CC had a like button.;) That was great! I love it when you talk nautical!:D

 

MorganMars

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A properly planned and executed sail-by is safe. It does not increase the risk harm to the safe conduct of the sailing.

 

For example, consider the following. The data is from a GPS log of a ship nearly 1000 feet long. The comments are mine.

 

7:49pm. An evening in early December and it is very dark. Whilst travelling at 10 knots, the water under our keel is 15 metres deep and currently we are drawing 8 metres. We are 300 metres away on our port side from running aground.

 

7:56pm. Speed, 10 knots. If we continue our present course, in 0.6 nautical miles we will be aground. To our portside, we are 200 metres away from shallow water. We start an 80-degree turn to starboard to avoid the seabed ahead of us.

 

8:05pm. Thre is less than 200 metres from shallow water on our port side, the Captain has increased speed to 12 knots.

 

8:18pm. The Captain has increased speed to 20 knots. The shallow water on our port side is now 500 yards away.

 

Now that sounds a lot scarier than a properly planned and executed sail-by, doesn't it? And yet it's considered safe passage. It's the route a ship takes coming out of Southampton, England.

 

VP

[Uniall]

Gentlemen

 

Without stirring the pot, allow me to posit the method by which the law would ask the question.

 

Each of you, in your own way, seem to start with the question: "Can a sail by be performed safely?"

 

The legal mind starts with the question, "does a sail by increase the danger over the normal and customary sea route to the next port on the itinerary?" If so, it begs the follow up question: "Is the sail by being perfrormed for the benefit and enjoyment of the passengers?"

 

If the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, it makes any damage, injury and death forseeable and therefore the results (dependeing on the severity) negligent, grossly negligent and/or criminal.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Uniall

[Vampire Parrot]

The legal mind starts with the question, "does a sail by increase the danger over the normal and customary sea route to the next port on the itinerary?" If so, it begs the follow up question: "Is the sail by being perfrormed for the benefit and enjoyment of the passengers?"

 

Does a sail by increase the danger? If properly planned and executed, then I would say no. Is sailing within one miles of an island to perform a sail-by increase the danger? I would say if properly planned and executed, it does not. In fact it may decrease the danger as there may be a smaller chance of collision with another vessel.

 

At sea, it is common for ships to pass each other with a Closest Point of Approach of one nautical mile. i.e. the ship is aiming to pass another large moving object, whose course and position may suddenly vary, at one nautical mile. That must be more risky than sailing within one nautical mile of a very stationary object.

 

Now if you think that to increase safety, ships at sea should aim to pass each other at a greater distance, I say that sometimes isn't an option... and indeed, there are many places at sea (English Channel, Singapour, Strait of Gibraltar) where ships have to pass each other at significantly closer distances.

 

Similarly, a ship may spend hours at a time travelling through a fjord barely a mile wide and often less than that, i.e. at all times the ship is less than half a mile from rock. Should that be classed as a sail-by? If a properly planned sail-by is too dangerous for a cruise ship, i.e. going within one nautical mile of land, then how can sailing down a fjord be allowed? And yet passenger ships have been sailling the fjords of Norway for a very long time.

 

VP

[cruiserfanfromct]

It's unfortunate for this captain that while, as some of you point out, had some mariner skills, his abilities will pale in comparison to his loss of control that led to the calamity he will be forever remembered for.

 

Schettino will more than likely go down in history as an example of miserable failure and radical cowardice. Whatever his reasons were, psychological or otherwise, he failed to do what any man in his position would be expected to do.

 

We are left with a tragic picture of a frightened man who abandoned his post when he was most needed, and consigned human beings in his care to navigate to their own safety in dark, foreign, cold waters -- some who never found their way.

 

This, together with his refusal to return to his ship under direct command, demonstrates his moral collapse and forfeiture of manhood -- any nautical skills he may have had will be buried with those who died as a direct result of his actions that January night.

[clive and anne]

Hi All

Giglio news is showing 8 new still photos of which some of them I cannot decipher what they are of. But it does show that 3 lifeboats that wasnt launched in the disaster have been removed and are tied up to the platform. Thru the bad translation it does confirm what Ken suggested that they are concentrating on the pilings to secure the ship.

[Tonka's Skipper]

Does a sail by increase the danger? If properly planned and executed, then I would say no. Is sailing within one miles of an island to perform a sail-by increase the danger? I would say if properly planned and executed, it does not. In fact it may decrease the danger as there may be a smaller chance of collision with another vessel.

 

At sea, it is common for ships to pass each other with a Closest Point of Approach of one nautical mile. i.e. the ship is aiming to pass another large moving object, whose course and position may suddenly vary, at one nautical mile. That must be more risky than sailing within one nautical mile of a very stationary object.

 

Now if you think that to increase safety, ships at sea should aim to pass each other at a greater distance, I say that sometimes isn't an option... and indeed, there are many places at sea (English Channel, Singapour, Strait of Gibraltar) where ships have to pass each other at significantly closer distances.

 

Similarly, a ship may spend hours at a time travelling through a fjord barely a mile wide and often less than that, i.e. at all times the ship is less than half a mile from rock. Should that be classed as a sail-by? If a properly planned sail-by is too dangerous for a cruise ship, i.e. going within one nautical mile of land, then how can sailing down a fjord be allowed? And yet passenger ships have been sailling the fjords of Norway for a very long time.

 

VP

 

We do disagree here.

 

Mostly as the sail by of one mile is plainly unnecessary. Well plned or not the bottom line is that any number of things can happen, there could be a steering issue, small craft in the way, engine, electrical issues.

 

Sorry to take these kind of chances at 1 mile in just not worth the danger it involves.

 

As to at sea passing.......you are correct 1 mile is often a passing distances, but remember you have open sea there, the vessel can turn away, change speed. There is no island there seriously restricting your actions,.

 

Agreed there so times that in is necessary to be that close..........but why take the chances when it isn't necessary.

 

As to the fjords. again I point out these trips are done over well traveled and surveyed routes, at slow speed(in narrow areas) and done with much smaller vessels then the Concordia.

 

I guest I look at this from the point of view that I never put my vessel in a position that limits the option of actions I can take.............meaning if it isn't necessary.......I wont go or put my vessel in a limited position!............EI a sail by

 

How ever I must point out most of my vessels were Tankers, we tend to think much more cautiously then the rest of the Maritime industries, we are not out there sight seeing.

 

AKK

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Uniall]

Does a sail by increase the danger? If properly planned and executed, then I would say no. Is sailing within one miles of an island to perform a sail-by increase the danger? I would say if properly planned and executed, it does not. In fact it may decrease the danger as there may be a smaller chance of collision with another vessel.

 

At sea, it is common for ships to pass each other with a Closest Point of Approach of one nautical mile. i.e. the ship is aiming to pass another large moving object, whose course and position may suddenly vary, at one nautical mile. That must be more risky than sailing within one nautical mile of a very stationary object.

 

Now if you think that to increase safety, ships at sea should aim to pass each other at a greater distance, I say that sometimes isn't an option... and indeed, there are many places at sea (English Channel, Singapour, Strait of Gibraltar) where ships have to pass each other at significantly closer distances.

 

Similarly, a ship may spend hours at a time travelling through a fjord barely a mile wide and often less than that, i.e. at all times the ship is less than half a mile from rock. Should that be classed as a sail-by? If a properly planned sail-by is too dangerous for a cruise ship, i.e. going within one nautical mile of land, then how can sailing down a fjord be allowed? And yet passenger ships have been sailling the fjords of Norway for a very long time.

 

VP

 

The legal concepts divide catagories, it's a question of increasing the risk. Sailing close to shore, increases risk over staying in the ususal sea lane. Throwing in modifiers (if properly planned and executed) doesn't negate the concept. That's one of the reasons why ships use Pilots when entering a port.

 

Regarding navigating fyords, I remember my Alaskan cruise when the Captain stopped short of going all the in to the glacier, as planned, because we were an hour behind schedule (6 passegers were late returning to the ship that morning) and he didn't want to risk turning the ship around and start back out in the narrowest of narrows in the dark.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Uniall

[Ken711]

Hi All

Giglio news is showing 8 new still photos of which some of them I cannot decipher what they are of. But it does show that 3 lifeboats that wasnt launched in the disaster have been removed and are tied up to the platform. Thru the bad translation it does confirm what Ken suggested that they are concentrating on the pilings to secure the ship.

 

Hi Clive and Anne,

 

In looking at those 8 photos, a couple of them show what appear to me as blue drill bits for drilling the pilings. They will be drilling on both sides of the ship. The current starboard side pilings/poles going in now are for the stabilization phase, and the drilling that will take place on the port side for the underwater platform. The underwater platform pilings drilling would be substantially larger, which I think those drill bits would be used for.

 

I only wish Giglio News, would start a photo journal taking daily or even weekly photos of what work is occurring on the port side away from the web cam.

 

Ken

[clive and anne]

Thanks Ken

I think we might have a chance with Giglio news if enough of us email them with requests such as turning the camera again and getting progress reports with photos.

The email address I used to get the short lived camera

turn is giglionews@gmail.com

Although my last couple of emails havent got a reply.

My line to them has been that Giglio has a great opportunity to showcase themselves to the world by the unfortunate accident with a long lasting opportunity to increase tourism after Costa Concordia has been removed.

Sometime ago I did email Titan to see if they would give us progress reports , but as Tonka has said previously salvage is a very secretive world.

I didnt get a reply.

[Vampire Parrot]

We are just going to have to disagree as to the safety of sail-bys.

 

Some data as to sailing in fjords:

Grand-class ships, which are pretty much the same size of Costa Concordia, do sail in the Norwegian Fjords.

 

And yes, speed is somewhat reduced. I've just been looking at a GPS log from Arcadia coming out of Tromso and instead of doing the 20 to 22 knots she'll generally be doing in the open sea, she was doing 15 knots in a fjord 0.6 nm wide. Along with several other ships. None of them were tankers though! ;)

 

Sailing in a fjord requires being much closer to land and rocks on both sides of the ship than any properly planned sail by.

 

I will try and find the time to upload some screenshots from the GPS plots of sailing in the fjords....

 

VP

[Emilija]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A properly planned and executed sail-by is safe. It does not increase the risk harm to the safe conduct of the sailing.

 

For example, consider the following. The data is from a GPS log of a ship nearly 1000 feet long. The comments are mine.

 

7:49pm. An evening in early December and it is very dark. Whilst travelling at 10 knots, the water under our keel is 15 metres deep and currently we are drawing 8 metres. We are 300 metres away on our port side from running aground.

 

7:56pm. Speed, 10 knots. If we continue our present course, in 0.6 nautical miles we will be aground. To our portside, we are 200 metres away from shallow water. We start an 80-degree turn to starboard to avoid the seabed ahead of us.

 

8:05pm. Thre is less than 200 metres from shallow water on our port side, the Captain has increased speed to 12 knots.

 

8:18pm. The Captain has increased speed to 20 knots. The shallow water on our port side is now 500 yards away.

 

Now that sounds a lot scarier than a properly planned and executed sail-by, doesn't it? And yet it's considered safe passage. It's the route a ship takes coming out of Southampton, England.

 

VP

 

 

I must admit that I know nothing about steering and driving a ship, but I don't understand why at 8:05 you speak of a distance of 200 meters and later at 8:18 it is 500 yards. I am just curious. Is it that I am misreading something?

Emi

[Emilija]

It did say 500 yards..I must have changed the quote somehow:confused:

 

Emi

[Ken711]

Thanks Ken

I think we might have a chance with Giglio news if enough of us email them with requests such as turning the camera again and getting progress reports with photos.

The email address I used to get the short lived camera

turn is giglionews@gmail.com

Although my last couple of emails havent got a reply.

My line to them has been that Giglio has a great opportunity to showcase themselves to the world by the unfortunate accident with a long lasting opportunity to increase tourism after Costa Concordia has been removed.

Sometime ago I did email Titan to see if they would give us progress reports , but as Tonka has said previously salvage is a very secretive world.

I didnt get a reply.

 

I will send and email to Giglio News, thanks for their email address. Years back, I followed the progress of the recovery of the Russian submarine the Kursk that was carried out by the Mammoet-SMIT joint company team. I'm not sure if Titan-Micoperi would be as cooperative on providing progress on the Costa Concordia , but I'll email them anyway.

 

Ken

[Uniall]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A properly planned and executed sail-by is safe. It does not increase the risk harm to the safe conduct of the sailing.

 

For example, consider the following. The data is from a GPS log of a ship nearly 1000 feet long. The comments are mine.

 

7:49pm. An evening in early December and it is very dark. Whilst travelling at 10 knots, the water under our keel is 15 metres deep and currently we are drawing 8 metres. We are 300 metres away on our port side from running aground.

 

7:56pm. Speed, 10 knots. If we continue our present course, in 0.6 nautical miles we will be aground. To our portside, we are 200 metres away from shallow water. We start an 80-degree turn to starboard to avoid the seabed ahead of us.

 

8:05pm. Thre is less than 200 metres from shallow water on our port side, the Captain has increased speed to 12 knots.

 

8:18pm. The Captain has increased speed to 20 knots. The shallow water on our port side is now 500 yards away.

 

Now that sounds a lot scarier than a properly planned and executed sail-by, doesn't it? And yet it's considered safe passage. It's the route a ship takes coming out of Southampton, England.

 

VP

 

VP

 

 

The thought just struck me, when a ship is coming our of Southhampton and navigating such a narrow and shallow channel, I wonder if the Captain would be on the bridge as the ship's Master or in the Main Dining Room entertaining a young woman?

[Tonka's Skipper]

I must admit that I know nothing about steering and driving a ship, but I don't understand why at 8:05 you speak of a distance of 200 meters and later at 8:18 it is 500 yards. I am just curious. Is it that I am misreading something?

 

Emi

 

 

VP is referring to the distance off/away from the shore, E.I. 200yard off and 500 yards off.............not the distance to something in front of the vessel.

 

AKK

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tonka's Skipper

[Tonka's Skipper]

We are just going to have to disagree as to the safety of sail-bys.

 

Some data as to sailing in fjords:

Grand-class ships, which are pretty much the same size of Costa Concordia, do sail in the Norwegian Fjords.

 

And yes, speed is somewhat reduced. I've just been looking at a GPS log from Arcadia coming out of Tromso and instead of doing the 20 to 22 knots she'll generally be doing in the open sea, she was doing 15 knots in a fjord 0.6 nm wide. Along with several other ships. None of them were tankers though! ;)

 

Sailing in a fjord requires being much closer to land and rocks on both sides of the ship than any properly planned sail by.

 

I will try and find the time to upload some screenshots from the GPS plots of sailing in the fjords....

 

VP

 

 

 

No problem VP, we can agree to disagree..........I have been told I am a careful and cautious guy!

 

AKK

[Vampire Parrot]

Believe me AKK, I appreciate caution!

 

Here are GPS log screenshots from Arcadia sailling the fjords. She was doing 10 to 11 knots when each of these were taken. Note that you can see the scale at the bottom right of each screenshot.

 

 

 

 

 

VP

[Tonka's Skipper]

Believe me AKK, I appreciate caution!

 

Here are GPS log screenshots from Arcadia sailling the fjords. She was doing 10 to 11 knots when each of these were taken. Note that you can see the scale at the bottom right of each screenshot.

 

 

 

 

 

VP

 

Gee VP that is taking her in tight Assuming those are meter depth marking.........the only good thing I see is the waters nice and deep! ...........I was not doubting your word that they do these things and have made the trip safely..........I still just think its not the best idea!

 

AKK

[CtheW0rld]

i've sailed though fjords (and a sund). they do indeed come very close to land. the water is very deep, though.

[SomeBeach]

When I spent a day at a Captains Training Facility in FL, we sailed out of San Juan (PR) in simulation. Tho not as tight as what's shown here, I was surprised at how much cruising space we actually had. One gains a new respect for Bridge Officers and all they must do to keep passengers, crew, and the ship safe.

At one point I scraped one of the X markings. The man working with me said whilst I didn't put a hole in the ship, I took off a couple of layers of paint. :D

(The ship we were using was Freedom of the Seas)

[Vampire Parrot]

Gee VP that is taking her in tight Assuming those are meter depth marking.........the only good thing I see is the waters nice and deep! ...........I was not doubting your word that they do these things and have made the trip safely..........I still just think its not the best idea!

 

Yes, the depth is in metres. As for not being the best idea... it's the safest course available, and history/experience/formal risk assessment has shown it to be safe.

 

VP

[cruiserfanfromct]

UK's Daily Mail is reporting Ms. Cemortan seeks six figure compensation. Claims she is not accepting Costa's offer and she is filing suit for a sum greater than $100K.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189309/Blonde-tour-rep-suspected-distracting-Costa-Concordia-captain-disaster-wants-figure-compensation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Edited August 16, 2012 by cruiserfanfromct

[Uniall]

UK's Daily Mail is reporting Ms. Cemortan seeks six figure compensation. Claims she is not accepting Costa's offer and she is filing suit for a sum greater than $100K.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189309/Blonde-tour-rep-suspected-distracting-Costa-Concordia-captain-disaster-wants-figure-compensation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

Now that IS funny.........................

[sidari]

Tonka ... during the summer months many of Costa`s Big ships can often be seen on the Geiranger Fjord webcam along with others such as the Princess Grand Class ships as VP has stated.

 

For All of the Mariners out there and others here is a video made by Steve Read (some of you may well have seen his video diaries) of his trip along the TrollFjord on the Saga Ruby mystery cruise with Captain Phillip (rock dodger) Rentell. While Saga Ruby is no Concordia the video shows the closeness of the ship to the sides of the Fjord. There is a second video that shows the ship making its turn at the end of the Fjord but so far i have not managed to find it, sadly steve passed away on 21st February 2011.

 

 

 

For those with a Nervous disposition do not watch this one ... :D

 

[sidari]

Domnica ... the Joker in the pack! .... it is the Media she should be taking on seeing as it is they who have made it impossible for her to get employment.

 

Looks like the $$$$ or Euro signs have got to her .... :eek: